10 replies to this topic

[TracyS]

Hi,

 

I am new to the Nikon Forum and I am a beginner photographer.  My husband passed away 2 years ago and I inherited his camera equipment.  I used it las year when I went to Patagonia and the pictures came out great.  I am going to Africa this year and I have a question.  I have a Nikon D50 with 2 sets of lenses.  One is an AF-S Nikkor 18-200 mm and the other is an AF-S Nikkor 55-300 mm. I am an amateur and just want some travel photos for my own benefit. I am concerned about the weight and was wondering if I could just take one lens and still get good photos of the animals as well as the local landscape, people, etc.  I am concerned about the weight of the two lenses and would prefer taking only one. What are peoples thoughts on that?

 

Also, I have some filters that I don't know what to do with.  Do I need filters in Africa.  Should I be using the hood when I take pictures?

 

Thanks for any responses.

 

 

[Merco_61]

This post is in the wrong place as it would be better in the Beginners' forum to get more exposure. This subforum is for support and suggestions about the site.

That said, it is difficult to give advice without more information... Africa is a big continent with many different types of opportunity for photography. The best way to see the difference between your lenses is to mount the 55-300 and take two pictures, one at 200 mm and the other at 300 mm without moving the camera at a distance you think will be the longest you will want to photograph. Compare the two and try to decide if the narrower field of view is worth carrying the extra mass. Remember that the D50 does not leave any room for cropping after the fact if you want to make nice prints from your files.

 

Polarizing filters make many photos better in all situations, but they do rob you of some light. Always use your lens hoods when you can as light hitting the front element will give a veiling flare that obliterates contrast.

[M.Beier]

Sadly I do not think its possible.

NIKON has a pocket camera, none DSLR, that has 83x zoom if Im not mistaking...

As for Africa, you need as much reach as your budget allows on safari... Personally I would get the Tamron 150-600 F5-6.3 (version 2) with a TC2 to get effective maximum reach of 1200mm (though ~1050 is maximum in order to keep good quality)

 

This along side a small 18-55, if I wanted to travel light.

 

As Merco said, I do suggest keeping the lens hood on at all time, if not using external flash, then nighttime with onboard flash makes sense without hood, other then that - no.

*And also the lens hood is great protection.

[nbanjogal]

Peter's advice to try both and see how much reach you need is good--will you be on a safari and trying to shoot lots of animals? If so, you'll probably want the extra reach of the 55-300. Also remember to look at the wide end--if you take the 55-300, you will not get such wide angles for landscapes. The 18-200 might give you a bit more versatility, even though the reach will not be quite as extensive. It really comes down to what you consider most important to shoot. People, local scenes, and landscapes? I'd take the 18-200. Animals on safari? I'd take the 55-300.

 

For someone who is a beginner and who just wants to use what equipment they have, I would not recommend the Tamron 150-600--especially not on the D50. I have that lens, and I think it works better on higher end cameras such as the D800. At least two forum members (OTRTexan and Daniel) have done side-by-side comparisons with the lens on different cameras, and at least anecdotally, it seems there is evidence that it performs much better on the high-end cameras. It is also HEAVY!!! If you want to travel light--definitely not for you. For a woman, I would strongly recommend using it on a monopod, which adds weight to the gear you'll be lugging along.

[M.Beier]

Valid point about the weight and size, its not tiny, pretty far from.

 

I'm no expert, but on my D5200 the lens performs fairly well, I wouldnt say that is a highend camera. Obviously better on D800 (E), but, it isnt weak on the smaller backup.

On top of my head, I cannot think of anything else that gives more reach at lower weight/size, unless its a prime.

[TBonz]

I agree that more info would help...I also agree with pretty much everything suggested...I am assuming that you are trying to choose between the lenses and not looking to replace one or both with another lens.  That said, Nikon does make an 18-300 but I am not sure it will give you as high a quality as the lenses you have...typically the more range you put into one lens, the more you sacrifice in other areas.  There are probably folks on here who have used it and the others who could help with that...I would also second the recommendation to stay away from the 150-600 unless you are going to be able to use it from a monopod or a tripod.  From the images I have seen it is an excellent lens, but it is big and you would certainly need one of your other lenses for anything that wasn't animals.  If you were interested in getting that level of reach, another option would be to rent that or another long telephoto for the trip.  Again, I would definitely recommend some type of support and I would suggest checking with the rental company you choose regarding taking the lens overseas...

