Photoshop Insider

The “Week of Always Having The Wrong Lens” Lesson

By Scott on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am | updates.

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……

Comment form for this post

^#1

Hi Scott.

Sorry to hear about your weight load troubles, maybe you should go for a Canon IXUS for the holydays… Just kidding, have a safe trip back to “over there” (as here from Denmark).

Regards Peter

Guttormsen on April 15th, 2008 at 5:23 am

^#2

One of the things I like about your blog is how down to earth you keep things Scott. This sounds like something me or any of my friends would experience over the course of a shoot (I’ve experienced the same myself on an occasion or two.) While the humor of it definitely shines through, there’s always something of value that I walk away with in the way of education. Of course for me it’s not as much of a problem as I only have three lenses, but I get the gist…because often times I’ve left a lens behind (since it’s too heavy) and later wished I had it. They say the best lens to have is the one in your bag…and it does look like you got some good shots out of what you had. Thanks again for all you do - keep up the great work!

Jason on April 15th, 2008 at 5:31 am

^#3

Hi again….

Well actually I’m not kidding that much. I have had the same trouble on my last summer holidays. I’m a Canon shooter; I have winded my daily vacations photo arsenal down to my EOS 30D, a EF-S 10-22 mm. (due to the 1.6 x crop factor) and a and a EF 24-105 L-lens, and in the winter going skiing I actually bring my Canon IXUS in my pocket :). This is a small but very capable camera…

Guttormsen on April 15th, 2008 at 5:35 am

^#4

I think you’re making a good decision regarding your vacation packing this time around. I took my Think Tank Photo Urban Disguise 60 to Florida in February, and my dear husband picked it up once and made a snarky comment about the weight of the bag. For that trip, I packed “light” - on camera body (5D), one flash (580 EX) and one lens (Tamron 28-300 3.5-5.6), but I still had the weight of my laptop to deal with. By “limiting” myself to one lens, I still got the shots I wanted and wasn’t overburdened while chasing a 7 year old and a 41 year old through Disney.

Your post reminds me, I do need to order the back harness for my bag before I go to Minnesota in August.

Liz Ellingwood on April 15th, 2008 at 5:40 am

^#5

You know if you actually had 14-200mm f/2.8 (that Nikon made) it would probably weigh the same as those three lenses! Fast glass or weight… can’t have both at least right now!

Great post Scott!

Mike Mahaffey on April 15th, 2008 at 5:45 am

^#6

Hi
Ok, we need to clear thing a little bit hear, don not take my words as a negative side i consider you as my mentor and i always follow your instructions but….
I side before that you like shoulder bag batter then the back bag and why you use the mini tripod it can not hold the D3 and the 70-200 with the canon lens on it if you want to take a photo for from a table, and you changes your others lens so what about your prevues lens you recommend before like the 50 mm 1.8 and what about the SB-800 you did not take it with you, i am a little confuse right know, so can you please clear this matter for me, i am sorry for any word my look not in the right way but i write this from the respect i have for you….
Regards

Esam Kabli on April 15th, 2008 at 5:51 am

^#7

Hi Scott,

Glad to see you spelt Frankfurt correctly this time around If you’re in Italy the same time as me (September) I’ll buy you a beer (German) - I’ll just keep an eye out for the guy looking like a hunch back carrying all that gear. Oh dear, oh dear Scott - have you considered a Lowepro Slingshot 200 or 300? With these babies you get the advantage of lugging your gear around on your back i.e. rucksack style, but can sling it around to the front and have access to your gear at a moments notice. As the English say, it’s got to be the best thing since sliced bread but I just prefer to say that it’s got to have been one of my better purchases. Enjoy the rest of your journey.

ElliR on April 15th, 2008 at 6:04 am

^#8

Funny I was going to ask on your last post why you weren’t using the 18-200 - anywhere I am near sand that goes on the camera and stays there.

I am off to Orlando (from Scotland) on Friday for a week and have similarly resolved to pack lighter than I did last time - mainly because I want to bring more stuff back with me So I’m restricting myself to the 18-200 and my Sigma 10-20mm.

Perhaps we could trade - I’ll give you my really lightweight D200 for your ultra heavy D3 and save you a hernia in the process?

