Dml1127

Thank you all for your expertise :)

Dml1127

Thank you all for your expertise :)

amehta Loc: Boston

I'm going to go a completely different direction, and ask why the "kit" lens is inadequate? I assume it's the 18-55mm VR.

A lot of us talk about the lenses we use, but we're not taking ordinary snapshots (or at least hope we're not). But if he's been happily using this for a year or two, he can continue to use it on the trip. And if he agrees with you that something better would be nice, I'll agree with the Nikon 16-85mm suggestion. I doubt he'd need more than that.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

I often wonder how many of the people who give advice on a walk around lens for Europe have actually BEEN here ! If you are looking to visit any European city the photographic challenge is most often "how do I deal with buildings that are either small and in narrow streets or large but not much room to back up and prevent myself hitting the building behind me or falling into a river/canal/water of some kind?" The other challenge is low light. More and more you are not permitted to use flash in churches, cathedrals, museums, stately homes etc.

I live here and have found that the best lens to have most of the time on your camera is one with a focal range from wide angle to short telephoto, and if you can find one with low light capability then all the better.

I have a Nikon with its own inbuilt focus drive motor. Your friend does not. Notwithstanding, I still bought "the lens that Nikon never made" (but should have), and that is the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 HSM OS - it's image stabilised and has its own focus drive motor, and is SHARP. Put that on your D3200 and, with the crop factor of your camera, you have the ideal lens for most everyday uses in Europe.

http://www.bythom.com/Sigma17-50mm_lens_review.htm

Believe me, in many towns and cities across Europe there is not enough ROOM to keep backing up !

That is not to say that there is no place for telephoto, but if you are recording what may be a "once in a lifetime" trip to Europe, then wide angle to short telephoto should be your main lens.

Lincoln Cathedral (UK)

(Download)

City Centre Festivities

(Download)

A Dutch Canal Scene

(Download)

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

Dear Dave, in my opinion, it all boils down to, your budget, Nikon has some extroadinary lenses, but they can be expensive, its also a investment in your future of photography, I would reccomend the nikon 35-70 2.8 lens, it will give you a normal viwing angle all the way to a medium zoom, the color rendition is just magnificent and the sharpness is legendary, its costly, but anything good is aS Well, check it out on Amazon or B&H photo........I think if you purchase this lens for your nikon, you will toss your kit lens, as the picture difference is that great, good luck, and enjoy your trip.................Owen

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Nikon has several kit lenses that perform very well and are well suited for traveling. Come to mind the 18-200 VR, the 18-105 VR, the 18-140 VR and why not, the 18-70 that originally sold with the D70.
The 16-85 I have never used but many photographers swear by it.
I cannot speak for others but when I travel I find that most of what I do is nicely covered with my 18-105 VR.
Addendum: Craycrossers I am familiar with the Sigma lens you mentioned and it is also a great lens especially for low light shooting. If only shooting exteriors and landscapes the f2.8 aperture is not a necessity

jmw44 Loc: Princeton, NJ USA

I second this recommendation. It's heavy, but it is a great investment.

CO

The problem with superzoom lenses is that they generally have tons of distortion. Engineers have to compromise too much in the optical design in order to achieve the long zoom range. The Nikon 18-140mm, 18-200mm, 18-300mm, and 28-300mm all have a lot of barrel distortion at the wide angle settings and a lot of pincushion distortion at the long settings. If you photography straight lines like a window frame you will see it. Go with zooms with a more conservative zoom range. I've had the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII lens for a few years. It's fantastic and has half the distortion of the superzoom lenses.

CTclicker Loc: Central CT

Our family visited Italy in 2013. I shot 99% of my 1000 photos with a 24-105mm f/4.

The open country in between the more urban areas is just that -open. And the big cities like Rome and Florence are fairly tight, with little or no room to back up at squeeze more into a frame. Even smaller towns like Sienna and Cortona were built with very narrow streets. I WISH I had brought something wider than 24mm AND I wish I had owned a faster prime lens like a 20mm 1.8 because shooting inside some of the darker ancient buildings/sites (night shot of Trevi fountain) needed a faster lens than f/4. Lastly some of the cathedrals, duomos are so huge getting them into a single frame from their street will be near impossible. Plan to shoot some multiple frames to stitch together into a panorama. Or research some better vantage points to shoot from, ie tops of other towers/duomos hillsides outside of town.

I brought a bean bag. Traveling with 3 kids and a stroller made a tripod impossible to carry.

Look forward to seeing your pictures.

kwbybee Loc: Oklahoma City

My wife and I just got back from Italy this past November and enjoyed it very much. If you don't like changing lenses then a super zoom I would recommend is the Nikon 18-300. It's a little larger than the third party lenses but it makes up for it in quality build and sharpness color rendition etc.. We went through several super zooms with my wife (she does NOT like to change lenses) before getting the Nikon. If changing lenses is NOT a problem, then a 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 would cover it. As far as brand on those, I have them in Tamron

Venice with a Singh Ray Blue/Gold polarizer filter

bersharbp Loc: Texas

There are higher quality lenses (and more expensive) but an 18-200 (or 18-250) will be the USED lens

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I am a Nikon user and have the 18-200 VRII lens. I thought long and hard about the 18-300, but decided against for (1) Its a much bigger lens, (2) its much heavier, so more of a burden on "walk arounds", and (3) somewhat more costly.

Since retiring, we have been on 4 tours (Alaska & 3 European) and the 18-200 has met 99% of my photographic needs. There is a saying that goes something like - the difference between a telephoto Xmm and Xmm is 2 steps forward.

Ner125 Loc: Bradenton, FL

Great discussion.....a solution may be to try a lens out on a trip. Have any of you done any business with lensprotogo.com ?

Ner125 Loc: Bradenton, FL

Sorry still learning about this site....... http://www.lensprotogo.com/
Hoping the link appears.

sueyeisert Loc: New Jersey

Yes, I love the this lens the 2.8 constant f stop is wonderful. I had the 18-200vr Nikon lens which I like, but prefer the sigma17-50mm 2.8 lens