Nikon Lens for Backpacking South America?

Also, if there is a different lens you guys recommend, I have about $400-500 that I can put towards a lens.

Also, if there is a different lens you guys recommend, I have about $400-500 that I can put towards a lens. I was thinking about the 18-105mm.

Edited by: jotaelhombre

I use an old autofocus 24-120, which won’t work on your camera but look at the AF-S 18-105 it’s not very expensive. I think you would kick yourself not having more reach than the 35 (or the 18-55 which I find restrictive). The 18-105 makes a great people lenses. Take the 35 for indoors and low light. I use the 24-120 and a 50 1.4f as my smallest kit.

Buy a 18-200 VR for a bit more. That and your 35 make a nice economical combo for travel.

I agree with joe....the 18-200VR, coupled with your 35 fixed are good choices.

Brian

Edited by: rockrug

I once upon a time recommended the Nikon 18-200 and 50 1.4 as the best travel set but have quit doing so as I have seen many picture ruined by the 18-200. Photographers not watching crank the lenses out without thinking it through (the stabilization is good but not 4-5 stops good). The 200 is a 350 and must be shot 1) at 500 sec or better or 2) at 1600 ISO or 3) at 3.5f or 4) on a tripod if a mix of the first 3 can’t be achieve, the glass is good, using it take some knowledge and forethought.

I know it’s a great auto lenses on a sunny day but shooting on the street in lower light on auto and its gets soft and or blurs from hand/mirror motion and frustrates the photographer. It is easy to crank it to max to capture something and end up shooting at 1/30 sec, 3.5f at the 350 end, we all know that is not going to work unless on a tripod and of a stationary subject.

Now I recommend the 18-105 or 24-120 and a fast prime which maybe the 50 1.8.

I agree with you NWdiver. As of right now I think I am going to get the 18-105mm, and take my 35mm as I love it. I believe the 18-200mm will fustrate me, as I don't even use my 55-200mm that much, as I find it to be blurry and not what I want in lower light areas. The 24-120mm seems like a perfect fit, but it is soo expensive.

Of course, some recommendations (maybe unfairly) assume that the user understands the constraints of a 350mm lens and the limitations of VR.

Brian

A friend is less than a friend these days because I strongly recommended the 18-200 for a once in a life time African safari, I spent allot of time showing them how to use it on A and explaining the limitations, well they thought the lenses was bad as on AUTO it was mostly blurry, hand shake and moving subjects. I still take heat for it, thus don’t recommend it anymore. I use the older 80-200 2.8 when I want a 200 otherwise, the 2.8 give more light but it’s not a hand held lenses except in bright light, I use it for street shots during the day.