Hutch on April 15th, 2008 at 6:16 am

^#9

Epson P-5000, tell us more about your experience with this item?
thanks

Jon Rune on April 15th, 2008 at 6:22 am

^#10

Scott,

The solution you’ve decided on for your next trip has been my all-time favorite solution for all my vacations. I use the D200 w/ the 18-200 mm combination and have never needed another lens. I second your request for Nikon to make a 14-200 mm lens, even if it would weigh around 15 pounds LOL

James on April 15th, 2008 at 6:24 am

^#11

Hi Scott,

Sorry to hear about your camera travel problems but it’s nice to hear that you pro’s have these problems as well!

Just got back from a 4 day trip to Spain and had my D300 with my 18-200mm lens and also my Sigma 10-20mm (like Hutch) and found this combo very easy to carry around in my Tamrac Velocity 7 shoulder bag. It’s out of the way when you’re walking around and you’re not sweating like a trojan in the hot weather.

Great blog.

James Walker on April 15th, 2008 at 6:50 am

^#12

hey Scott - that is some funny stuff bro ! Stay healthy now.
I carry two bodies and bite thru the pain on long hikes. D300 with the 70-200 and D200 with 24-120 - Of course I will pass the D200 for the D3 incase you need to lighten the load -some already beat me to it !!
As for my bag - I customized a Rugby Bag i picked up in Ireland and it works great.
thanks again Scott

arun

Arun on April 15th, 2008 at 7:03 am

^#13

Scott,

I travel light most of the time. I use my D300 with the 18-200 that you mention. I carry this in a Think Tank Speed Demon Waist Pack. Traveling light makes things much easier to deal with.

Mark

Mark on April 15th, 2008 at 7:18 am

^#14

Scotty…there is another way…full time fetcher…assistant if you will…all the “Big” photographers have them…and you my Blurry friend are bigger than big….He/she is there 24/7 at your beck and call…think about it, now you can bring all your gear…every single thing you have…they will pack it all for you of course…and it will be available when you need it…they could even address you as Sir Scotty…perfect!

Ned Leary on April 15th, 2008 at 7:54 am

^#15

Scott -

Sorry to hear about your weight problem, particularly when you’ve solved your other weight problem with such style and grace. I hope your brother has recovered.

Years ago I reached the same conclusion as you have: less is more. I’ve even gone so far as to pare down to a light weight D40x body with an 18-200 VR lens always attached to it. And for a backup I carry a tiny little Panasonic LX2.

I’ve been a documentary photographer for many years, and always pay careful attention when printing my images, and I can assure you that this “entry level” camera body married to this great Nikon lens provides files that are up to virtually anything I require of them. Ditto for the LX2.

Also, I carry an Epson P-3000, but not in my camera bag - and I’m thinking seriously of switching to a Hyperdrive ColorSpace O: a lot smaller, considerably tougher, comes with up to a 250 GB hard drive, and is a good deal less expensive than the Epsons - check it out.

You can see a large selection of my images (all shot while carrying minimal gear) at .

Rodger Kingston

Rodger Kingston on April 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am

^#16

Hi Scott,

Having just got back from a photo shoot in Gibraltar (my first commissioned job abroad) I sympathize with you. I guess going away for pleasure rather than business is going to be considerably different as I wouldn’t want to travel for a portrait shoot without my fast lenses.

Out of interest, as you do a considerable amount of travelling with your kit, what have you found is the best equipment (bags / cases etc) to use … and I mean in a professional capacity going on a shoot?

Obviously keeping your camera bodies and lenses with you as hand luggage is a MUST so what would you use for that and also when it comes to bringing along your tripod etc, do you just fit that in your case along with your clothing etc?

There’s no doubt lots of different pieces of kit that people use and have found suits them when travelling but it would be great to get a discussion going on this to maybe come up with a suggested travel guide ..one for leisure purposes and one for business.

Great blog as always,
All the best to you and yours,
Glyn

Glyn Dewis on April 15th, 2008 at 8:20 am

^#17

Scott

Two years ago we spent 3 weeks between Paris and Italy, I elected to take my D200 and a new 18-200 lens and that was all. I was quite concerned as I normally hefted around a Lowepro similar to yours but with a D2X. The light weight combination actually worked out better, as you can imagine you are moving a lot and quickly (often times around massive crowds) and the D200 probably opened up opportunities I would have missed if I had more “stuff”. In the end the 18-200 provided many wonderful images and memories as well as a great trip. I have not had any regrets.

