The “Week of Always Having The Wrong Lens” Lesson
Greetings, once again from the Frankfurt Airport—-I’m between flights again, but now I’m on my way back home.
This was an eye-opening trip for me in so many ways (which I kind of expected), but what I didn’t expect was how it would change my mind about how I shoot going forward. In a post earlier this week, I made a joke how this was the trip where I always had the wrong lens at the wrong time, but it wasn’t a joke—it was the one thing that marred an otherwise amazing experience.
The shot above (taken moments ago by Jeff Revell ) shows the inside of the LowePro Backpack camera bag I took with me (It’s an older model—I’m not even sure which one, but Jeff Revell had a newer LowePro backpack I like better).
Here’s a quick tour of the bag (From L to R).
- Top row: Monfrotto mini-tripod, and a hard-shell case for my memory cards. A Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle zoom, the double-battery charger that comes with the Nikon D3.
- Middle Row: Nikon D3 body with a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens attached; A canon closeup lens in a plastic case, and an Epson P-5000 photo viewer.
- Bottom Row: Another memory card case (soft sided), the di-GPS unit for Nikon cameras, and a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.
In the zipper compartments I had a 77mm polarizing filter, a neutral density gradient filter, and on the outside of the bag I had my Gitzo Traveler tripod with a Really Right Stuff BH-40 ballhead.
Here’s what you can’t see—the weight. All together, it weighs nearly 35 lbs. It’s OK when it’s on your back, but when it’s not, it really feels like a load (it was heavier than my luggage by far).
So, I had all this gear with me, but it was such a load, and so cumbersome, when I’d head out for a shoot on the beach, or in the desert, or I’m chasing camels around, I’d pick the a lens I thought I’d need for that shoot, and invariably—I was wrong. I’d be out there, and I’d think—”Rats, I wish I had my…..(fill in the blank),” but I wasn’t going to hike back through the desert to find our driver, switch lenses, and hike back out there in the desert heat. But it wasn’t just in the desert—-it was everywhere we went. So, sometimes, I’d bring the whole backpack, but that was even worse, and just switching my lens just became a hassle, so I’d wind up shooting with a lens I knew wasn’t the right one, but it was easier than switching.
Worse yet (and I’m not making this up), it appears my brother Jeff got a hernia lifting my camera bag. It’s not a joke—he’s in some serious pain.
I had just bought a Think Tank holster system, and I was really starting to think I should have brought it, but I’ve come to another decision that I know a lot of you are going to disagree with, for my summer trip to Italy—I’m just taking my D300 and one lens; my Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6mm (That’s a DX lens, so I won’t get the advantage of it with my D3, so I’d have to take my D300).
That way, I can take a tiny camera bag, one that weighs 8 lbs when fully loaded, and I will always have the lens I need (wide angle, portrait lens, 50mm length, or 200mm zoom).
I did this for my trip to Sweden in 2006, where I just took that one lens, and wound up getting some of my all-time favorite photos with that lens. As you might imagine, the photos are really important to me, but so is enjoying the trip. The frustration of hauling all this gear around, and never having the right lens when I didn’t, really put a damper on the whole trip. I fact, I had to return to shoot location, and miss shooting a beautiful Mosque, because I didn’t have the right lens the night before.
If I stick to my guns, and actually go to Italy with just the 18-200mm, I’ll be able to really compare the experience of always having the right lens, and traveling light, but the lens not being as fast as I’d like. There’s always a tradeoff, eh?
Anyway, the reason I’m posting this is because travel season is almost here, and I hope you’ll pause for a moment and consider really “going light” for your trip, and not bringing the photographic “kitchen sink.” Hey, it’s just a thought.
Now, if I could only get Nikon to make a 14-200mm f/2.8 then…… 
Hi Scott or whomever will address my question
I am curious what plugin or technique you use to get your pictures on your blog to grow bigger when we click on them?
Does anyone know the answer to my question?
Daniel,
Denmark
i just got back from a trip to Washington DC — and havent unpacked yet, so i thought I’d weigh my bag…. 18 lbs!
