[Closed] Help - What Nikon DSLR Lens for Himalayas trip?

Your 18-200 should see you through pretty well....... Depending on Quality of the lens. Is it a VR?

Maybe a dedicated Wide Angle?

I guess it depends on How much luggage you want to carry

cheers thanks...

just spent some time reading a fab review of a Tokina 11-16mm. Looks nice.

Probably a 28 to 135 about the only lense you need
compact and less weight.

The 18-200 to big and heavy also requires more light
to pass through lens

Tamron F2.8 18 to 70 - my favourite for landscape & portraits.

The 18-200VR will be a super choice and only lens I'd take if I was going. Its quality, considering the zoom range is fantastic.

I use mine for weddings professionally and although I feel I could do better, for simplicity of not changing lenses and the time that all takes, I am able to concentrate more on the photos and get on with my job.

less dust gets to the sensor, not as much stuff to carry about, only thing I miss from is a 2.8 aperture from my (now sold) Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED lens. As I couldn't hold it still and needed a monopod as a minimum to use that lens, the 18-200 is a blast and I am able to get more due to the VR bits in it, (eg in a church for "the ring shot" where you only get 1 opportunity to get it right), therefore, its a better lens, (than the Nikon 80-200F2.8 - which cost IRO £1000)for me anyway.

Used it on a D70 and it was superb. Now on a D300 and its still superb.

Unless you want some mega wide shots that is.....

I'd take a wide angle (I use a Sigma 10 - 20 but the Tokina you mention is well regarded) and your 18 - 200. Just don't forget the CP filters !

Another vote for a Sigma 10-20 for wide angle. I have one for my D80 and it's ace

Sigma 10-20 thirded. Wide angle will be handy for the big landscapes.

Another vote for adding a 10-20 range lens as well. Practice first though. Ultra-wide lenses are not what you expect - they make things further away rather than wider and perversely can be quite a challenge for landscapes.

Yep, they make the field if view very wide, which is handy when taking mountain ranges etc, but you'll often find yourself getting ridiculously close to stuff to add some foreground interest.

I'd want something wide too, along with a couple of neutral density grad filters and CP too...

If I were looking for simplicity I would probably take just 2 lenses... a 24mm equivalent and a 70-200 equivalent. I am finding this combination is actually very, very good at the moment (I am on full frame and using a Sigma 24mm f1.8 and a Canon 70-200L). I tend to find these cover most the shooting I do, so can leave the 24-105L and 17-40L behind if I want to!)

Really like my Tokina 12-24 with D300, would feel that the 11-16 might be a bit frustrating when grabbing quick pictures with people in them. With 24 you are back up to 'normal' view,if you get my drift. Remember that polarisers will need careful use with ultra wide angle.

if you want wide shoot a panorama and stitch 🙂
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/20sep/thumb/388p.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2009/20sep/thumb/388p.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

[img] [/img]
at 24mm
prefer to have a wider lens

[img] [/img]

at 12mm

if you want wide shoot a panorama and stitch

I like stitches too but it's harder to compose, no good with movement and the resulting image is quite different to a wide angle.

That 12mm example sums up how difficult ultra-wide angles are. The perspective is just plain weird looking. The front wheel is twice the size of the rear. Even the guys body looks tiny compared to the front wheel.

Nothing wrong with that I reckon. I quite like that weird perspective. It makes images look more dynamic when used right. Check out Seb Rogers work, he uses wide angles all the time.

Yeah, nothing wrong as such, but very odd. Portraits of horses are the weirdest examples. Giant nostrils and piggy eyes.

He's riding the super secret Orange 69er

Actually I like the effect it works well (i think) on landscapes and is totally different to simply having a panorama
[img] [/img]
shame about the spots!!! 🙁 an I left the tripod at home

And if you read my earlier post I did allude to the issue of perspective when discussing the difficulty with photographing people.

It gets more pronounced as well!!
[img] [/img]

As holidays for me mean having the kids in tow, I keep my nikon 18-200vr on virtually all the time and for ease of always having roughly the right lens on, it's bloody good - esp' the vr. But! if I was on a trip without them it'd be the 12-24 and 70-200 nikkors.

