Lenses for travelling

[shortclaws]

Hello! I'm new to the forums. I've been browsing through some of the older threads, and haven't found quite the answer to my question.

I'd definitely rate myself as a very amateur wildlife photographer. My main interest is mammals, but I enjoy photographing anything. Currently my entire kit is a Nikon D50 with the standard 18-55mm lens, a Sigma 70-200mm, and a 2x converter.

This setup worked great on safari in Botswana - after all, the flippin' lions were only a few yards from the truck! But I've just been to Mull for a week, where I had some great otter sightings, and yet I needed the full 200mm with the 2x converter to get decently framed shots. Given the overcast, nay, rainy conditions I found myself at very low shutterspeeds and struggling to keep the camera still enough for a good shot (it was also blowing a gale, and seaweed covered rocks aren't a stable perch!). Most of what I got was shakey or blurred, though there were eventually a dozen "keepers", by my own standards at least.

So I've decided that I need to improve my kit. However, I want to throw one more complexity in the mix...

Next year I'm going travelling around the world for a year! The plan is to travel light, and to focus on parts of the world where the best wildlife can be found (that's wildlife, not wild life - I won't be spending my time on Thai beaches!). Nevertheless, I will need to be able to snap landscapes, temples and people as well as my main focus on animals. To keep it light, I'd love to be able to only take one lens, and definitely cannot take more than two.

Naturally, I'm looking hard at the AF-S 18-200mm VR. But some reviews imply that this lens is best at the 18 end and not so great at the 200 end - which is of course where I want to get my best shots. So maybe I need to look at keeping my 18-55mm and taking a 70-300mm VR?

This is a long post, I know. Any and all advice, encouragement and mockery gratefully received! Bear in mind I'm decidedly amateur, and so in my mind that means I'm not planning on spending over a thousand.

Thanks,

Matthew

[Geoff F]

From my experience the all in one lenses which go from around 20-300 mm give disappointing results unless they are expensive; and then they are also large. Far too big to casually carry around.

I would say that your 2 lens idea is probably the best mix of convenience and quality. Possibly a decent sized camera bag would prove useful.

How big do you need to go at the large end is probably the difficult part. For most wildlife, I would say 200 mm is far to small and 300 mm is just about acceptable. A 70-300 lens is, for me, a good general purpose lens.

Personally I would throw away a x2 converter unless it is for one of the top quality prime lenses. You may get away with a x1.4 on a zoom but I would still expect a considerable amount of quality loss and prefer to use a large enough zoom instead.

[shortclaws]

Thanks for this - seems to tally with a lot of other advice I've been reading.

A camera bag isn't likely to be an option! My entire life for a year needs to fit into a single rucksack. ; )

Indeed, the camera will probably be the single biggest item I take. But if I'm going to spend a year looking for the world's wildlife, it would be daft not to have the right equipment to photograph it.

[alisonthompson]

It's the perennial problem when travelling... wanting to make sure you have a lens for every eventuality, but not having room / weight allowance to take them.

I think if you have to travel with just one rucksack, without a separate photo rucksack, you are probably talking about something in the 70-300mm range, simply because of the size. Once you get into things like the Sigma 150-500mm the size and weight increases considerably and you'd struggle to wrap it in a fleece and store it in your main rucksack.

The best bet is probably to buy it from a camera shop, rather than mail order and then you can assess the size and weight before you buy.

Ali

[ChrissyMarie]

Hi,
I love to take wildlife shots and having experience of both the 18-200 and the 70 -300, I put myself in your shoes and had a good think of what I would take on a trip such as this.
The 18 -200 is a lovely lens and very sharp (also quite light) and being so sharp makes most images quite croppable. The versatility is the big benefit.
That said my 70-300 has been in my possession the longest so it is the lens I am most familiar with. The extra reach especially with bird/animal photography is good and although a little softer than the 18-200, I seem to produce much nicer artier type shots. For example, the bokeh is really nice on this lens.
To complement my set up, I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix TZ7 compact camera, which has HD video capability, in the region of 10 megapixels and a macro facility. If you buy it online you can get one for £250 and it is very lightweight and versatile. If I have my bigger lens on, I put this one in my pocket so I can also take some nice scenic wide angle shots together with people and the occasional bug. I am also very impressed with the video for such a small camera and I use it for short bursts to capture the atmosphere of places I visit too. Although the video capabaility is quite resouce hungry, the camera itself has excellent handling capability in a whole spectrum of light situations.