 

The recommendation about using some test images to help you decide is excellent.  You might also consider taking both lenses on the trip and selecting what you feel will be the best option for the day so that you only have to carry a single lens while you are touring for the day, even though you would have both available for the trip.  For example, take the 18-200 when you will be wanting to shoot landscapes, places and people and then switch out to the 55-300 on those days you are out "hunting" animals and want to get "closer" from a distance.  

[Jerry_]

Plenty of good advice so far.

As already explained you will need the 18-.. range for landscapes (the reason to bring the 18-200), while having the ..-300 range for wildlife captures.

While Marc suggested to take the Tamron 150-600, this lens is indeed heavy and therefore not well suited for simpler bodies (which have difficult to stand that weightstress). He also suggested to have a 2x teleconverter and I think this is an excellent idea to combine it with the 55-300 lens to extend its range. Eventually you will find some second hand which will be not to expensive.

[nbanjogal]

 

You might also consider taking both lenses on the trip and selecting what you feel will be the best option for the day so that you only have to carry a single lens while you are touring for the day, even though you would have both available for the trip.  For example, take the 18-200 when you will be wanting to shoot landscapes, places and people and then switch out to the 55-300 on those days you are out "hunting" animals and want to get "closer" from a distance.  

 

Yep, this is exactly what I would do. TracyS had originally said she only wanted to take one if possible, but man, if it were me...definitely both. Nothing worse than getting somewhere and finding out you didn't bring the lens you really want!

 

 

 He also suggested to have a 2x teleconverter and I think this is an excellent idea to combine it with the 55-300 lens to extend its range. Eventually you will find some second hand which will be not to expensive.

 

 

Great idea! Hadn't thought of that and got distracted by the talk of the 150-600. What if she just took the 18-200 with the 2x teleconverter? Then she'd have the wide angles for landscape and a bit better reach for animals?

 

And Tracy, you also mentioned having filters...if you don't really know how or when to use them, it might be best to just skip them altogether unless you have some time beforehand to study up and practice a bit. You said you had managed to get some great photos from previous trips--without filters, I'm guessing? So maybe it's not necessary to start using them now? Just a thought. 

[TBonz]

Good thought, but I expect that either one of those kit lenses would turn into a long dark tunnel with the 2x...Remember that adds two stops and each of those lenses is already at 5.6 at the long end...Certainly a lighter alternative...

 

And Nicole, trust me...my camera bag would be heavier than my wife's and my luggage put together if I were going on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Africa...I think we would need a vehicle just to haul my gear...of course, I'd probably end up spending the money the trip would cost and then we couldn't go!

 

Seriously though, I would want as much reach with as low an aperture as I could get so it might be the 800 with the 1.4 TC included!  At least a 600 with a 1.4 or 1.7...

[leighgion]

Lot of well-meaning advice so far that I'm not going to build on as, with all respect to the other posters, I get the sense the recommendations have way too far into enthusiast territory for the original poster.

Tracy, if you take only one of your two lenses, the 18-200mm is the better choice for its flexibility UNLESS you know that the primary thing you want is lots of telephoto wildlife shots. In the second case, the 55-300mm is going to be useful.

Honestly though, I'd just take both as it's still a very lightweight kit compared to what many of us would have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wayben]

I would encourage you to take both lenses if at all possible, to give you the most flexibility.  I've been to Africa three times.  Believe me you will want to capture both landscapes and wildlife.  Distances for the wildlife will vary greatly.  There will be some that will be out of range for the 300mm, but there will be plenty inside that range.  I think you will be surprised how close you will be able to get to some.  I've seen lions using the safari vehicle as cover while stalking a gazelle.  Having the wide angle along for landscapes and the longer telephoto for the extra reach will allow you to bring home some great pictures from your trip.

 

Good luck!!

 

Wayne