Help with my lens setup

[aeon3]

Hello!

I have a D7000 and I'm about to move to another country for more than 1 year. I really want to bring all my camera gear with me but it's just NOT practical at all. The more lenses I ditch the better. I'm willing to sell them and buy different ones if it takes.
I was thinking about 4 lenses MAXIMUM, 3 would be perfect. I'm really lost and I've already tried to analyse which focal length I use more, which lenses I use more and ended up with no ideas.

Here's what I got right now:
35, 50, 85 primes
70-300
sigma 17-50, 2.8
sigma 10-20, 4.5
sigma 105 2.8

Couple things worth mentioning so you guys can help me out:
I don't use my tripod often. If I could I'd shoot always handheld 1.8 or 2.8.
I don't use longer FL a lot. However, I'd like to have a 18-200 or 18-140, if possible. (Still not sure if it's worth giving up the 2.8 for more FL though).
I need one UWA. I just love that. However I think I could use the tokina 11-16, 2.8 instead of the sigma, right? Easier handhelds, 17-20 FL is not wasted.
I need at least one prime. Which I'm clueless about which one to choose. I love them all.

Lots of info but WHAT DO YOU THINK!? Anyone willing to enlighten me?

[Manfred M]

Whenever I travel, I almost always limit myself to a maximum of 3 lenses; the only exception being when I need some kind of a "special purpose" lens; ultra-long or T-S and in that case I might take a fourth lens. I look at my gear and try to avoid duplicating focal lengths in the lenses I take.

You alreay have a UWA that gives you a wider range; albeit it just over a stop slower than the Tokin f/2.8 11-16. Why don't you just stick with what you know. My wife loves her 18-200mm and rarely shoots with anything else; but then she is not a low light shooter. With your Sigma and a possible new 18-200; you should be able to make do with just two lenses.

As for having to take a prime; the 35mm would be fine for unobtrusive street photography. The 50 is not a lens I tend to use on a crop frame camera, and the 85mm would be interesting for portaiture, if those are things that you would be shooting.

[chauncey]

Take the 85 prime, 70-300, and the 17-50...assuming they all take tack sharp images.

[Mike Buckley]

I use a D7000 and am very familiar with all but one of the Nikon lenses that you mentioned but none of the others. Seeing your set of lenses, I wouldn't buy anything new for such a short period of time.

Considering your goals, I recommend taking the Sigma wide-angle zoom that you like using the most, the 35mm and the 70-300. My reasoning regarding the last two lenses: The 70-300 zoom might be the best value in Nikon's lineup of lenses and gives you the occasional reach when you need it. The 35mm is an ideal focal length on your D7000 for so many types of photography and it has a really close focusing distance. That focal length also fills in the gap of focal lengths not handled by your two zooms if you decide to take the Sigma 10-20.

I wouldn't be concerned about the f/4.5 on the Sigma 10-20. Most of your shooting using that focal length probably involves smaller apertures, not larger.

[aeon3]

I forgot to mention that I and the 35mm, we dont get along so well. Every time I go with the 35mm I end up wishing I had more or less FL. I really need a zoom for that range, I need an all-rounder no matter what.

As I said, I rarely need longer FL and I rarely use my 70-300. Having more FL would be a nice little add-on, but it's not something I'd give priority to. Thats why Im thinking about the 18-140 as an all-rounder, but then it wouldnt make sense to have the 17-50 (which I love cause it's zoom and 2.8).

[Polar01]

Here are two questions that need to be answered, before a decision can be made. One is what do you like to shoot, and what country are you going to. The second one, what country is important in that some countries are rather large and if you are in say Canada or the U.S. that extra FL can really be needed.

Cheers: Allan

[inkista]

+1. Where are you going? And what do you think you'll shoot while you're there?

If I'm travelling to London, I'm probably not hauling along a telephoto zoom. If I'm travelling to Alaska, I definitely am. The only lens I'd say you can safely count on needing is the ultrawide.

The 35 can focus pretty close, if not super-close, and can play double-duty for you. I'd grab the 35, just because on crop, that's a very comfortable and general-purpose focal length for me, and probably ditch the 50 as being too close, and possibly grab the 85 or 105 macro (can do double-duty vs. the 85), but more likely I'd take the 17-50/2.8 for walkaround/zoom convenience.

But I'm also very strange, because I'd have to find room for a fisheye lens so I could do 360x180 panos, too, and might leave the ultrawide behind in consequence.

[aeon3]

Here are two questions that need to be answered, before a decision can be made. One is what do you like to shoot, and what country are you going to. The second one, what country is important in that some countries are rather large and if you are in say Canada or the U.S. that extra FL can really be needed.

Cheers: Allan

I cant really think about things that I like to shoot more. I know things that I shoot less, which are sports, wildlife, macro.

I've already traveled quite a lot with my camera and Ive rarely needed the longer FL. 70-300 is getting dust. I'll go to Canada and later Europe.

[DanK]

Welcome to CiC. Please add your location and real name to your profile. we use real names here.

