What lens to get? Trips to SE Asia (Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia) & Alaska cruise

[brianeck]

Hello everyone,

I'm new to this forum and relatively new to the photography world. I'm trying to learn more but have a few questions. What sort of lens should I get? I'm thinking about buying a D7000 for my upcoming trips. Most photos I shoot are landscape, animals, etc.

I will be on a cruise from Vancouver to Alaska so I'd like something good for landscapes. I also have another trip lined up to SE Asia (Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia). Specifically, I'll be doing a 7 day photo tour in Laos with a well respected photographer. We'll be traveling around villages & rural areas taking photos of monks, people going about their everyday village life, temples, waterfalls, rivers, boats, etc. Mainly landscape type portraits but could also see myself shooting macro pics of bugs, flowers, etc.

As far as my budget for a lens, I'd like to spend in the $1000-$1500 range for 2 lenses to go with the D7000 Body (purchased separately)/

Like I said, I don't have a ton of experience but I'd like to learn more, which is why I'm going on the photo tour. The Vancouver-Alaska cruise is first so I'll have some time to get used to whatever lenses I get.

The 2 I was planning on purchasing:
​

10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX Lens
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED​

And the other 2 that I thought looked cool:
AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G ED VR
AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED - what are your thoughts on this kind of lens for a cruise & outdoor landscapes of temples, etc in Asia? I realize it's not the most practical lens in the world, but it seems to produce some stunning photos. How's this lens compared to the Micro 85mm?


FYI - I currently own a S9100 and D40 with standard 18-55mm lens.

Thanks in advance for your help.
​

 

[ZapoTeX]

Among all the lenses, you did not mention a walk-around, such as the 16-85 or the 17-55. Those would be my first choices for travel photography. Next one would be the 70-300 which you mention, then a bright prime, then a wide-angle (but most people would put the wide-angle right after the walk-around, it's just me)

Ciao!

 

[brianeck]

Thanks for your response. I was browsing the Nikon website again and came across the new 18-300mm lens that's marketed as an all-in-one lens that has an ultra high-power zoom and can also do wide-angle groups.

Since my available cash is finite and I cannot buy every lens that has a purpose, would this lens do an adequate job of being my "zoom lens" and "walk around lens"? And perhaps even my wide-angle lens?

Before I mentioned getting the 70-300mm and 10-24mm...but you said (rightfully so) that I was missing my "walk around lens." What do you think about getting the 18-300mm and the 10-24mm? Would these 2 lenses basically take the place of the "walk around lens", "zoom lens", and "wide angle lens"? Or, since I'm not a pro, will the 18-300mm cover all 3 of those lenses reasonably well and I'm better off getting another lens?

Thanks!

 

[KmH]

Superzoom (10x+ zoom range) lenses like Nikon's new 18-300 mm, and it's older brethren the 18-200 mm, have to be designed so they accommodate many lens design compromises the superzoom range requires.

Consequently they have many image quality and optical aberrations, like pronounced barrel distortion at the short end of the zoom range, and focus softness at both ends of the zoom range.

In other words you give aspects relative to overall image quality to get the convenience.

For a 'walk-around-lens', I used a Nikon AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D. If I needed less or more focal length, I changed lenses. I was more concerned with getting top notch image quality than convenience.

 

[domu221]

I agree with the post above about the 18-300. I did some shots around the city with both an 18-300 and a 16-85 and the 16-85 gave me sharper images (i overlapped 2 images together, one shot with the 18-300 and another 16-85). I recommend the 16-85 as walk-around lens instead of the 18-105 that comes with the D7000.

If you do have some extra cash, then forget about the 16-85, and get the 17-55 so you can also use it in low light.

 

[Markw]

For a 'walk-around-lens', I used a Nikon AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D. If I needed less or more focal length, I changed lenses. I was more concerned with getting top notch image quality than convenience.

+1

I agree 100% with this. Quality>convenience. But, if you're primarily a vacationer, not a photographer, I would definitely go with the 18-300. I, personally, would never even think about buying the lens. But, if you're just a vacationer, and just want photos to show off to family and friends, the 18-300 is the way to go. Barrel distortion and vignetting at the wide end can be dealt with later with a free trial of LR or PS if it bothers you (and, likely, it will). Another alternative is to just get the Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for walk around and Nikon 70-300VR for everything else. Both are great lenses optically. Especially since you won't be needing shallow DOF on very many of your shots.

So, to sum up:

Convenience: Nikon 18-300

Good image quality at a cheapish price: Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS + Nikon 70-300mm VR (MUST be the VR version)

Mark

PS. If it were me, a working photographer, going, and I had your camera, I would bring:

Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 AT-X PRO: $600
Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 OS: $670 (or Nikon 16-85/4, but probably the former)
Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VRI (save money, great optically) - $1300ish used
Kenko 1.4x PRO300 Teleconverter - $170ish