/ New lens options?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dhr18 on 30 Jul 2012 - ip68-105-131-47.tc.ph.cox.net
I am getting ready to do a four day photography trip up Mount Baker. This will be my first mounteering adventure focusing on photography. I currently have a Nikon d7000 with a 18-105mm lens. I was planning on purchasing an 18-200mm lens for the trip until I saw the new nikon 18-300mm lens. My main concern with this lens is it weighs 29oz. I was curious if this might be to heavy especially if trying to take photos with out a tripod. I will be carrying a tripod as well. I know that with the super zoom lenses you lose some image quality. Im hoping to stick with one lens to reduce weight and avoid lens changes. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
MJ - on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to dhr18:

Do you really need a longer lens if you're shooting landscapes?
You might be better getting a faster prime lens, such as: -

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm

With the money you save, get a polariser filter and maybe some ND graduated ones as well.

dhr18 on 30 Jul 2012 - ip68-105-131-47.tc.ph.cox.net
In reply to MJ:
I am hoping to use it for wildlife shots as well. I enjoy landscapes but think that i might prefer wildlife shots. My last trip into the mountains I had a point and shoot and missed some great shots of mountain goats.
Fraser on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to dhr18:

I have the 18-105 on my D5000 and like it a lot, but I recently got the 35mm f1.8 suggested above, and that's a belter too. It's probably not the best bet for your trip though, I would imagine. Not sure about this new 18-300mm lens you mentioned but for such a wide zoom range, aren't you going to sacrifice some IQ? I've been toying with getting the 55-300mm which seems to be good value and gets good reviews.
Dispater on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to dhr18:

Just take the 18-200, which is 27-300 in old money.
Taking a fast 35 as well seems fairly pointless, and the 200-300 range (300-450 equivalent) even more so.
Fraser on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to Dispater:

Your response reminds me of a question I mean to ask elsewhere:

If a lens is specifically for a cropped sensor camera, does it mean the focal length noted is 'as it says on the tin'? ie if it's a DX lens saying 55-300mm, is that what you 'really' get? I'd assumed it did, but I'm quite probably wrong.
JDal - on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to Fraser:
..
> If a lens is specifically for a cropped sensor camera, does it mean the focal length noted is 'as it says on the tin'? ie if it's a DX lens saying 55-300mm, is that what you 'really' get? I'd assumed it did, but I'm quite probably wrong.


They give you the real focal length of the lens. They have to, otherwise it would change name if you stuck it on a different format camera - which you can do with just about every lens.
Fraser on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to JDal:

Sorry, being a bit thick here. If I stick the (DX, 55-300mm) lens on a DX camera then, what focal length equivalent am I achieving on that camera?
MJ - on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to Fraser:

To get the 35mm equivalent you multiply by 1.5 for any given focal length.
Fraser on 30 Jul 2012
In reply to MJ:

ok, thanks.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.