So what makes your vacation kit

Thanks all for your comments, looks like my kit is on the heavier side.

Would you give up/sell 70-200 f/2.8 in favor of a lighter kit? I have the primes but the 1.4s don't focus as fast as the zoom does and the zoom is very useful when shooting kids sports and when they are generally running around, theme park action etc, as also for my daughter's school events. While I feel the weight of my decision to buy this lens, I'm wary of selling it. Tried taking her photos yesterday while she was running around at our hotel, using the 58mm and got few keepers.

Has anyone ever sold this lens to go all prime? Potentially, 105 f/1.4G is around the corner and I could sell the 85mm and 70-200 to get it. Your thoughts appreciated.

D810

D500

15-30 f2.8 Tamron VC

24-70 f2.8E VR

80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR or 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TCIII

My kit is designed around my preferred waist bag (Thinktank Speed Racer). Some years ago I decided that I was carrying too much, because the bag I was using could hold more weight than I wanted to carry all day. So I decided to let the bag limit the gear and got a bag that I could use for any distance I was likely to walk. (Several miles, relatively easy ground).

What this has meant is that I can carry one gripped DLSR (D810, currently) and up to three lenses. I go for focal range, which means zooms.

What would I like to carry? 14-24, 24-70 and 80-400g. However, the 14-24 doesn't fit, so I bring the 16-35vr instead.

I could bring the 70-200 f2.8 instead of the 80-400g as they are pretty much the same size, but the 80-400g has that useful 200-400 range.

On occasion I'll carry more gear, but not much more since it still has to squeeze into that bag somehow. Might be the 10.5DX fisheye, or a V2 with 10-100 zoom. Or the Sony RX100 II.

I also go on dive trips, carrying housings and ports - enough sizeable gear that I can't pack it all in a single carryon. D810 with Nauticam housing, dual strobes, and ports for 16-35, 60 micro and 105vr takes a lot of room.

I don't have any zooms, but I rarely take or feel the need for a tele when on vacation.

I often take a wide or a few wides (20/24/35) and a 50mm. I shoot 80 % anyway with a 50mm, sometimes it's fun to go wider, but I always fall back to 50mm.

Going to Berlin later this year and I was wondering if I could get by with 58/1.4G only. I just recently bought it and thinking it may be a bit too tight for a vacation. I always feel I'm one step too close with a 58mm, but it's quite light and love to look of the photos.

I took my new 58mm over our weekend break and used it for 90% of the shots. I did carry the 24mm, 70-200 and also 300 f4 pf, but didn't use the 24 and 70-200 at all. 58 is just too good but AF is not as fast as 70-200

My default kit for vacation (defined as where photography isn't the main purpose of the trip but I know I'll want to take some pics) is my D7100 with an 11-20 and 18-200, which all fits in one little hip/shoulder bag. I might choose different lenses for particular places, but that's the default.

And I'll usually bring my old Lumix LX7 as a pocket camera for when I don't want to carry the SLR (still much better than a phone camera for that purpose).

Nikon V1

6.7-13

10-100

70-300

Sandeep Kumar said:

Thanks all for your comments,

Click to expand...

You're welcome

Sandy27000 said:

looks like my kit is on the heavier side.

Click to expand...

LOL - You took the words from my mind! I had to double check and see you used the word 'vacation' rather than 'top paying gig'.

Sandy27000 said:

....Potentially, 105 f/1.4G is around the corner...

Click to expand...

The notion of carrying a kilogram of premium lens on vacation? I can only assume you do a lot of top paid gigs when you're not shooting your daughter running around hotels

But seriously my friend, relax!!

I dare say you are a far more achieved photographer than I, but check out what something like a 450g 28-105 can do here

Sandeep Kumar said:

Thanks all for your comments, looks like my kit is on the heavier side.

Would you give up/sell 70-200 f/2.8 in favor of a lighter kit? I have the primes but the 1.4s don't focus as fast as the zoom does and the zoom is very useful when shooting kids sports and when they are generally running around, theme park action etc, as also for my daughter's school events. While I feel the weight of my decision to buy this lens, I'm wary of selling it. Tried taking her photos yesterday while she was running around at our hotel, using the 58mm and got few keepers.

Click to expand...

You might consider the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300 VR lenses, too. They are smaller and lighter than the f/2.8, with the 70-300 having slightly longer reach and "acceptable" IQ (in comparison to your pro zoom) and the f/4 is said to be even sharper than the 2.8, but I have never tried it.

What I did when the 70-300 VR seemed too large and heavy: I bought a manual focus 75-150 Series E lens for less than $100. It does not have VR and suffers from serious zoom creep, but is acceptably sharp, very light and small and delivers surprisingly good images. And it's better than having no telephoto lens on the trip.