I agree, I wouldn't want more than 3 or at most 4 lenses, but I don't think any of us can answer the question of which ones better than you can. What makes sense depends on what YOU shoot. For example, I almost never travel without a macro lens, but carrying a macro lens wouldn't be sensible for you. Personally, other than a macro lens, I would opt for zooms to get the maximum flexibility with the smallest number of lenses, but again, that is just me. Take the lenses you think YOU will use most.

[aeon3]

Welcome to CiC. Please add your location and real name to your profile. we use real names here.

I agree, I wouldn't want more than 3 or at most 4 lenses, but I don't think any of us can answer the question of which ones better than you can. What makes sense depends on what YOU shoot. For example, I almost never travel without a macro lens, but carrying a macro lens wouldn't be sensible for you. Personally, other than a macro lens, I would opt for zooms to get the maximum flexibility with the smallest number of lenses, but again, that is just me. Take the lenses you think YOU will use most.

Okay, I've updated my profile.

I agree with you but I'm just lost. I need some guidance, something to help me narrow down my choices. I already tried doing what you said and nothing.

Im seriously considering the 18-140 but too many people disagree on getting such a long zoom lens. I just need to find some balance in there.

[dubaiphil]

I didn't get along with 35mm on crop either, but if I was going for 1 lens that's what I'd have on full frame.

It all depends on your style of shooting. 85mm on crop is hardly a walkaround lens and if space/weight were limited I'd sell. Ditto for the 35 if you're not getting along with it.

50mm, well if you like that focal length I'd keep it - one of the smallest of the bunch and useful for low light/portraits on the fly.

I'd stick with the 10-20 too.

I've got the 70-300 and rarely use it - i've taken it on many long trips with the best intention of using it but never really have that much. It just stays in my bag until the rare occasions that I'm shooting sports/aviation. It's a good value lens though, as long as it's the VR version. If it's the non VR I'd sell.

I'd see if you could get hold of a new or lightly used 24-70 though. Sure, it's a big lens and has no VR (as if that's really a problem!?!?!?!?), it's f2.8 and sharp sharp sharp. For my 3 lens travel set up on DX I used a Sigma 10-20, 24-70 and 70-300. That had everything covered. In reality the 24-70 hardly ever came off the camera though (and a vertical grip would be good to balance with the wieght)

[thequacksoflife]

I cant really think about things that I like to shoot more. I know things that I shoot less, which are sports, wildlife, macro.

I've already traveled quite a lot with my camera and Ive rarely needed the longer FL. 70-300 is getting dust. I'll go to Canada and later Europe.

if you don't like shoot wildlife/sports then I'd take the sigma 10-20 and 17-50. if you need a bit of reach take the 85 f1.8. Personally I don't see the point of buying another lens. if you want to spend money i'd buy a decent compact for those just in case moments!

I get the impression that setup would meet most of your needs?A travel zoom a is a compromise choice and your set up suggests you don't like compromises?

Curiously I'd disagree with Kathy about a telephoto lens in London when I'm there I invariably end up in Hyde or Regents park and am photographing birds Admittedly I don't often carry mine when I travel - being totally hypocritical I have a travel zoom that gets a fair amount of use when I travel abroad

[ajohnw]

I would forget the primes and take the zooms. 70-300mm often doesn't get used all that much but when it's needed there is no chance of a wide angle cropping or anything else to that sort of length. I have no problem at all using this focal length hand held with IS on. Even with it's slow m 4/3 equivalent where the pixel density is a lot higher then either crop or full frame.

I have tried a wide range zoom. Something I have always stayed away from. 4/3 this time 18-180mm. In it's day reviews rated it as good as they get and I doubt if much has changed. This is 36-360mm full frame and it will also focus to semi macro easily. Sounds wonderful but in real terms it's rather soft. I'd say ok for shots that finish up web sized but not for everything that might finish up in front of the lens. Size wise the fact that it reaches 180mm sets that. This sort of thing might be an option for what might be called general shots, buildings, people etc but expect to see the flaws at full resolution. The main thing that stuck me is that I could crop say 180mm shots out of good quality 90mm lens.

John
-

[aeon3]

I would forget the primes and take the zooms.
John
-

I get the impression that setup would meet most of your needs?A travel zoom a is a compromise choice and your set up suggests you don't like compromises?

That's the core issue I'm having right now. Given it's non-sense to have both 17-50 and 18-140, should I replace the 17-50 for a travel zoom, like the 18-140? I never really experienced that compromise. I started off with the 18-105, but at the time I knew zero about photography. Then I got the 17-50.

One solution would be: UWA, 18-140, macro 105mm and prime (probably 50mm as the 105mm is closer to the 85mm range).
Other idea would be: UWA, sigma 17-50, prime 85mm (as 50mm is covered by sigma) and macro for long range.

[thequacksoflife]

That's the core issue I'm having right now. Given it's non-sense to have both 17-50 and 18-140, should I replace the 17-50 for a travel zoom, like the 18-140? I never really experienced that compromise. I started off with the 18-105, but at the time I knew zero about photography. Then I got the 17-50.

