Travel Lens - Nikon D200 - HALP!

pheebs

pheebs

pheebs

Associate
Joined
13 Mar 2005
Posts
878
Location
Bristol
Hey Guys!

More of a browser than a poster here but looking for some advice!

My partner and I are about to embark on Round the World Motorbike Trip for Charity (www.chasinghorizons.co.uk) and are trying to figure out our camera bag!

What we have:
Nikon D200 Base and standard 18-55mm Nikkor Lens

What we plan on taking piccies of:
Motorbike shots (many moving), landscape, portraits and some wildlife.
NB. we are camping around the world so potential for a fair few low light photos (we do have a compact tripod :))

What We Plan on Using Photos For:
We would like to make a decent photobook for our return. Although we're not professionals (me by far... Sam has much more past experience!) I'd certainly like to progress past amateur eventually and Sam would like to be producing some semi pro photos once he manages to recall his photography days! I have a rugged invincible Olympus TG1 for happy snaps too (tell you what.. mega camera. Super impressed so far)

Our Budget:
A total of £500 - £1000

Current Considerations:
Go for an All Rounder:
Nikkor 18-200mm
Keep Nikkor 18 - 55mm as back up

Pros:
One lens which does everything, reasonably priced, less to pack / carry about (not ideal to change lenses in the desert see! ;))

Cons:
It's a jack of all trades and master on none. Good to Okay quality.

Drop the Zoom
Focus on finding something with a lower range (ie 18-120mm). Suggestions would be fab!
Keep Nikkor 18 - 55mm as back up

Pros:
Better quality photos, within budget, less to pack / carry about

Cons:
Loose our ability to shoot wildlife without being eaten.

Get Two New Lenses:
Go for two lenses - one for longer ranges (say 70-300mm) and then get an additional 18-55mm which is better than our current bog standard one

Pros:
More specialised photo ranges (so perhaps better quality... but with our budget maybe we could only afford two lenses which would produce the same as a decent Jack of all trades?)

Cons:
Have to faff about with two lenses, more to pack.



Any suggestions or thoughts or ideas?! We have read sooooo many reviews, my mind is about to go *pop*... so many are ancient so we don't know if we're missing out on any tricks or what!

Thanks guys and girls :)

Clare and Sam
 
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (none OS) lens for motorsport imo. As for anything else, the 18-200 lens is a great piece of kit, but the AF isn't super quick due to how complex the design is.

Also consider picking up an AF-S 50mm F1.8G lens for portraits, or the 35mm version if you want to go wider. Really good optics and solid low light performance.
 
Nikon 35 1.8 for your 'snaps' as it renders things very beautifully for not much money, and is nothing to carry really. The 18-200/18-300s work for zooming but frankly there are rarely situations that actually call for that range that aren't severely hurt by the superzoom design - and 18-55 for landscapes, a 35 for a walkabout and a 70-300 will do you just fine.

Decent jack of all trade lenses tend to take about £400, the 35 would be £150-ish and the 70-300 anywhere between £100 and £350 depending on how good you want it, and I'd definitely take the 3 lens setup - with the 18-55 you have a very competent landscape lens and you don't really gain much from having the 18-70 ish range on the 18-200 lenses if you get one on top of an 18-55
 
With regards to motor sport photos, we will have bikey bike photos but we won't be proper caning it on the terrain we're going through ;)

The only thing that makes me sad about not having a zoom is missing out on wildlife opportunities... but to be fair I am much more passionate about taking photos up close and personal!

Just... a mind buzz!

Anyone have any photos to show off of the lenses that are being suggested? I can understand how 3 may be ideal... especially to have one which is more suited for low light! :)
 
My go to travel kit is the 16-85+70-300, you really can't go wrong with this combo. The 16mm on the 16-85 is a killer feature, typically letting me leave my 10-20mm behind, the difference between 16mm and 18mm on a crop is really quite large.

200mm wouldn't cut it for most of my travel needs, the 70-300 serves this really well.


The Nikon superzooms are surprisingly OK but you still loose resolution and gain distortion. The 16-85 + 70-300 is able to give you critical sharpness, the 18-200/300 push you just too far away form critical sharpness to be comfortable, especially on the higher resolution modern sensor. not much a deal if you don't print big. However, one of the biggest downsides is the optical qualities vary greatly through the zoom range, so you might find 35mm really great but 50mm not good enough, but it is really hard to know or remember if you are in a bad spot or not.