Mike

Mike Field on April 15th, 2008 at 8:37 am

^#18

Hey Scott,

Even if you didn’t have the right lens, you still took awesome shots! Just a quick question, if you wanted to take your 18-200 with you, are you sacrificing the image quality or at least the sharpness that you get compared with the fast lens (e.g. 24-70 f2.8)?

Mike

Mike Lao on April 15th, 2008 at 8:40 am

^#19

I had the same problem a few years back traveling around Europe… too much gear… too many lenses and always the wrong lens. On my last trip to Marrocco I only took a 24 - 105 on a 5D… plus my trusty 70-200 2.8 non IS. I ended up with a huge number of keepers.

Why? Because I spend my time making due with what I had. In addition, the 70-200 fit into a little bum bag I had brought along. I think I used the 24-105 about 95% of the time. In the desert I didn’t even contemplate removing the lens from the body. Just looking at the amount of fine dust which had accumulated on the outside of the lens and camera body I didn’t dare to detach the lens.

I think this is essentially where Canon has the upper hand compared to Nikon. The 5D in my opinion is the perfect travel camera… light enough to be carried anywhere and enough resolution to make large prints. The 24-105 lens seems to be the perfect combo for this camera as well.

The only concern I would have with the 18-200 3.5-5.6 on a D300 is that it’s not wide enough on the low end and too slow on the top end.

tom on April 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am

^#20

Thanks for this post which is pertinent to all of us from time to time: bring the system and suffer (and possibly get a hernia), or go light. The crux of the question for me is that stated above by Mike Lao, and it’s so important I want to repeat it and ask for your considered opinion: what do you give up in image quality with the 18 - 200? (I know you’re giving up speed, but how about image quality at f 5.6?) I shot a 10 day photosafari to Kenya in Sept with a D2X with Nikkor 200 - 400 VR, plus or minus 1.7X teleconverter, and a D200 with 18 - 200 for closer creatures and did not find a difference in image quality. I’m not making 36 inch enlargements, though. I’ve shot test images in my back yard (fertilizer bags are great targets) with those lenses and my 80 - 200, and they’re all comparable at 200mm and f 5.6, although the 18 - 200 isn’t quite as sharp and contrasty. Do you find a real-world difference?
P.S. Where’s the flash in the bag?

Paul Barcewicz on April 15th, 2008 at 9:22 am

^#21

Hi all,

Life is a compromise. Photography is no different. I’ve experienced both sides of this debate and often found myself either complaining about how much gear I was lugging around or about not having the lens I wanted. I think my wife quickly tires of each.

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to this debate. Obviously it depends a lot on your personal preference, but I think another huge factor is location and your travel itinerary. I’ll often lug a jam packed Lowe Pro bag (looks much like Scott’s only not quite as much cool stuff) if I’m going to a familiar location or if I know I’ll have a good home base to stash my bag and some of my equipment. If I’m not as familiar with the location or know I’m going to be on the go a ton then I’ll often employ the travel light plan. There have even been times when I’ve taken no gear and settled for my wife’s point and shoot pocket sized camera (the horror!). Okay, unacceptable for certain situations and locations, but rather handy when trying to take a quick couple of photos of your son eating cheerios.

And if you do travel with all your gear you’l feel a lot better about stashing it somewhere if you have it insured. For about $100 a year I sleep a lot better. Actually, I need to follow my own advice and go update the gear on my policy I think.

As for which gear to take when you travel light that’s simply a matter of personal preference. The only advice I’d give is once the decision is made be happy with it and make the most of it.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for sharing yours.

Cheers,
Greg

Greg Radcliffe on April 15th, 2008 at 9:28 am

^#22

Hi Scott!