Hi folks.. thanks for all the good advice. will digest and plan a shopping trip soon!

Don't forget there will be other things to photo apart from the landscape. A long lense is good for candid shots of the locals. I found it was well worth lugging it up the mountains.

Recently bought a D60, with 18-55 and 55-200. My ultimate aim is a super-wide zoom, maybe a 10-17, and the lovely Tamron 18-270 f3.5. An 18-270 has got to be about the most versatile single lens going. And I love Tamron lenses, still got two thirty year old zooms with my old Contax.

Wide angle and circular polariser in the mountains:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Both f/11 @ 10mm on the Sigma 10-20mm lens.

I'll add my support for the Sigma 10-20 but make sure you have plenty of time to test it out before you go as I've heard that Sigma occasionally have qulaity control issues with these and some are quite/very soft.

I used mine on Mt. Kenya earlier this year and as long as you are doing landscapes its fine. Throw in some foreground features/people and the background starts to look very weired, like a set almost.

Also be careful with CP filters!

Have you considered hiring a lens? There is a UK based companyt hat rents out lenses, cant remember the name now. But could be an option.

[url= http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/ ]Calumet hire lenses[/url]

I've heard that Sigma occasionally have qulaity control issues with these and some are quite/very soft.

This might put Sigma QC issues into perspective (not in a good way):

[url= http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga ]Sigma Saga[/url]

[url= http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20 ]Stats[/url]

Jeez! That's bad!

I thought this was surpising:

Our conclusion is that camera bodies, stuffed with an amazing amount of electronics, suffer from the shock damage that occurs during shipping much more than from actual use.

having dropped most of my Nikons and never seen any resulting damage except to the VR in my 18-200 Nikkor. But I'd not use a Sigma for the simple reason they zoom the opposite way to Nikon zooms - unless for some special application.

18-200 with a good quality cir polarizer would be my choice if i was taking one lens.

If you can take 2 lenses then the Tokina 11-16 is an awesome piece of kit, i love mine. Be careful with polarizing filters on it though, you get banding in the sky which some people find off putting, i don't mind it though. It's robust as well although weather sealing may not be perfect. f2.8 may be useful if you get some of the classic low light with the peaks highlighted by the sunset type shots.

D300, Tokina 11-16 at 11mm, B&W cir polarizer. Demonstrating banding and for some reason some nasty jpeg artifacts

[url= http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3855287909_9e3f6633a6.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3855287909_9e3f6633a6.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

take the 18-200 vr and a siggy 10-20mm no questions!

[img] [/img]

[url= http://bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm ]Thom Hogan's Thought on the Sigma 10-20mm[/url]

(he likes and uses it)

18-200 and the 50mm (f1.8 I'll guess) for low light stuff or shallow DOF's would be my preferences for that body.

Just a little surprised at the pro who preferred the 18-200 to his 80-200 f2.8. Sure the VR is great for reducing camera shake, but with the smaller aperture, did you not need to up ISO's or use a longer shutter speed (which would introduce grain or motion blur from the hands)? For that "putting the ring" on moment, give me fast glass at f2.8 and a fast shutter speed (at most 1/focal length) to keep things sharp.

I miss my 18-200 at weddings when I'm lugging a D700 and 24-70 f2.8 and a D300 with a 70-200 f2.8 around the place and my neck and back are killing me. But the images are worth it!

As for a wide, I use a Tokina 12-24 f4, and it is pretty good. You will run into problems with a circular polarizer as discussed above, but its pretty distortion free at 24mm, which is handy. If you wanted really wide, shoot in portrait mode and stitch the images with about a 50% overlap. As long as you dont have anything too close to you in the shot, parallax errors are minimised and the pano will stitch well.

As a single lens walkabout solution, the 18-200VR is unbeatable. I use a D700 with the 24-70 f2.8 for my 1 camera/lens trips, but you know you are carrying it and you miss the tele end of the zoom range!