jonkieparysParticipantNovember 2, 2011 at 9:33 amPost count: 1
I am off to India on Holiday in December and I need to make a decision on what equipment I should take with iro lenses and tripods.
With regards to lenses I have the following:
- 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
I am looking to take photos of people and landscape, but I dont want to slug all the lenses with me, maybe just 2 of them.
In addition to the standard heavy duty tripod, I have a cheap small tripod and a monopod which are both really [FONT="]weigh nothing[/FONT].
Please help me make the decision.
WarrenPikeParticipantNovember 3, 2011 at 10:06 amPost count: 14
I would take the 10-20 for landscapes, the 55-300 for people shots.
That choice though does leave a gap for general photography.
Take the light tripod, you need a tripod for the landscapes, so leave the monopd.
Thats my 2cents.
Hope that helps!!
Henk CoetzeeParticipantNovember 4, 2011 at 9:41 pmPost count: 1572
I imagine it all depends on how serious you are about capturing everything you see photographically, how you plan to do that and what you photographic plans are. I’ve happily travelled with a 35mm f2 (on APS-C), monopod and nothing else. I’ve also taken only a short (16-45) zoom on trips and done perfectly well. From there – if it were me – I would probably take the 10-20, although using it needs a lot of thought and planning. If the aim of the trip is serious photography, decide what you are planning to photograph and pack accordingly. If you are going for other reasons, don’t spend too much time agonising over what kit you need and take what you feel most comfortable with.
Are you travelling alone? This also sometimes helps me decide. Unless the seriously “get” photography, most travelling companions bore quickly if you start to give serious attention and time to photographing anything.
RanzParticipantNovember 4, 2011 at 10:11 pmPost count: 37
Your main lens will be the 55-300. I just came back from holiday, and missed a few photo opportunities because I either had a lens on that was too wide or too long. If you can, take three, the 10-20, 18-55 (it’s not heavy at all) and the 55-300, but keep the 55-300 on the most (depending on what you have planned).
Andrew RoosParticipantNovember 5, 2011 at 6:31 amPost count: 964
We’re all different. I would take the 10-20 for landscapes and interiors because I’m a sucker for ultra-wides, and the 35 for street and environmental portraiture because I love shallow depth of field and it gives you a low-light capability. That’s close to my normal trvael kit, which is a 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 and 50 f/1.4. I would only worry about the 55-300 is you are planning to go somewhere where you may want to shoot wildlife, or if you’re planning on head and shoulders type portraits, where the 35 would be too short.
There again, I know that I like to shoot “in the large” – the hustle and bustle of city life, or a sweeping panorama. I have friends who spend all their time with a 70-200 shooting architectural details and the like. That just doesn’t appeal to me much. So I guess a lot depends on your personal style.
As far as support goes – I haven’t used a monopod but suspect it wouldn’t be much good for the longish exposures (1/10 to 10 seconds) which I like for pre-dawn shots. So I would want a reasonable tripod. I don’t know how big your big one is, but my experience of small cheap ones has not been good. That said, if you’re mostly going to be using the 10-20 on the tripod, then you may be able to get away with a light weight one since the focal length is short so it is less sensitive to vibration than the 55-300 would be. Use mirror lock-up with a remote, or exposure delay (which on Nikons locks up the mirror and then takes the exposure a second later). Me – I’d take my 2-series Gitzo.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.Log In