I feel your pain! I’m planning a trip this summer and I have been thinking about what I would do. I have been trying out ThinkTank’s belt system that Ben Willmore hooked me up with. So far, so good. I was going to put my system in ThinkTank’s Airport Antidote and pack the belt system in my luggage. I thought that I could load up the belt before I went out for the day. You’re right about the weight though. I thought that might be the burden of getting good shots! Last year, I took a smaller point and shoot. I was surprised at how well it did! It covered the various ranges that I would have had using the Nikon lenses without changing any lenses. Please keep us posted as to what you end up going with.

Thanks!

Larry

Larry Loar on April 15th, 2008 at 9:37 am

^#23

Hi Scott,
First, I wish you safe travels to your home.
Second, I laugh at your situation b/c of how true it is for so many people. Several people have already stated this, but here is one of the most optimal solutions for travel:
TRAVEL SUPER LIGHT SO YOU CAN ENJOY THE TRIP!!!

This actually means pack the lightest camera you can i.e. the Canon Rebel XTi, Nikon D40, or similar. Grab the tiny lens that’s one step up from the kit lens i.e. the one with IS or VR, and take the shirt pocket point and shoot digicam a la the Canon SD750 or similar.

Working with the rule that the best camera in the workd is the one you have with you, these small cameras will bring joy to your life and to your travels, and will take amazing shots. Nobody will know that you were using a point and shoot if you don’t tell them. I know that is heresy, but it’s true.

The heavy artilery still has its place, but traveling might not be the place for it.
Thanks as always for your fantastic blog.
-Mark

Mark on April 15th, 2008 at 9:37 am

^#24

I couldn’t agree with you more Scott. I have the Nikon D2X and a D80. More times than I care to mention I grab the D80 and my 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6mm lens, simply because of the weight factor.

Ed Ganze on April 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am

^#25

Hi Scott!

I spent four days in Rome and had only the 18-200mm lens. And i loved the lightness. The sharpness isn’t the state-of-art, but hey, it’s a holiday! Though, next time I would take one more lens with me, and that would be 50mm/1.4 or maybe wider prime lens. It would work better than 18-200mm in cathedrals, museums and indoors in general.

Have a pleasant holiday! Italy rocks!

Cheers,
Perttu

perttu on April 15th, 2008 at 9:42 am

^#26

Hi Scott!

Enjoyed today’s entry, but I do feel your pain. Have you considered getting an Olympus E-420 with the two excellent kit lenses Oly offers? The 14-42 and 40-150 are truly excellent for their price. Also, Oly just released a 14mm (28mm in 35 mm terms) f2.8 pancake lens. This gear would be so light and easily managable. Just a thought. Visit our website if you get a chance and sign our guestbook if you wish.

Tommy

Tom on April 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am

^#27

Scott I agree with Ellir, you should look into the Lowepro SlingShot line. I have something similar (older) from Tamrac (Velocity 9) but really like the design and build of the Lowepro. They look small, but you can fit a lot of stuff in them, and have easy access. Just fling it around to the front, and your camera is right there ready to be pulled out and fire! What makes these really nice on vacation or walking around a lot is the waist belt strap…it really takes the weight off your shoulders and balances the bag so it’s effortless to carry. I usually have my body, 70-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 16-35mm 2.8 and it’s nothing to carry around for the day.

Tyson Hofsommer on April 15th, 2008 at 9:47 am

^#28

Well Scott,
I suppose you can leave the D3 with me, its ok it wouldn’t be too much of a trouble looking after it, after all thats what friends are for

Nathan Terry on April 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am

^#29

I’m relieved to find that I’m not the only one who complains about the weight, even if only to myself. Some folks like to whine about my 18-200, but I’ve got some nice shots from it. I understand its strengths and weaknesses and just try to work within those limits.

Maybe one day I’ll be able to afford a Sherpa to carry my gear and then I’ll always have the perfect lens at my disposal.

William Beem on April 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am

^#30

Hello Scott and the rest of the gang -

After a grueling trip through the desert in Escalante NM, with too much gear, last spring I sold all 6 of my good Canon lenses and bought an 18-200 Tamron. I have not been disappointed.

I frequently travel with other photogs (pros and serious amateurs) and I see how they struggle with their “everything but the kitchen sink” approach. Size, weight and the interruption of switching lenses constantly can really diminish the fun - and quality of vision - otherwise found in more a “fluid” method of photography. The truth is that carrying too much gear can get in the way of good photography.

