Travel lens dilemma of a Nikon D3000 user

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

You can find used 18-200VR lenses for about $450 these days.

On which planet?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by anniehun

... Love taking environmental portraits, candids, street shots, close ups, as well as stunning landscapes occasionally.
Most of the time my shots require me being fast and snap in a split second, and the best photos I have taken so far happened to be in natural low lighting.

Ok. I'm a Canon shooter. And an eccentric. But I can't help feeling everybody's leading you down the wrong path with an 18-200 recommendation, given your statements above. I think the lens you really need is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G.

Wide enough for landscape, street shooting, architecture.

Long enough for portraits.

Fast enough for available light / thin DoF.

Decent (1 foot) minimum focus distance for close-ups.

Sharp. Great image quality.

And also small/light enough not to be a space/weight consideration while travelling, or likely to make you conspicuous as a shooter, the way a larger lens will. The 18-200 is like your current two lenses, without having to change the lenses, as twice the price, with image quality compromises. Terrific if you seriously never wanted to change lenses, or you use the 55-200 a ton as your primary walkaround.

But the 35/1.8 is about US$200. It's cheap enough that you're not going to care if it gets broken, lost, or stolen. This is a good thing in a travel lens. It's easily replaced. It's far from exotic.

Yes. It will make you run around a lot more. Yes, there are times it won't be long enough. But then, there are times when f/4-f/5.6 simply isn't fast enough.

Cartier-Bresson is famous for having shot the majority of his work with a 50mm prime lens. And what 50mm was for film is what 35mm is for a crop digital body. A fast normal prime seems like it might be a better fit for how and what you want to shoot.

But I'm an eccentric prime junkie, and for me, street shooting means shooting the street and the people on it, not aiming telephotos at the backs of strangers' heads, paparazzi style.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by inkista

Ok. I'm a Canon shooter. And an eccentric. But I can't help feeling everybody's leading you down the wrong path with an 18-200 recommendation, given your statements above. I think the lens you really need is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G.

You make a good argument.....But I just can't imagine having nothing but a 35mm prime while traveling.

And 18mm is certainly wide enough to not be "paparazzi style".

[anniehun]

Originally Posted by mbrobich

My most used lens for general walking around is my Nikon 18-135mm. They don't make it anymore so you'd have to find it used.

Originally Posted by kirbinster

You can find used 18-200VR lenses for about $450 these days.

Originally Posted by TheEagleSpirit

I just bought a tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 lens that is proving to be a great travel lens.

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

On which planet?

Originally Posted by inkista

Ok. I'm a Canon shooter. And an eccentric. But I can't help feeling everybody's leading you down the wrong path with an 18-200 recommendation, given your statements above. I think the lens you really need is the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G.

Wide enough for landscape, street shooting, architecture.

Long enough for portraits.

Fast enough for available light / thin DoF.

Decent (1 foot) minimum focus distance for close-ups.

Sharp. Great image quality.

And also small/light enough not to be a space/weight consideration while travelling, or likely to make you conspicuous as a shooter, the way a larger lens will. The 18-200 is like your current two lenses, without having to change the lenses, as twice the price, with image quality compromises. Terrific if you seriously never wanted to change lenses, or you use the 55-200 a ton as your primary walkaround.

But the 35/1.8 is about US$200. It's cheap enough that you're not going to care if it gets broken, lost, or stolen. This is a good thing in a travel lens. It's easily replaced. It's far from exotic.

Yes. It will make you run around a lot more. Yes, there are times it won't be long enough. But then, there are times when f/4-f/5.6 simply isn't fast enough.

Cartier-Bresson is famous for having shot the majority of his work with a 50mm prime lens. And what 50mm was for film is what 35mm is for a crop digital body. A fast normal prime seems like it might be a better fit for how and what you want to shoot.

But I'm an eccentric prime junkie, and for me, street shooting means shooting the street and the people on it, not aiming telephotos at the backs of strangers' heads, paparazzi style.

Originally Posted by sk66

You make a good argument.....But I just can't imagine having nothing but a 35mm prime while traveling.

And 18mm is certainly wide enough to not be "paparazzi style".

Thank you all guys for your extended time and effort to share your experience/help me out with this matter. Inkista, you really make me think here... NOW the dilemma is prime vs. general purpose zoom...Guess I just want too much from a single lens... yeah... keep thinking...

[inkista]

Originally Posted by sk66

You make a good argument.....But I just can't imagine having nothing but a 35mm prime while traveling.

I know, me neither. But I can imagine it more easily than having nothing but an 18-200. Either way, I'll be swearing, but I'd probably swear less with a fast prime than a superzoom, as I'm a museum-type tourist, and I want to hit Europe with tiny little backstreets more than other locations.

Originally Posted by anniehun

... NOW the dilemma is prime vs. general purpose zoom...Guess I just want too much from a single lens... yeah...

Yup. I mean, my solution would be both. If I'm going to go to the bother of hauling a dSLR with me, then multiple lenses and a camera bag doesn't bug me much. If I'd really wanted to go small and light, I would've packed a P&S, or maybe gotten a mirrorless compact system.

The most basic question to ask yourself is are you taking the trip to experience the trip? Or are you taking the trip to take pictures? Either way is perfectly legit, but a P&S is a lot less trouble/weight/expense than an SLR & bag of attendant kit, and a lot less of a timesuck.

[lil red bird]

When we travel I take the 18-105 and the 70-300. Both are reasonable in cost and work very well for the price.
Are they the best lenses that Nikon makes? No they are not but value for money yes they are.