One solution would be: UWA, 18-140, macro 105mm and prime (probably 50mm as the 105mm is closer to the 85mm range).
Other idea would be: UWA, sigma 17-50, prime 85mm (as 50mm is covered by sigma) and macro for long range.

My f2.8 zoom is better than my travel zoom but there are some times when I think the compromise of a longer focal range is appropriate.

my question would be why would you buy the 18-140 for travel if you don't use it now?? what is it giving you that you need?

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy it but ask yourself the why.

[aeon3]

My f2.8 zoom is better than my travel zoom but there are some times when I think the compromise of a longer focal range is appropriate.

my question would be why would you buy the 18-140 for travel if you don't use it now?? what is it giving you that you need?

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy it but ask yourself the why.

What do you mean by "if I dont use it now"? Are you talking about the long FL? If so, yeah, of course, sometimes I want to longer end but those time are rare. Especially when travelling, I miss the long range, but I just cant take the 17-50 and the 70-300 both along with me.

Id use the 18-140 exclusively for traveling and maybe outdoors all-rounder. 17-50 is a great all-rounder for night and indoors. Thinking straight I dont think I need to make that compromise, and having them overlap is not a big deal at all.

The last decision I gotta make is:

50mm prime + sigma 105mm macro 2.8
OR
60mm 2.8 macro + 85mm prime

[thequacksoflife]

What do you mean by "if I dont use it now"? Are you talking about the long FL? If so, yeah, of course, sometimes I want to longer end but those time are rare. Especially when travelling, I miss the long range, but I just cant take the 17-50 and the 70-300 both along with me.

Id use the 18-140 exclusively for traveling and maybe outdoors all-rounder. 17-50 is a great all-rounder for night and indoors. Thinking straight I dont think I need to make that compromise, and having them overlap is not a big deal at all.

The last decision I gotta make is:

50mm prime + sigma 105mm macro 2.8
OR
60mm 2.8 macro + 85mm prime

the overlap conclusion is one I came to a while back hence I have an f2.8 zoom and a travel zoom horses for courses..... when I say compromise I mean I'd suspect the 17-50 will be better optically.

[ajohnw]

That's the core issue I'm having right now. Given it's non-sense to have both 17-50 and 18-140, should I replace the 17-50 for a travel zoom, like the 18-140? I never really experienced that compromise. I started off with the 18-105, but at the time I knew zero about photography. Then I got the 17-50.

One solution would be: UWA, 18-140, macro 105mm and prime (probably 50mm as the 105mm is closer to the 85mm range).
Other idea would be: UWA, sigma 17-50, prime 85mm (as 50mm is covered by sigma) and macro for long range.

I assume we are talking Nikon crop lenses. I have the 18-105mm. Quality isn't bad but if say there was a dense flower bed in the corner of a shot and you looked at it full res you may not be pleased. Reduced to larger web size you would be unlikely to notice. 1200 px etc wide. I also had the short kit lens zoom. Hopeless in my opinion but it came with the 55-300mm in a D7000 kit, right price so sold it and replaced with the 18-105mm. I get the feeling that this is the best Nikon all round crop kit lens.

Another less obvious lens is the full frame 24-120mm. That gives you 36-180mm on crop which is a nice useful range for all sorts of things. It's effectively a full frame kit lens but most of the shortcoming are lost on a crop body. I have used canons 24-105mm on crop rather a lot. It's what I bought with my 300D as the crop lenses at the time were pretty limited. I found very little use for a wider lens. I pointed this out in another thread on here and some one found that a huge % of their shots were taken in this range. You could simply couple this with a wide angle zoom - the 17-50mm.

John
-

[ajohnw]

I should have mentioned the sigma full frame 24-105mm constant F4 as well. I'm not sure what I will be doing on crop as so far I am happy with m 4/3 but this would be the lens I would buy and use more or less as a body cap. Lenses are swings and round abouts but on balance as it stops at 105mm it's probably a better lens than the longer Nikon. Typical Sigma - very high central resolution. This is win win when full frame lenses are used on crop bodies.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Allan - the question may be down to what you are planning to do with the image that you capture. I'm starting to feel that you are overthinking this.

If you are planning to display them on a computer; I would not get too hung up on specific lenses, as the degree of enlargement will really not be an issue. If you are planning to make large prints, then you might start considering some higher end lenses; but smaller prints (anything up to say A3), you will be hard pressed to see significant difference in image quality between pro glass and amateur lenses if you are hand-holding your shots (which you have said you do). I do shoot a lot with a heavy-duty tripod and use pro glass, and yes, I can see a difference when I do large prints. In fact, I would suggest shooting with a tripod is going to do more for your image quality than anything else, but fully understand that this is not always a practical solution when on the road.

Software like Adobe Camera RAW or DxO Optics Pro do a wonderful job in correcting for lens "defects" (just make sure that the lens / camera combination you are looking at using are in their database). In normal lighting conditions, stop down a couple of stops and even the lower end lenses will give sparkling results. In poor lighting, often just getting the shot is going to be good.