Anyway, my choice ~ would be the 70-300mm with the Panasonic in my pocket.

[shortclaws]

That's a really good thought, Chrissy - just stick to a compact camera for scenic/people photography. I can see the advantages, especially as in foreign cities it's very easy to stand out as a tourist (and a target) by carrying a big camera around.

Then again, the fact that you get very sharp images from your 18-200 sounds very promising. Hmm, hmm!

Thanks everyone for the advice!

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

From my experience the all in one lenses which go from around 20-300 mm give disappointing results unless they are expensive; and then they are also large. Far too big to casually carry around.

I would say that your 2 lens idea is probably the best mix of convenience and quality. Possibly a decent sized camera bag would prove useful.

How big do you need to go at the large end is probably the difficult part. For most wildlife, I would say 200 mm is far to small and 300 mm is just about acceptable. A 70-300 lens is, for me, a good general purpose lens.

Personally I would throw away a x2 converter unless it is for one of the top quality prime lenses. You may get away with a x1.4 on a zoom but I would still expect a considerable amount of quality loss and prefer to use a large enough zoom instead.

ive got an 18-200 and it works pretty well in that range - however it emphatically isnt going to work well with a 2xtc as that would make it essential a 36-400 f13 so you could forget the autofocus.

If i had to just take one lense it would be the 100-400 IS (i'm a canon user - in your case the equivalent is the 80-400 VR), if i was allowed two i would add the sigma 10-20 for landscapes (and possibly squeeze in a third in the shape of a f1.8 50mm which is small and light to cover the middle range.)

you may have already considered this but if you are going to be travelling for a year often away from electric power, you also need to consider how you are going to charge your batteries (and how many batteries you need), how you are going to download and store your images ( a downloader like the giga one is the way to go on that IMO but remember this runs on batteries too) and how you are going to clean your sensor (arctic butterfly would be my prefference)

you also need to consider a back up camera - if it was me i'd take a second body but if you dont have room for that how about a little compact like the fuji f11 - you dont want to be in some amazing place but unable to take pics because you D50 has died.

also you really do need somesort of camera bag - my prefference would be for a camera rucksack that has a compartment for a few clothes etc as well - remember that in most countries you can buy cheap t shirts, shorts etc then bin/donate them when you leave rather than carrying it all with you.

and a final tip - if you do get a camera rucksack its a good idea to also buy something like an old army kitbag and stick the rucksack inside this for travel so it doesnt present a tempting theft target to bent baggage handlers or carusel theives (and carry the back up compact and downloader in your hand luggage so you can still press on if the main kit does get lost or stollen)

[DrNickBurton]

The 70-300mm is a good option. It's a very light lens for its focal length, which is a key advantage if you want to carry it around the world! Bear in mind though that this lens not compatible with teleconverters. I hear you can crowbar a kenko TC on it, but the results are not worth the effort. Nikon/Sigma TCs wont even mount.

Not sure what your budget is, but there is currently a GREAT deal on the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 at Jessops (see their website). They're selling it for £599, about half the price of other retailers such as warehouse express and park cameras. It's almost like they made a mistake in the pricing! Add a 1.4TC and you have a great wildlife set-up.

For everything else, the 18-55mm should be fine.

[shortclaws]

I haven't checked in here for a while. Thanks, both, that's useful advice for planning this trip!

I'm definitely going to need 3+ batteries, but am also hoping to not be too far from civilisation (or at least an electric socket) for more than a few days at a time.

I think on balance I'm going to end up with either the Nikkor 70-300 VR or the Sigma 100-300 f/4. But I still haven't settled. The main reason for not going longer is bulk - I really, really have to keep it small, otherwise I'll end up travelling around the world with a great camera setup and only one change of clothes!

I'll definitely be taking a compact for back-up (in case of disaster with the D50) but also for people/urban shots. So that'll need spare batteries too!

The other critical gadget we'll have with us is going to be a netbook. But that conveniently deals with image downloading.

As for bags. We'll each have one reasonable sized backpack, and that's going to be our luggage. I simply can't see a way to include a dedicated camera backpack as well - which is going to be risky, but unavoidable.

Keeping the sensor clean isn't something I've looked into, so I'll go google "arctic butterfly" right now! Thanks again.