D300
70-200 2.8 VR
17-55 2.8 DX (I’m guessing a little lighter than the 24-70 FX)
12-24 4 DX (a whole lot lighter than the 14-24 2.8 FX)
85 1.4
SB-800
lowe pro mag II AW shoulder bag — allows quick lens changes without stopping.
light raincoat and a couple odds & ends.
yes, 18 lbs was heavy, but I had what I needed all the time. I never used the 85mm — but I used the other three a lot. Chargers and backup drives dont go in my camera bag - they go in my suitcase with my cell phone and Ipod charger. I don’t have an extra battery — I probably should have one.
The one thing I didn’t have was a light tripod. Wish I did.
I used to travel a D40 and a 18-200 and a SB-800. Just too many compromises in that setup for my taste.
I’d like to find a great backpack that carries that range of gear, plus a small laptop, but so far, no luck.
I’ll be interested to hear how that works for you. Currently the only lenses I have are the 18-200 and a 50mm 1.8 (not by choice, but switching platforms is costly), and I use a Tamrac Velocity 8x (I think it is the 8). That fits the camera and both lenses (in the center), SB600 on one side, and a collection of things (STO-FEN Omnibounces in white, green and orange, extra battery, charger and cord, hood for the 18-200) in the third bay. Filters, Memory cards (only a couple for me, so very small case), lens cloths go in the front pocket and everythign is right there and mostly handy (OK, only thing handy to get to in the third bay is the hood and white Omnibounce, but those are usually what I’m reacing for).
Scott,
I’m laughing at reading this post because I’ve just re-discovered my 18-200 this past weekend. I went to shoot some Hot Air Balloons launching Saturday morning. I had no idea what to take, but I wanted to be minimalist. So as I was heading out I took my D200 and the 18-200. I’m glad I did. Early morning I could have used the faster 2.8 glass, but that would have required bring a bag that I didn’t want to lug around all day (weather hinted of warming up). Luckily there wasn’t much going on early morning so I didn’t miss much.
New rule for myself is – if I’m taking shots outside and I don’t know what I’ll need, I’m taking the 18-200. I’ll leave the faster glass for sports, inside and weddings.
It
It’s all too easy to forget, that unless your shooting a professional assignment, it’s quite acceptable to occasionally let the shot that requires a 200mm or 14mm get away.
Remember the days of walking around with just Hasselblad or Rollei and 80mm lens. That 3lb camera has gone from being a heavy weight to a lightweight.
“Nothing more than necessary, nothing less than adequate.”
I personally wouldn’t make that much of a sacrifice. You can dial it down a notch… But not that much quality sacrifice.
Have you checked out Billingham camera bags. I think they are the best for personal travel purposes…
Best wishes,
Carlo M
PS You never said your Gitzo Traveller was the Titanium Anniversary edition. NICE!
Tank Speed Racer! I carried the same equipment that you have in your bag (except I have a D200) for three months through Southeast Asia and Africa. Its a waist bag, therefore no weight on your shoulders, it is easy to spin around and change lenses. I put the entire rig into a wheeled carry on for the airports. Easy. The only draw back is that it can be a bit clumsy in crowded markets.
Scott:
1. Thanks for the “lessons learned” post.
2. While hiking at Mt Rainier this past weekend, I had some similar thoughts in regards to ultimate technical quality / specs vs pragmatism. I’m into hiking, the more weight I have to carry, the more laborious the hiking is going to be, the less likely I’m going to be able to go far and high etc…
3. As a Contax shooter for many years and now Sony, I’ve been waiting for the new full frame Sony. However with the likely large size of the body along with the hefty Carl Zeiss lens, I’m wondering if I’d be better off APS-C Sony SLRs etc… There’s no right or wrong answer, but for me–> if I’m not going to shoot as much d/t weight / hassles of carrying a load, then what’s the point? On the otherhand, in the olden days, I used to carry two Contax bodies (color and black white), 4+ lens, a Noblex and Xpan. Perhaps the answer for me is to… work out a little more.