I’m reminded of exceptional photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson who did not need a slew of lenses to make great photographs in a wide variety of situations.

IMHO, photography is about expressing YOUR vision - not the vision of the lens. The more you can do, with less equipment, the better your images are likely to become.

And I don’t know who said it but “the best zoom lens is your feet”…

Obviously this doesn’t account for all kinds of subjects/situations. If you’re on safari shooting lions and cheetahs, 200mm just won’t do. If you’re shooting architecture, you really need a tilt-shift lens. Etc. (So maybe that’s your one lens?)

Except for these kinds of specialized situations, it’s been my experience that using one main lens 95% of the time actually makes photography more fun and productive.

On the note of camera bags/pack systems - I don’t like to stand out in a crowd when I am traveling with my gear. With my minimal setup of camera body, 1 lens, and a few accessories, I can fit everything comfortably inside a standard small backpack (not a dedicated camera bag). I’m hoping this diverts attention and interest from the valuable items within.

I’ve taught many photography workshops in the field. From working with my students I’d like to suggest this - whatever your preferences are in the matter of “what to take with you” I’d suggest that you at least try a minimalist approach a few times, in different situations. And if you choose to take a lot of gear, just evaluate each item truthfully and identify your real need to have it. Maybe you don’t.

And if you’re out shooting and don’t have the right lens for a specific composition, do something different! Great photographs are all around.

Happy shooting everyone!

PS - you can see recent examples of shots made with my simple rig here:
http://nathanielcoalson.com/photographs/maine_fall_2007/

and here:

http://natcoalson.com/WA_2008_April/

Salute-
Nat Coalson
Conifer, Colorado

Nat Coalson on April 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am

^#31

I’m planning to make the D300 and 18-200 my travel kit as well with only one other addition. the Nikon 10.5 fisheye, which will fit easily in a small bag or pocket of a photo vest.

Rick Moore on April 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am

^#32

Scott, I also enjoyed today’s discussion. I do primarily travel photography. The battle is on-going about which lenses and cameras to carry with not only weight in mind, but also security since we are usually in and out of cars with our equipment. We just got back from a trip to the Texas Hil Country. I only took my Nikon D200 with a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 and a brand new Canon G-9 (6X optical) point and shoot. I came back with some great photos. But every trip becomes a new adventure. We are traveling to the Galapagos in May. I am still contemplating what I will bring. I am thinking about a heavier bag with a wide angle (12-24mm), an 18-200mm and my 80-400mm VR (all Nikon) in a Lowepro Mini Trekker and Slik 813CF tripod with an Acratech head. I have a Nikon 200-400mm VR lens back ordered, but I think that this will be too much to carry for this trip?

Dave Hutchinson on April 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am

^#33

I think you need to get a photo caddy for your next trip!! I’ll volunteer!

Cheers,
Laurel

Laurel on April 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am

^#34

Scott, there’s only one thing wrong with your plan to use just the 18-200mm: like almost all “superzooms” it isn’t really 200mm at the focus distances you’re most likely to use it at. Indeed, it’s really about 135mm at many mid-range focus distances. Thus, you won’t have the reach you think you should have. A better choice would be a two lens kit: 16-85mm VR and 55-200mm VR. Not only does this give you a “real” 200mm, but it also gets you a critical extra 2mm at the wide end, getting you to the 24mm equivalent mark. The 55-200mm is small enough to fit in a big pocket.

Thom Hogan on April 15th, 2008 at 10:59 am

^#35

I recently spent a couple of days in New York shooting Bob Weir and RatDog at the Beacon Theatre. I also took advantage of the trip to shoot some photos for my new book on the Sony A200. I made the conscious decision one day to shoot as I would if I was buying the A200 as a first camera. I walked around the city with the A200 and a 18-200mm lens and a flash. Thats it. It was quite liberating. It was very different from walking around with the A200, a Nikon D2x, the 18-200mm, a 50mm, the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye, the Nikkor 17-55mm and a Nikkor 70-200mm.

