preferred Lens for inside a national park......

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Noisy, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #1
    Just wondered what your preferred Nikon Lens would be for a few days in a national park, i.e. Plenty of Landscapes, wildlife and plantlife, I'm finally finished with all my projects and stuff and will be taking some time out, at the moment ive got a 50mm f1.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and the good old 18-70mm, I will be taking my d300 but with the focus on imaging show coming up feb 22nd - 25th I thought i'd check out some new glass. I love the 70-200mm but it's a wee bit cumbersome to lug around all day, wondered what would be a good alternative other than the 18-200mm VR, which ive tried but wondered if there is anything else to consider because ive witnessed and read a lot about the 18-200mm lens creep, but lets not go mad with the prices, say under £600.

    Thanks ;)
     
  2. jbernie macrumors 6502a

    jbernie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #2
    Quick question, what sort of National Park are we thinking about?

    As you are in the UK (?) your national parks might be a bit different to say something like Yosemite in California with tall mountains and all.

    Need that clarification to figure out what you might need at the wide angle end. I'm not too familiar with the Nikon lenses but something less than 18mm might be good for the scenic shots.
     
  3. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #3
    Sorry, It's the snowdonia National Park in Wales (smaller than US parks but just as beautiful) and along the mawddach estuary, some close stuff and some distance, the 70-200 would be ideal if only lighter/smaller I want to limit the stuff in my backpack making more room for drinks anyone know how good the 70-300 VR is? and how much lighter for travelling when on camera?

    thanks guys ;)
     
  4. hogfaninga macrumors 65816

    hogfaninga

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    Chestnut Tree Cafe
    #4
    My friend and I both have purchased the Nikon 18-200 in the last month and neither of ours has the creep problem. I also posed this question on a Nikon message board and the concensus was that some of the older ones had the problem, but Nikon fixed it so it doesn't happen anymore. The new don't have this problem from everyone I have talked/read to. I know I love mine.

    Good luck with your choice.
     
  5. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #5
    The 70-300 is bigger and heavier than the 18-200mm, which is personally what I would get if I wanted one lens for your situation:

    - 18-200mm:

    77mm x 96.5mm

    560g

    - 70-300mm:

    80mm x 143.5mm

    745g

    The only alternative, seeing as you want tele, that I can think of is the sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sigma-50-150mm-f2-8-apo-ex-dc-hsm-mark-ii-lens.htm

    I guess it's better optically than these other two, but does a lot less and personally I think it would be one hell of an overlap with the 70-200!
     
  6. jbernie macrumors 6502a

    jbernie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
    Took a look at some pics on Wikipedia... looking very appealing. Size of the park is irrelevant.

    It looks like some ultra wide angle shots are very desirable but to balancve out your needs the 18- range should be enough. That being said looking at your current lens collection, I do wonder what you would achieve by getting the 18-200mm in addtion to having an 18-70 & 70-200. It seems to be an awful lot of overlap with the only major benefit being that you carry one lens instead of two.

    Would an ultra wide angle or maybe a different prime lens be of interest to you? Or would you be intending to maybe sell one of the current lenses? Just don't want you spending the £££ and then not getting any realy value from the purchase. Maybe a different bag that allows you to carry more stuff would be a better buy?
     
  7. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #7
    jbernie is definitely right. But the 70-200 does weigh almost one and a half kilos...
     
  8. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #8
    the 70-200 weight is an issue, leighonigar you obviously carried one or the equivelant for a while you seem to know about the weight, but jbernie mentioned a prime, but i cant see that being what i need for a mixture of land/waterscape & wildlife/nature, and i'm happy with just the 50mm in my bag, I have thought about the 16-85mm VR (also to replace the 18-70), but i really need to read up on it, but if I did buy the 18-200mm I think i'd pack the 70-200mm away till a time i need the big buggar, but the other thing i'm thinking about where weight is an issue is the fact i will be carrying a couple of litres of water in my backpack too plus other kit,the search continues.....................;)
     
  9. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #9
    The last time I went hiking at a National park - Bryce Canyon in Utah, and the Grand Canyon (I just walked the rim there), I carried a 17-55 f2.8, an 80-200 f2.8 AF-S, an 85 f1.4, and a TC14E teleconverter (edit: and a D2x, SB-800, filter stack and a tripod). Plus a couple of bottles of water. Climbing out of Bryce kind of sucked, but thanks to a few months of consecutive 7 day work weeks that year along the road to completing the project from hell, I was not in very good shape. My inclination would be to take the best glass I have got if my goal is to take photos.

    I would probably replace your 18-70 with a 16-85VR, and buy a 1.4 TC to give yourself some more options with the 70-200. I have no idea if those go for less than ₤600 in the UK.
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    I'd bring the 18-70 mm. That's it.


    The only reason you want the 18-200 mm is so that you don't need to carry 2 lenses, and so that you have more room for drinks. I guess the 18-200 mm is worth it if you're always going to be in a situation where you need to choose between drinks and lenses, but if not, then the 18-200 mm may not be worth purchasing. That amount of money could buy you one of a number of high quality lenses that may make you happier.
     
  11. jaseone macrumors 65816

    jaseone

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, USA
    #11
    I've taken my D90 with 18-105 kit lens along with the 70-300VR hiking a few times now in my Lowepro Fastpack 250 and love the focal ranges the two lenses give me. The 18-105 is great for all the scenic snapshots and the 70-300 for any wildlife/birds I happen upon.

    Do you really need that extra room for another "drink"? What kind of drinks are you packing any way? Wouldn't you be better off carrying a camelbak or some such?
     
  12. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #12
    Yes i do need the Drink (water) room, I'd rather keep my pack as light as possible, How do you find that 70-300VR jaseone ?? I considered one of those, maybe a 16-85mm VR + 70-300mm VR combination and pack the 70-200 away for those projects where it's called for.

    I see where your coming from Abstract , new lens or another drink :confused:, have a drink and consider which lens :)
     
  13. jaseone macrumors 65816

    jaseone

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Houston, USA
    #13
    I love the 70-300VR, has served me very well! Some example pics:

    A cheetah through a wire fence at the Houston Zoo:

    [​IMG]

    A candid of my niece:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page