The 105E is most probably a dream of a lens, I'm very much looking forward to seeing some "real life" samples.

I have a similar kit to Brandon - the 300mm PF + TC1.4 III on a D7200 for birds, and a 16-80mm on a D3300 for family and views. It all needs to be light because, as a birder, I'm also carrying a Nikon ED50 scope with 20x eypiece and a pair of Zeiss Victory 8x42 binoculars.

I also have a lighter alternative, if it's partly a work trip and I need to carry a laptop, or if it's more of a bird-watching trip and I'm carrying a heavier scope (Swarovski STM 60 with 25-50x eyepiece). That's an N3 with a 70-300mm CX lens, and a J4 with a 10-100mm non-PD lens with the 6.7-13mm lens in reserve.

All the best, Roger

What's a vacation ?

Sandeep Kumar said:

Hi everyone - this may have been beaten to death, but here goes:

I have found the following kit travel friendly, wanted to see how others are doing it.

• Bodies - Nikon D500 and Nikon 750
• Lenses - Nikon 24mm f/1.4G, Nikon 58mm f/1.4G and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR2
• Bag - Think Tank Streetwalker
• 2 extra batteries
• CP filters

With recent acquisition of 58mm, have not really been using 85mm f/1.4G. Very tempted with 105mm f/1.4G but the zoom is more versatile, although heavier.

So what makes your vacation kit? Thanks!!

Click to expand...

My travel kit is most simple. We went to San Antonio, Texas. last year,sorry I'm not a world traveler. my kit for a week was my D7100, Sigma 17 70 2.8 4.0 C lens and my Nikon 70 300 VR.

Now this is not a kit you might think of, for a major trip? but! it worked just fine. re visiting the Alamo, [50 plus years ago I went through Air Force basic training] taking the mission tour, and the zoo. And a tour of Lackland AFB.

Lightweight, easy to carry all day and covered anything I wanted to photograph. in other times I have gone on a vacation and "packed" enough "stuff" to stock a photo store--- no more!

I'm happy with my results, thats all that maters.

"dog house riley"

Bohemien said:

Sandeep Kumar said:

Thanks all for your comments, looks like my kit is on the heavier side.

Would you give up/sell 70-200 f/2.8 in favor of a lighter kit? I have the primes but the 1.4s don't focus as fast as the zoom does and the zoom is very useful when shooting kids sports and when they are generally running around, theme park action etc, as also for my daughter's school events. While I feel the weight of my decision to buy this lens, I'm wary of selling it. Tried taking her photos yesterday while she was running around at our hotel, using the 58mm and got few keepers.

Click to expand...

You might consider the 70-200 f/4 or the 70-300 VR lenses, too. They are smaller and lighter than the f/2.8, with the 70-300 having slightly longer reach and "acceptable" IQ (in comparison to your pro zoom) and the f/4 is said to be even sharper than the 2.8, but I have never tried it.

Click to expand...

I have the 70-200/4.0G, and have had the 70-300 VR. The latter I eventually changed to a Tamron 70-300 VC, as I found that a bit sharper in the long end. But the switches on the Tamron are not the best — I eventually taped them in position, lifting the tape when I need to change their settings.

There is nothing to complain about the 70-200/4.0, but I have replaced the lens shade for a metal one i found on Amazon for very little money! This one is threaded in its outer end as well as its inner, which makes it very easy to mount and dismount the lens cap with the shade mounted, but you have to use a slightly bigger cap (67mm) than the original (62mm).

The city vacation kit: D600 + 58/1.4G, F3HP + ais 28/2.8 + ais 50/1.2, Canonet28.

The "at least some road trip" kit: D600 + 58/1.4G + 70-300, F3HP + ais 28/2.8 + ais 50/1.2, Canonet28.

I tried to travel with the 24-120, but ended up taking uninspired snap shots, so sold it. I'm just more of a prime type photographer, like to restrict myself to be able to "see more".
The 70-300 is wonderful for shooting out of the car window and for all those scenic vistas.

Also, film is big, and especially wonderful on a trip. Getting the negatives back from the lab afterwards is such a huuuge trip (eheheh) and makes one re-live the whole she-bang again.

Raymond Wave said:

I don't have any zooms, but I rarely take or feel the need for a tele when on vacation.

I often take a wide or a few wides (20/24/35) and a 50mm. I shoot 80 % anyway with a 50mm, sometimes it's fun to go wider, but I always fall back to 50mm.

Going to Berlin later this year and I was wondering if I could get by with 58/1.4G only. I just recently bought it and thinking it may be a bit too tight for a vacation. I always feel I'm one step too close with a 58mm, but it's quite light and love to look of the photos.

Click to expand...