Still, if I could only ever own a single lens it would probably be the Nikon 18-300, sharp enough for most prints and the versatility beats any pro zoom or prime. The question is , do you mind taking 2-3 lenses for traveling and swapping over as needed? My opinion is if you are not putting in the effort to swap between a few lenses then you might be better served by a smaller lighter integrated camera. Either a Bridge or something like the Sony RX100, or a MFT mirrorless.


The superzooms are big and heavy, if going light is a priority then I would choose a 16-85mm and be done.


Note: the way I handle a 2 lens setup is if I don't expect to be in a wildlife zone I will always have the 16-85 on but ave the 70-300 very quickly accessible. IF I expect to find wildlife opportunities then the 70-300 is mounted with the 16-85 attached to my belt - this lets you grab the wildlife shots and whenever you see a landscape opportunity to can spend the few seconds changing lenses - that time is spent thinking about the composition and getting into the best location, thinking of the Dynamic range, foreground-mid-ground and back-ground features, framing options, etc. That way you don't loose any time and don't risk loosing wildlife photos.
 
Last edited:
I have used an 18-200 on a D200 for 4 years before upgrading and it's a fantastic lens.
I wouldn't say it's a master of none, it's exceptional quality and more than fast enough for the vast majority of cases.
 
James J said:
Sample I took with the 18-200mm lens:


Female Speckled Wood Butterfly (Pararge aegeria) by jjohnson2012, on Flickr

Not used the new 18-300mm myself, but the 18-200 is an excellent piece of kit. Those that say otherwise clearly have never used one.
Click to expand...

Had access to one for a year barely used it. It's okay but it's not worth the price when you can get a 35 1.8 and 70-300 for the same money, particularly if you've already got a 18-55.
 
D.P. said:
The Nikon superzooms are surprisingly OK but you still loose resolution and gain distortion. The 16-85 + 70-300 is able to give you critical sharpness, the 18-200/300 push you just too far away form critical sharpness to be comfortable, especially on the higher resolution modern sensor. not much a deal if you don't print big. However, one of the biggest downsides is the optical qualities vary greatly through the zoom range, so you might find 35mm really great but 50mm not good enough, but it is really hard to know or remember if you are in a bad spot or not.
Click to expand...

The OP has a D200, so that point is absolutely irrelevant. I used the lens with a D300s and had superb results from it with excellent sharpness at both ends time and time again. The results from a D200 with that lens will be superb.

You can also get the mk 1 version (which is identical to the newer mk 2, yet lacks a switch to lock the focal length to avoid focal creep) second hand for around £270 anyway which is an absolute bargain.
 
He has a d200 now but what will he have in the near future?

Besides resolution the distortion on the super zooms are their biggest problems, and that doesn't change ith the D200.

Now I agree the Nikon superzooms are surprisingly good considering the complexities in design but they do come with limitations.
 
Last edited:
But the limitations are no where near show stoppingand you have to look for them to find them. Its a very good lens, especially as a day to day walk about one.
 
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-300lensreview.htm
Overall, what a strange beast of a lens. I can't say I've seen a more unusual set of figures from a test. Varying sharpness, high chromatic aberration, irregular linear distortion, and very little light falloff considering the specifications. It seems clear to me that to build this compromise lens, Nikon made compromises. The real question is whether you can live with those compromises. I'm not sure I have a good answer for that. Obviously, the extreme focal length makes it versatile. Going from wide view to a tight composition (remember you're at 450mm equivalent at the long end) at a snap of the wrist is definitely addicting.


Roller coaster sharpness. Especially in the corners, you get sharp, not as sharp, sharp, not as sharp as you zoom.
Big brute. Nearly two pounds, and it's going to stick out further than your previous zoom.
Click to expand...

http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm
Images taken with the 18-200mm were sharp and contrasty on 6mp cameras, a little less so on 12mp cameras. Much less so on 24mp cameras. In some situations, the VR also helped keep acuity high. I was a little worried that a superzoom design would show some inability to keep up with 10 and 12mp cameras, but that's simply not the case--the lens performs okay, if not perfectly, on these cameras. Indeed, of all the so-called superzooms I've used and tested, this was the first one that I kept, at least until the 16mp DX DSLRs came along. I believe that the 18-105mm and 16-85mm both do better in the focal length ranges where they overlap the 18-200mm, so you don't buy the 18-200mm because it's the best of the consumer zooms, but because it is good enough while extending the focal range. Also, the 18-105mm and 16-85mm are clearly better on high megapixel count cameras (16mp+).
Click to expand...