Take care. Harry
Won’t get any arguments from me! Only lens I own so far is the 18-200mm VR as budget demanded I make a practical choice as a starting point. Besides, a person’s back doesn’t retain strength it enjoyed in youth, so it’s not a bad idea to give one a break anyhow. Oh the irony and pun of it all! :^D
Right lens or not Scott, your photos turned out fabulous and I’m glad you had a great trip with family and friends. Wouldn’t mind being you if only I could keep up… with all that energy you seem to have. Welcome home, enjoy resting up & recharging, thanks for sharing and all the updates.
The 18-200 is a great lens for what it does and deserves a better reputation. I’ve also traveled around with lots of glass and I’ve learned that less can be more. It just makes you more creative.
Hi Scott,
It’s always a tough call when travelling. I wish Canon had a lens of the quality of the 18-200VR. I have the Sigma 18-200, but it’s a bit soft and I rarely use it these days.
A few have mentioned this, but think seriously about adding the 50 1.8 (or better yet the 1.4) or as you’ve a crop body, the Sigma 30 f1.4 might be a better bet (giving you 45mm field of view comparable to a 50mm on the D3).
Right now, I’d probably bring the 17-85 IS, Sigma 10-20 and a 50mm 1.8 and forgo the length (Like I said Canon has nothing in the 18-200 range). There’s very little weight in it.
The P5000 is good to have anyway because even with large CF cards, you don’t want to have only 1 copy of the image. People forget how important that is.
Loved the Dubai shots. Hope the hobbling around ends soon for ya.
Sean.
And that 14-200 2.8 lens should be very lightweight as well. We can dream.
Hi Scott.
First up, great site you have here. Been reading for a few months now.
Anyway, onto the topic. I agree with the travel-as-ligth-as-possible idea. I recently returned from Nepal and India where I was trekking to Everest Base Camp among other places so weight was critical. I only took my 18-200mm VR and my D80 with 6 memory cards and 6 batteries. Worked a treat. As most of the shots I was taking we landscapes, f/3.5 wasn’t a problem, and the ability to go to 200mm came in very handy too.
I recommend a Canon G9 for daytime use.
If you don’t like the look of G9 portraits because of the shallow DOF, then a G9 plus a small DSLR like an Olympus E-420 with the 50mm F2.0 macro/portrait lens.
Amen Scott. On the Canon side, the 24-105 f4 IS is a great travel lens to go light with a 5D or crop body (although I like the 24-70 f2.8 when I’m close to home). As others have noted, a good small camera is often even better to enjoy the trip - and the infinite dof can be really nice in travel photography and even an advantage over an SLR (and of course having a camera with you at all is pretty key to getting a capture). On the issue of lugging gear generally - I’ve been surprised to see you lug so much in the way of lighting with a tethered lap top - the recent bridal shots - the Reggie two wireless strobes on a stand / umbrella combo method has struck me as the most needed for excellent results, but of course to each his own.
I know how to lighten your load, perhaps if I read where you are going next and pick it up from the luggage carousel for you, then no more carrying pains! Bottom line, I want your gear.
Shoot with a Rangefinder.
I know, it’s a flip comment, and I mean it tongue-in-cheek. But the truth is that I can fit two bodies and four lenses in the space of medium purse. I use the small LowePro SlingBag and STILL have room for a charger and all my spare cards and batteries.
Digital rangefinders are not exactly resurgent. They are hard to use, they don’t zoom, they don’t auto-focus, and the only one currently in production (the Leica M8) is very expensive… but they are a joy for travel.
Last summer I spent two months in Europe with Wife, Two Kids and a D40 with kit lens (18mm-55mm) and a lightweight zoom (55mm-200mm VR) and it worked great. Rarely used the zoom except for candids.
Much more useful though was a good flash (a Vivitar clone of the SB-600 which is 100 grams lighter than the SB). Every gram counts when you are Eurailing, even first class — there are no porters in Europe!
Being able to take family portraits in the middle of Piazza San Marco with properly lit faces regardless of the sun direction was fantastic. The sun at mid day in Italy is BRIGHT and with tourists/monuments you don’t always get to choose the right angle with sun behind you that you might wish.
Remember it will be a holiday so you will be shooting family at noon, not being inside a conference room.
I do wish I’d taken my 50mm f1.8 for cathedrals and such.
