Do I need another lens?

[scout1]

I live in northeastern Arizona and will be taking a trip to Canyon de Chelly in June. This will be a corporate trip through my wifes work and will include a jeep tour of the canyon. I'm trying to decide if I need a "travel" lens or not. I would like to minimize changing lenses as much as possible due to concerns over dust. I use a D300.

My current lenses are as follows:

70-200 VR f2.8, along with a Kenko 1.4 teleconvertor.
17-55 Af-S f2.8
35 f1.8
50 f1.8
85 f1.8

I'm trying to decide if the 17-55 will be enough lens with out the constant need to switch to my 70-200. One of the lenses that I am considering is the 18-200 variable aperture. Or possibly another zoom with a slightly shorter reach such as the 16-85 or 18-105. Should I just stick with my 17-55 and 70-200. Please give me your advice.

 

[Delsorbo]

what are you intending to shoot? 17-55 will cover the quite a range on a crop sensor.

 

[scout1]

what are you intending to shoot? 17-55 will cover the quite a range on a crop sensor.

I foresee shooting the various ruins the most. I just don't how close to them that I will be. And I don't want to hold up the group by always changing lenses. I suppose the with the quality of the 17-55 I could always crop after word.
What are your thoughts of the other zooms that I mentioned in my OP?

 

[CAJames]

I have the 18-200 and get nice shots with it but it is clearly in a different league than the 17-55 and 70-200. Maybe instead of buying another lens you should buy another body?

 

[vindex1963]

Buy another body :biggrin:

Body #1 17-55
Body #2 70-200

 

[Max Archer]

Haha, I've got the same thought about the second body as well.

In seriousness, the 17-55 and the 70-200 should work great. To minimize lens changing times, maybe you could get a waistpack-type bag for quick access?

 

[cbbr]

I have a 17-55, a 70-200 and a great copy of the 18-200 - I use the fast glass most of the time, bu I am never afraid of the 18-200 because I get some great shots with it. Its not quite up to the pro fast glass, but for 8 X 10's it is great IMO.

 

[scout1]

Yeah, this is driving me nuts. As a hobby I shoot mainly high school baseball. Obviously using my 70-200 with a teleconvertor. I'm so used to using long glass that I haven't used my 17-55 all that much. It has always seemed to me to be on the short side for a "general purpose or travel" lens. I like what I've read about the 16-85. But then I have the 17-55........oh crap!!

 

[iflynething]

Have you considered renting? With what you have, I wouldn't see a need to have another lens and I LOVE to spend other people's money!

If you don't want to go that route, then the 17-55 and 70-200 should do fine. Only take one, and you'll wish you had the other one, take 2 and you will only use one.

~Michael~

 

[Max Archer]

You know, I was thinking it about it, and actually a second body really might be a decent option. A refurb D90 is cheaper than most of the lenses you're looking at and doesn't take up any more room in the bag than one would. You could just keep the 17-55 mounted on the D90 in the bag and pull it out when needed, if you don't want to shoulder two cameras.

 

[iflynething]

You know, I was thinking it about it, and actually a second body really might be a decent option. A refurb D90 is cheaper than most of the lenses you're looking at and doesn't take up any more room in the bag than one would. You could just keep the 17-55 mounted on the D90 in the bag and pull it out when needed, if you don't want to shoulder two cameras.

He already has the lenses he mentioned...


Is another body in the budget though? Is a very viable option....hell, even renting another body, like a D90 would be good. Not only would you have a second body, it'd only be renting, so no wear and tear on your camera, you're out a couple hundred dollars, it's got video you could mess around with if needed....oh yeah....and similar performance to your D300, other than some weather sealing!

Sounds like a win win

www.prophotorental.com

^^^D300 body is roughly $100+- for a WEEK rental, D90 would be cheaper.

~Michael~

 

[lexdiamonnyc]

"Do I need another lens??"

asking that question in here is like asking a bunch of alcoholics if you should have another drink..........



of course you need a new "travel" lens!!!:biggrin:

 

[avyoung]

What about an ultrawide lens for travels?

 

[Delsorbo]

i'd say forget the extra body and just go with the 17-55 (but keep your 70-200 handy). enjoy your vacation and don't bog yourself down with all this stuff to carry.

 

[Dee200]

i'd say forget the extra body and just go with the 17-55 (but keep your 70-200 handy). enjoy your vacation and don't bog yourself down with all this stuff to carry.

Good advice. I would just take the 17-55 and enjoy the trip, you can always crop into a picture

 

[scout1]

i'd say forget the extra body and just go with the 17-55 (but keep your 70-200 handy). enjoy your vacation and don't bog yourself down with all this stuff to carry.

I'd say that this is the way that I am leaning. And even though I have the 17-55 I belive that I may pick up the 16-85 as a general use, keep on the body lens. Not necessarily for this trip but for future use. Thoughts?

My main concern is with the dust that will be kicked up by the jeeps. I foresee mounting the 17-55 and leaving it there. I will keep the 70-200 close at hand but only switching to it if truly needed.

 

[davidnholtjr]

IMO, big and heavy 2.8 lenses are not needed for where your going. I'm guessing most of the shots will be a f/8 or so. So i'd go for a 16-85 or 18-200.

 

[nuclearjock]

I live in northeastern Arizona and will be taking a trip to Canyon de Chelly in June. This will be a corporate trip through my wifes work and will include a jeep tour of the canyon. I'm trying to decide if I need a "travel" lens or not. I would like to minimize changing lenses as much as possible due to concerns over dust. I use a D300.

My current lenses are as follows:

70-200 VR f2.8, along with a Kenko 1.4 teleconvertor.
17-55 Af-S f2.8
35 f1.8
50 f1.8
85 f1.8

I'm trying to decide if the 17-55 will be enough lens with out the constant need to switch to my 70-200. One of the lenses that I am considering is the 18-200 variable aperture. Or possibly another zoom with a slightly shorter reach such as the 16-85 or 18-105. Should I just stick with my 17-55 and 70-200. Please give me your advice.

Based on your collection, you'll not be happy with the 18-200. Sorry. Sounds like you have everything you need. If you've
got some $$$, get the 24-70.

 

[NewBert]

Based on your collection, you'll not be happy with the 18-200. Sorry. Sounds like you have everything you need. If you've
got some $$$, get the 24-70.

...or the 24-120/f4?

 

[TetonTom]

Your thread just inspired me to go dig out my old Canyon de Chelly slides from my visit in 1995-ish. As I recall I made the trip with just a 50mm lens on my (FX) Pentax K1000, and I think I pretty much nailed most of the shots. I'm sure if I had to choose now, I'd rather have more lens on the wide side than on the tele side.
If I were going to go there again tomorrow with my D90, I'd probably take my 12-24 and my 50 1.4.
If I had your lenses I'd take your 17-55 and I think I'd be 100% content with it...