While having the fisheye gave me some great shots on the Brooklyn Bridge, the A200 with the 18-200 lens worked great as an all purpose lens, and could fit into a small waist pack. I use a Lowepro Photo Runner and it works great for this. (http://products.lowepro.com/product/Photo-Runner,1991,7.htm)

Alan Hess on April 15th, 2008 at 11:16 am

^#36

Scott, good for you. It’s what I have done for a while and haven’t regretted it once!

Ron Perry on April 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am

^#37

Scott - thanks for this article. Your timing is great - I am going to Italy and France in May and have been trying to decide what to take. I’m going with your suggestion of the D300 with the 18-200 lens.

I’ve been trying to figure out how to avoid taking my computer but haven’t worked that out. I only need it for clearing my photo cards. Then I also carry a small external hard drive to back it up. Any suggestions for an alternative that doesn’t cost a fortune?

Barrie Brewer on April 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am

^#38

The Slingshot 200AW bag works well as long as you don’t over fill it. It’ll take a D200 with 18-200 and either side two other small lenses (Note small - wide diameter lenses just fit but the one closest to the bottom of the bag could suffer impact damage). Stuff it with a 70-200 and you can take a couple of other lenses but without any attached to the body and the bag bulging to being overfilled. Another note is the weight distribution. Carry very little and its fine but fully loaded and it may cause back ache over a long period of time because of the weight being distributed across a single shoulder.

Rich T on April 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am

^#39

Scott

It looks like you didn’t follow your own advise offered in your second book on digital photography - travel with a minimum amount of gear! I took your advice and purchased a 18- 200 mm lense for my Canon 40D just for travel. I had to buy a Sigma lense since Canon does not make a lense with that range. I am happy with purchase and no back problems associated with heavy gear.
Love your books and blog.

Tom

Tom Klingele on April 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am

^#40

Scott, buddy,
Glad you had a great trip and I couldn’t agree with you more! When I only want to/or am only able to take ONE lens on a trip it’s the Nikon 18-200mm. I can actually fit my D300 and 18-220mm lens (separately) in my computer bag. That plus the GPS for the Nikon and an SB800 and I’m set for “most” situations.

Terry White on April 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am

^#41

Scott:

I have done just that. I take my D300 with the 18-200VR everywhere. I sometimes with take a fisheye to mix it up, and have been very happy with the results. Throw in a few screw on filters, and I am ready to roll……

Mel Carll on April 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

^#42

Scott,

I think you could’ve saved yourself a fair bit of weight by:

a) swapping the D3 for a D300
b) leaving out the Epson unit and taking large CF cards instead
c) swapping the D3 batteries and charger for 2 D300 batteries (which are small, light and last for ages)
d) leaving out the table top tripod
e) taking the 17-55mm and 70-200mm

Job done. You’re down to 2 top quality lenses which are fast and sharp and have a lighter kit to boot.

Cheers
Nas

Nasir Hamid on April 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

^#43

YES!! just got back from shoot NYC to LA to NYC in a weekend. this time I tried a Crumpler for the D3 plus the same lenses you carried. For some reason all I could think of is that when I head to Paris for a week’s vacation I’m just going to take a D300 and the 18-200VR! I’ve done this before and after this recent working trip I now know I’m SURE I’m only taking the D300 and the 18-200. Well, maybe the 12-24, too.

Jim Cutler on April 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

^#44

18-200… and a 50mm - don’t forget to toss in that cheap-plastic-weighs nothing-optically brilliant 50mm (1.8 or 1.4)

dave d on April 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

^#45

Haven’t read all the comments, but I see dave d wrote just what I was going to say. I still have a D200 but love the 18-200 lense. It is a great one lense. I added a 50 1.8 (cheap too!) for low light, and between the 2 of them and moving around a bit, I can usually shoot whatever I need when running around with a small bag. (use WHEELED think tank for work). If I really want to get good shots of people/party/event I add the SB800, but for general travel don’t bother with it.
Funny to read your entry…confirms what finally figured out, leave all those lenses at home and go with the super (tho slow) zoom!!!!

Lisa Stein on April 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

^#46

Absolutely. The Nikon 18-200mm VR lens is an amazing lens (unlike the older superzooms that were as soft as butter in the desert). The Nikon is really sharp (pretty sharp on the long end) and the distortion is liveable. With a 1/2 wide rubber band around the barrel to keep lens-creep at a minimum, I load that up with my D200 and I’m off to see the world.
All stowed in a Tamrac shoulder bag for easy access and it’s about the only way I travel now (except for specific photo assignments).
With all the carry-on and check in weight and bag restrictions, it only makes sense.