I simply can’t imagin you (Scott) coming the whole way down to this section of the comments (nr 71 already)… !-)
But I’m sure that you’ve already read David Hobby’s latest posting on his blog (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-assignment-par-for-course.html), which by coinsidence (although the mantra “less gear,…” comes to mind here) handels on using even smaller gear!
In all fearness: he’s using this kit to take a professional portrait and not an epic picture of the Vatican
less gear, more brain, better pictures!
(repeat after me:)
less gear, more brain,…
Hey Scott,
Great post and really do sympathize with your bro.
And I think its a great choice you are making for your Italy trip. But I do have one question - I read somewhere that the D3 has a DX mode for use with DX lenses, ie, only the pixels in that area of the sensor will appear in the image (which will mean lesser megapixels). So why dont you take the D3 itself and make use of all its other advantages with a small compromise on the size of the pics?
Cheers,
Deepak.
Hey Scott,
Nice to hear how others deal with this. I just came back from a cruise. I carried my D300 along with my 18 - 200 (do everything) and my 50 1.4 prime. I knew I’d be taking shots in the evening in San Juan, so the 50 worked out terrifically. I used the 18 - 200 for everything else. I carried them in my ThinkTank backpack along with my laptop. I wrapped them rather than using dividers so I still had room for books, sunglasses, iPod,and a jacket in the pack. I of course carried the requisite polarizing filter and the necessary chargers for everything. I even had room to pick up another lense while on the trip.
Take care,
Randy
I tried a new method on the vacation we took last month. We took a cruise, so my shooting would be done primarily on the shore excursion days. I packed a fair bit of stuff in my Think Tank Airport Antidote. In one of the suitcases, I packed my Think Tank Urban Disguise bag. When I’d go out to shoot, I typically took my 30D with 24-105, 10-22, 70-200 and my lensbaby in the Urban Disguse. The bag also had room for my wife’s small camcorder. This let me carry a fair amount of gear, like my laptop, but only have to carry a small bag to go shoot with. I locked the big bag up in the room with a PacSafe wrap and felt pretty confident about leaving it there when I was off the ship. So many toys, so many choices huh?
The whole wrong lens, wrong gear thing could be just jet lag.
With all your money hire an assistant.
Wow, did you strike a nerve!
I must mention, I just completed my semi-annual angel’s landing hike in Zion NP with a D3, 12-24, 70-200, my 50mm and water. Not bragging, actually pointing out how silly I felt with all that gear and the tripod. However, it was great conditioning for the many hikes I plan to enjoy this summer, and the panos certainly turn out better. I wish I could give into the 18-200 solution. Perhaps, I think this means that I need to spend more money on learning how to shoot instead of placing importance on the greatest gear. There is certainly a personal balancing act that needs to be performed. Could you post a link to that Nikkor 14-200 2.8 lens? Just Kidding…
Hi Scott
Got a couple of your books and their great. Like everybody I’m in the same boat. I’m leaving for a month family vacation July-Aug. And with so many lens which to bring?? My 2 week trip last year was with the D200, 18-200 VR and it was great. But since I have a bit more glass and out for a month not sure what to do. The lens I’d like to bring are the 18-200VR, 28-80 f/2.8, and 12-24 f/4. But maybe substitute the 28-80 for my 30 f/1.4? Don’t know yet. Any input would be appreciated.
Scott:
If you really go to Italy with a D300 and just the 18-200mm VR consider taking along the 12-24mm DX or your faster new 14-24mm f2.8 in order to add more wide angle capability.
Actually, for years before I went digital I used to travel with two small light Pentax cameras, one with a 50mm f2 lens and the other with a sigma 24mm f2. Shooting with primes gives great quality and it also taught me a lot about the perspectives and characteristics of them both. It certainly improved my eye for a photo, and I used Delta 400 which combined with the slow shutter speeds required for sharp pictures with the 24mm lens meant I could take photos when it was nearly dark without a tripod. Occasionally I did feel the need for a short telephoto but those two lenses pretty much covered all my needs and the cameras were light to carry and unobtrusive. Now I shoot digital with pro quality zoom lenses, but I miss those two simple primes (I sold them with my film cameras some time ago).