If you feel comfortable with a 50mm I say go for it, as in take only the 58. I'm kind of the same as you in this regard, or so it seems, and I have travelled with only the 58 and have been perfectly happy. Sure, sometimes you wish for something slightly wider and sometimes for something longer, but that is bound to happen anyway, even if you take along everything you have.

I was in Charleston, SC last year and tried and tried to capture the gorgeous city with a 24-120. Became more and more frustrated. In the end I ditched the 24-120 and went out with the 58 alone and boy, now we were talking! To me the 24-120 made me try to "capture everything", and made my photographic eye blurry and overwhelmed. The 58 again made me focus and made me take much better pictures. I was able to capture my version of Charleston with that lens.

I think the key here is: do you want to capture everything about Berlin? If so, you might want to take "everything" with you. Or do you want to capture your own version of Berlin? In that case the 58 is plenty, because you are bound to take better pictures and feel more inspired while doing it if you are bonding with the gear/perspective you are carrying.

heulwen said:

I think the key here is: do you want to capture everything about Berlin? If so, you might want to take "everything" with you. Or do you want to capture your own version of Berlin? In that case the 58 is plenty, because you are bound to take better pictures and feel more inspired while doing it if you are bonding with the gear/perspective you are carrying.

Click to expand...

That's a dilemma I always face when on holiday in well-known places. Do I have to take the 10000000th picture of Tower Bridge when in London or do I try to capture my personal angles of the city exclusively, because everybody has already seen great pictures of the bridge anyway? But then, when I show my pictures to my friends, I haven't got one of the bridge to see.

I agree with what you say about the "danger" of taking a superzoom... that results in pictures of views I find interesting when I'm there which turn out "meh" when I review them at home.

Going to Berlin though, my personal kit would definitely include a wide-angle lens along with the 50 or 58, for those situations where playing with perspective gives interesting angles of the city, or you (Raymond) want to capture the space without being able to back up further. Enjoy your trip, it's an interesting city!

I took the following to an India vacation:

D810; D800E; 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8E VR, 70-200 f/2.8 VR II, an RRS Versa 2 tripod with a Markins Q20i ballhead. All of this in a very snug fit/small Think Tank Trifecta 10 backpack. Most times the tripod was left in the car. It was very comfortable to walk thru the crowds using this bag. Either the 14-24 (usually) or 24-70 (occasionally) was mounted on one body and 70-200 on another - and would be placed inside the bag one body/lens on each side with an easy access to either. The remaining lens would be in the top compartment for the small items.

BTW I used all the 3 lenses with a good advantage and could not have done with just the primes or just one type of a lens to avoid carrying more lenses. e.g. Taj Mahal pictures below:


from within the complex, I had to use the 14-24 to avoid the crowds; some dictated the use of 24-70 as the 14-24 would have been too wide - while others from outside from Agra Fort or across the river needed the 70-200. Inside the Taj Mahal complex the 14-24 & 24-70 were mounted on the two bodies. In these cases I would use the Black Rapid two camera body strap.

People convince us that carrying big lenses are very hard and should be completely avoided during travel - but its not very hard if you use nifty backpacks to carry or use shoulder straps on the location. Camera stuff is not inherently as heavy as carrying babies, toddlers, sometimes a kid who refuses to walk, etc. Yet over centuries weakest of us have somehow found a way to carry the kids (and travel) without too much complaining - but we consider a comparatively lightweight 70-200 2.8 as the heaviest thing in the world for travel .

Like you, I have 1 (Dx) D500 and 1 (Fx) DF I would make the lenses more interchangeable focal length on the two bodies

35mm f1.8 equivalent as 52.50mm on d500

16-35 mm f 4 equivalent as 24-52.5mm on d500

70-200 mm f 2.8 equivalent 105-300 mm on d500

With 3 lenses can cover FL 16-300 mm from f1.8 to f4

True, very much depends on your preferred 'vacation' as well as your objectives. Travel around in a car visiting easy-to-reach popular tourist destinations then why not take the full swag.

But choose the experience of jumping on/off crowded local buses or trekking for days at 12000 feet and then tell me that 80-200 2.8 isn't the heaviest thing in the World ;-)

whoosh1 said:

Camera stuff is not inherently as heavy as carrying babies, toddlers, sometimes a kid who refuses to walk, etc. Yet over centuries weakest of us have somehow found a way to carry the kids (and travel) without too much complaining - but we consider a comparatively lightweight 70-200 2.8 as the heaviest thing in the world for travel .

Click to expand...

How about carrying kid(s) and a camera? I actually often choose lens based on if I go with my children and/or if wife is with us.

Me + kids 2 and 6 years old = not necessarily camera at all, cheapish lightweight AF lens possible and must have easy access to a bag to put camera quickly in safe place

Me + younger kid = as above, with a little less concern

Me + older kid = any lens, but preferably AF

Whole family = any setup