JimmyD on April 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

^#47

I was wavering on the 50mm - guess I’ll take that too. I have the little SB-400 flash that is pretty compact. Everything I will need fits into my little Tamrac Adventure 7 backpack. Great advice on here!

Barrie Brewer on April 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

^#48

Hi Scott!

Thanks for sharing your Dubai trip eperiences! I’m sorry to hear how , as you say practically taking along the kitchen sink with you would have thrown a wet towel on things.

I wouldn’t let it dampen your spirits too much though Scott, because you strike me as the kind of guy who tries to make the best of things, and at least you did manage to get some really great shots at the end of the day! Yeah, I know, if only Nikon DID make a lens like the one you describe (with an aperture of f2 as well!).

I enjoyed the latest episode of your TV show at Photoshop World, where you and Dave were trying to wind Matt up when he was presenting his High-pass filter tutorial. I can only imagine the kinds of pranks you three guys get up to at NAPP HQ lol!

Please forgive my oversight, butI am confused though as to why you would take along a Canon close-up lens when you had Nikon gear??

Paul Guy on April 15th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

^#49

Wow, what a burden of a load!

Ever heard of Four-thirds and their fantastic digital only ZD & Leica lenses? The best dSLR system for travel, even when you lug 3 lenses around. And hey, no fear of dust with the only proven effective anti-dust mechanism. Just change the lens anytime and anywhere.

And with the Zuiko Digital 12-60mm, no need to carry a close-up lens, you’ll be surprised of the close-focusing capability of this lens. And match it with the E3, you’ll get the world’s fastest auto-focusing machine… and still being weather-proof at that. Carry the ZD50-200mm lens and you get upto 400mm focal length with the system’s 2x crop factor.

Great huh! Time for a second dSLR system? Cheers!

P.S. PhotoshopUserTV ROCKS!!!

chrismd on April 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

^#50

Hi Scott:

I hike a lot - and guess what? I bring my D300 and 18-200 lens. I also carry the trusty 50MM 1.4 lens too - it’s light and you can get the speed you need if you are shooting the inside of a church or something.

Have a great time in Italy

Cynthia

Cynthia Sobkowich on April 15th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

^#51

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

Daniel on April 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

^#52

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.

ron on April 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

^#53

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).

Tad on April 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

^#54

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.

Ken on April 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

^#55

It

Donald on April 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

^#56

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.

Donald on April 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

^#57

“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!

Carlo M on April 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

^#58

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.

Larry Larsen on April 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

^#59

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

Harry Shin on April 15th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

^#60

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.

Lynn Ava on April 15th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

^#61

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.

Neil on April 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

^#62

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.

Sean McCormack on April 15th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

^#63

And that 14-200 2.8 lens should be very lightweight as well. We can dream.

Susan Peden on April 15th, 2008 at 9:13 pm

^#64

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.

Jarryd Barton on April 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm

^#65

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.

Big Mike on April 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm

^#66

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.

Theodore Paradise on April 15th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

^#67

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.

Nels Nelson on April 16th, 2008 at 12:43 am

^#68

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.

Iron Flatline on April 16th, 2008 at 1:07 am

^#69

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.

Raymond on April 16th, 2008 at 3:53 am

^#70

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,…

kramon on April 16th, 2008 at 4:52 am

^#71

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.

Deepak Prakash on April 16th, 2008 at 5:03 am

^#72

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

Randy on April 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am

^#73

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?

Marc on April 16th, 2008 at 11:36 am

^#74

The whole wrong lens, wrong gear thing could be just jet lag.

Matt Perry on April 16th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

^#75

With all your money hire an assistant.

Jim Donahue on April 16th, 2008 at 11:23 pm

^#76

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…

Kelvin on April 17th, 2008 at 1:59 am

^#77

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.

Andre on April 18th, 2008 at 9:52 am

^#78

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.

Al Sandberg on April 18th, 2008 at 11:54 pm

^#79

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).

Andrew on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 am