As I said, they are surprisingly not so bad but that doesn't make them the best choice. Admittedly if the OP plans to keep the D200 forever then the difference is less important but the D200 is really getting long in the tooth so I expet and upgrade at some point and I personally prefer lenses to go through multiple bodies.


And then you are also ignoring other physical facts that I mentioned. The super zooms are relatively big and heavy, that does not constitute a small light travel setup per se. Secondly, the wide end of the 16-85mm is so much wider than any super zoom that this is a real deal breaker to me. The difference in perspective is vast, and 9 times out of 10 lets me leave the 10-20mm behind, which is what you want for a travel lens. Shooting at 24mm vs 29mm FF equivalent gives a much better depth and composition to my work. Heck if there was a 16-200mm I wold likely be all overt if it could keep up with 16mp sensors.


Lastly, I already said that if I could only ever own 1 lens it would be the 18-300mm. It is good enough. But I didn't buy a DSLR to use a single lens!
 
Its not big though and the weight matches a D200 perfectly anyway :S Its only big when you extend it to 200mm, whilst at 18mm its fully retracted back into the casing. Quoting thom hogan to me is just like quoting ken rockwell...

I've used the lens extensively on a body thats not much different in features and weight to the D200 and I can safely say that its a nice choice for what the OP wants it for. The talk of "critical sharpness" etc just isn't compliant to the OP's needs as they aren't shooting for profit. Not everyone on this forum requires the absolute best of the best gear, nor wants it. The 18-200mm is a perfect travel lens as its a brilliant size, weight and performer. Why take 2-3 lenses when you can just take one and still enjoy the results?
 
Then we can agree to disagree.

Why take a DSLR when you can just take a Bridge camera? If one isn't selling for profit then why not take a smaller lighter camera and still enjoy the results?


The OP specifically asked for different suggestions and opinions including
Get Two New Lenses:
Click to expand...
I gave my opinion based on my personal experience traveling around the Canadian Rockies, Yellowstone, Mojve desert, sierra Nevada, Morocco (Marrakesh + Atlas trekking), Alps, Mediterranean, much of central europe including most major cities, Appalachians, etc. all with a mix of short hikes from the car, multi-day backcountry trekking, ascents of 4000m alpine peaks photographing a mix of landscapes, wildlife, architecture, street, still life and portraits. For all of that I find the 16-85+70-300 combo an excellent combination for good quality, lightweight, versatile and minimum lens changes.

You have the 18-200 and you like it, that is your opinion to which you are entitled. No where have I said it is a bad lens, quite the opposite a I have praised it for surprisingly good image quality.

And no where in this thread have i ever hinted at buying the best of the best, I have only talked about consumer level variable aperture high zoom factor lenses rather than pro-zooms or primes because unlike some people on this forum who talk about nothing than L-primes I highly praise the versatility and the high image quality of such lenses.

The facts speak for themselves, if you want a zoom lens wider than 18mm which I highly recommend then the 16-85mm is about the only choice, it doesn't matter how good the 18-200, it just doesn't go that wide, and that makes the difference between carrying an extra lens or not. Given the choice between carrying a 16-85 + 70-300 with the ability to leave the 70-300 in the car/hotel etc. vs a 10-20mm + 18-200 then I would choose the former most of the time.
 
I wouldn't buy a zoom wider than 18mm though, so theres another thing we differ on. I'm one of a seemingly dying breed that thinks that landscape photos can be taken with any lens, including super telephoto.

As for your initial point, better ISO performance, more control, lens choices that don't restrict options, proper macro, vastly better build quality to name a few.
 
Most of my landscape photos are taken with the 70-300, which offers excellent edge sharpness.<18mm is needed for things like architecture, group photos, increased perspective and depth, abstracts, urban/street. 24mm is a sweet focal length.


And in your second point you have just contradicted yourself, "lens choices that don't restrict options,"
 
No it doesn't, as they aren't going to bin the camera when they have finished with their holiday are they...
 
They won't but if they've gone with a 70-300 and a 35 they'll have two very solid lenses while the 18-200 just smells of compromise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom