Best lens for travel

I

idkb

Messages
142
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all,

In October I am heading off to South East Asia for a trip with quite a mixed itinerary. Firstly we will be talking part in a expedition 'race' in support of the Princes Trust that includes walking, cycling and rafting in the Jungles of Borneo. After that we will head to Vietnam, Thailand and back to Kualar Lumpar.

Obviously I am not going to go all the way there without my camera, however I am slightly reticent about whether my current kit is suitable. I current have 3 lenses to cover most eventualities, Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 and Tokina 12-24. On this trip weight will be restricted so I am considering a 'superzoom' lens to cover most/all eventualities.

Does anyone have any recommendations? I have read mixed reviews regarding the Nikon 18-200mm, but so far this seems like a good choice....

TIA

Iain
 
edit: IGNORE me, I totally misread the question.

I use one of these strapped to the back of my bike when I go adventuring. They survive baggage handlers at airports, are waterproof, and can take a real pounding. They can easily take 3 lenses, a body, flash, and bit & pieces. Just cut the foam to size.

This is the cheapest I can find one in the UK.
 
I thought thought about one of these - do you really entrust your kit to the baggage handlers? Aside from the risk of damage, surely there must be quite a high risk of theft?
 
idkb said:
I thought thought about one of these - do you really entrust your kit to the baggage handlers? Aside from the risk of damage, surely there must be quite a high risk of theft?
Click to expand...
On some internal flights I have taken you are allowed no baggage whatsoever. I am also well insured so if anything does go missing the insurance can pay for my new gear. We use these for carrying testers and technical equipment at work and it is amazing how much abuse they can take.
 
Orville said:
On some internal flights I have taken you are allowed no baggage whatsoever. I am also well insured so if anything does go missing they can pay for my new gear.
Click to expand...

Fair point - as am I.

My worry would be that I had to take this once in a lifetime (probably) trip with no gear!
 
I don't know if I missed something, but the OP was asking about lenses...

It's a no-brainer to go for the Nikkor 18-200. It's a great lens, pretty sharp and contrasty, a prime might (ok then, will!) edge it on sharpness... however, the shots you can get with the 18-200 (nice and wide one minute, picking out distant details the next), mean your overall bag of shots will be much better.

With your requirements: sounds like you need to shoot fast and on the move, in some inhospitable terrain, the superzoom will work like a dream, and no worries about getting dust into the camera when changing lenses.

Go for the Nikkor 18-200: you won't regret it.
 
Yes I have an 18-200vr for sale at the moment. It is a great lens as a walkabout or as a primary lens. You can see an example on my sale thread of a picture taken with it at 100% I wouldn't be selling it if it were full frame as it is so usable.
 
grahamc said:
I would go for the 16-85 over the 18-200...
Click to expand...

I must confess I've never really understood the excitement over this lens in comparison (I've never used it), at first glance it would seem to offer little over the 18-55 kit lens, and considering its price (close to 18-200) it must be really good at something other than spec for it to be preferred... care to enlighten us?
 
cowasaki said:
Yes I have an 18-200vr for sale at the moment. It is a great lens as a walkabout or as a primary lens. You can see an example on my sale thread of a picture taken with it at 100% I wouldn't be selling it if it were full frame as it is so usable.
Click to expand...

PM sent regarding this lens for sale
 
martsharm said:
Go for the Nikkor 18-200: you won't regret it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...not sure about this to be honest. I bought an 18-200 and regretted it. There's a thread on this lens from a couple of months back for anyone who cares to search for it. My experience was that it was too soft for my liking maybe 90% of the time with the occasional super-sharp shot.
 
I have not used this other lens so cannot really compare it. I have the 18-200vr and would happily keep this if it wasn't for it's lack of ff support. I like the 18-200vr but it is not cheap. I will be using the money to get the 70-200 to replace it but will use the 18-55 to fill in the gap on my D200. It is that good a lens in my opinion that I am not even willing to move much on the price because if it does not go for about that then I will keep it permenantly attached to the d200!
 
I'd consider taking the 12-24 and the 55-200 -- you'd be giving up the wide end by going with the 18-200 and I don't think you miss the 25-55 range. Give it a try one day and see how it goes.

The 18-200 is pretty much the same weight as the 12-24 (just 10g lighter) so the difference is just the space and weight of the 55-200.
 
martsharm said:
I must confess I've never really understood the excitement over this lens in comparison (I've never used it), at first glance it would seem to offer little over the 18-55 kit lens, and considering its price (close to 18-200) it must be really good at something other than spec for it to be preferred... care to enlighten us?
Click to expand...

Have a search on the forum for it. Personally I like the wide angle and the extra zoom, which is a fair bit over the kit 18-55. Its a VR lens and optically, very good.

Wait for puddleduck to come along.........:wave:
 
aberal said:
Hmmm...not sure about this to be honest. I bought an 18-200 and regretted it. There's a thread on this lens from a couple of months back for anyone who cares to search for it. My experience was that it was too soft for my liking maybe 90% of the time with the occasional super-sharp shot.
Click to expand...

Was this the thread?
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=154252

Seems to mention zoom creep, but not a lack of sharpness. Have I missed something? This is all I could find by searching
 
There is a 100% crop on my for sale thread which shows that they are sharp. They suffer a little zoom creep but that is a phenominon that lots of lenses do ie. If you point the camera straight upwards whilst holding the camera one handed the lens will retract itself into a non zoomed position or if you literally look straight downwards one handed it may zoom out a bit. But you have to be about 20 degrees from vertical for that to happen and you would normally be holding the lens with one hand and the camera with the other anyway.
 
idkb said:
Was this the thread?
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=154252

Seems to mention zoom creep, but not a lack of sharpness. Have I missed something? This is all I could find by searching
Click to expand...

No that's not the one. I've done a search of my own posts but they don't go back far enough. Basically, the lack of sharpness I experienced wasn't uncommon and others had the same results. Some people like it but it just didn't do it for me. Zoom creep was also a problem on mine. To be honest, for travel, your 18-55 will give you pretty much all you need, from landscapes, cities, group shots, snapshots and portraits. It won't give you the close up of the tiger in the reeds on the horizon, but hey....:shrug:
 
aberal said:
No that's not the one. I've done a search of my own posts but they don't go back far enough. Basically, the lack of sharpness I experienced wasn't uncommon and others had the same results. Some people like it but it just didn't do it for me. Zoom creep was also a problem on mine. To be honest, for travel, your 18-55 will give you pretty much all you need, from landscapes, cities, group shots, snapshots and portraits. It won't give you the close up of the tiger in the reeds on the horizon, but hey....:shrug:
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying. TBH I haven't been that impressed with my 18-55 and have been looking to replace it anyway. Was looking at the 18-70 as that seems to be consistently held in high regard.

Also, I do use my 55-200 mostly at the long end for those close-ups...I do think i'll miss it if I don't have it.
 
I wouldn't spend so much on a Nikkor 18-200 - they're not worth it IMHO. I bought a Sigma 18-200 OS for nearly half the price of the Nikkor for a trip to Italy & Madrid and was more than satisfied.

Optically you're always going to have to compromise, but on price as well? Buy the Sigma for when you HAVE to use it and invest in some decent lenses for the other times...
 
I would spend that much on a Nikon 18-200 for the difference in price the jump in quality both physically and optically is worth it!

Example Shot

exam2.jpg



100% crop

Click here


The quality is very good, yes its not in the 24-70 league but very good.
 
In fact I am getting closer and closer to withdrawing the advert and keeping this lens as I seem to be talking myself into that position. If I do sell it I will not really have a decent walkabout lens for the D200 as my new 24-70 will be on the D700........

Yes, its that good I might well keep it :razz:

The kit 18-55 and the 18-200 upto 55 are not really comparable. The 18-200vr is not a kit lens on steroids!
 
cowasaki said:
I would spend that much on a Nikon 18-200 for the difference in price the jump in quality both physically and optically is worth it!
Click to expand...

There's no "jump" in it. 'Physically' the Nikkor is behind the Sigma (pick them both up, handle them, use them and then get back to me)

Optically, the Nikkor is not leaps ahead at all - slightly faster at the long end and the VR is slightly more efficient (so we're told), but in the real world there's hardly anything in it. According to some reviewers (What Digital & Camera Labs IIRC) the Sigma is superior... Why so many rave over the Nikkor is beyond me :shrug:

One thing you must do - buy a Sigma from a place where you can return it - QC is NOT 100% when it comes to Sigma.
 
Naith said:
There's no "jump" in it. 'Physically' the Nikkor is behind the Sigma (pick them both up, handle them, use them and then get back to me)

Optically, the Nikkor is not leaps ahead at all - slightly faster at the long end and the VR is slightly more efficient (so we're told), but in the real world there's hardly anything in it. According to some reviewers (What Digital & Camera Labs IIRC) the Sigma is superior... Why so many rave over the Nikkor is beyond me :shrug:

One thing you must do - buy a Sigma from a place where you can return it - QC is NOT 100% when it comes to Sigma.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue about it as there is no point but I have held the Sigma. I personally prefer the Nikon which is why I bought one! I could have saved money and bought the Sigma so clearly for ME it was worth it. Reviews tend to put the Nikon in front in most cases but as both lenses have good and bad examples this is hardly surprising. I am more than happy with mine as you are with yours.

What WE are doing here is demonstrating very well that all these things are subjective and the OP should try BOTH the lenses and make the decision for himself. I have a Sigma lens myself, the 20mm f1.8 D EX DG so I really have nothing at all against other manufacturers.
 
cowasaki said:
What WE are doing here is demonstrating very well that all these things are subjective and the OP should try BOTH the lenses and make the decision for himself.
Click to expand...

That's more like it :thumbs:

Have a play with both on your body and see if that helps you decide...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top