markstjohn

I am traveling to Shetland Islands and to Lofoten Islands to do landscape and wildlife photograpy. I have the good fortune of having nice Nikon lenses and, now, the challenge of choosing which to take with me. I would ideally like to get all my equipment in one photo backpack. I am taking a Nikon D810 and perhaps a second body, Nikon D 5600.

Here is one way of posing the packing challenge. I could take a set of primes or a set of zoom lenses.

Primes include Nikon 20mm 1.8, 50 mm 1.8, 85mm 1.4, and 300mm F4

Zooms include Nikon 16-35, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and 200-500 5.6

The Zooms are obviously heavier but of high quality. So what would you pack for this trip?

Buying lenses is easy; just close your eyes and spend the money. Deciding what to take is much more challenging.

thanks for your help!

JimBart Loc: Western Michigan

Take primes for one camera and zooms for the other. Got both covered

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Any weight restrictions for your carryon flights? Some airlines limit the weight and make you weigh them.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Zooms hands down. Leave the primes at home.

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

All 4 zooms, and the 50mm

jcboy3

These are my criteria for travel:

1. Always bring a backup body.

2. Don't bring everything.

For landscape, my main lens would be the 24-70.

For wildlife, my main lens would be the 200-500. I would consider the 300 if I also had one (or more) TCs...I like the 1.4x and 1.7x. But I use the prime telephoto if I am familiar with the area and know what range I need. With uncertainty, I go with the 200-500.

I would add the 20mm for ultra-wide low light, and the 85 for mid-telephoto. I would put the 85 on the D5600 to grab shots and not change lenses.

So that's it: 20mm, 24-70mm, 85mm, 200-500mm

repleo Loc: Boston

Shetlands will be windy and probably wet. Minimize your lens changing. Bring the zooms exept bring the 20 mm prime instead of the 16-35 zoom.

whwiden

I personally travel with a D750 and a d7200. My two main lenses are a 24mm and an 85mm f/1.8. In most cases, that is enough. Caveat: when wildlife is on the agenda, such as a safari, I am just confused and conflicted. As the primes are relatively small, I sometimes add a 50mm.

I would incline toward your primes. Or, the 20mm, 24-70mm and 300mm.

I would certainly take two bodies.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Yeah, ditch the 70-200 since it does not sound like you are doing the kind of photography. You are doing landscape and wildlife.

gwilliams6

I did a trek through the Scottish Highlands and Hebrides Islands. Took two cameras and my zooms. Left the primes at home. Scenery, moving animals, lighting etc changes so rapidly on islands that you won't have time to change out primes. Zooms will be quicker to use to recompose and bring in distant subjects. Zooms for sure. I agree check weight limits for your camera gear, beforehand with your air carrier. I won't matter if you are on any ships or ferries. Find what you can comfortably carry. Backpacks were great when I was young and had a young back. Now I carry my gear in a roller ThinkTank bag and stuff a small empty shoulder bag in my luggage to use when I don't need to carry ALL my gear on a given trek. Cheers

markstjohn

Yes. Several small flights. I could take a backpack and a small case I think.

markstjohn

Good analysis. Thank you

markstjohn

Good ideas. Thanks

Toment Loc: FL, IL

24-70 and long lens, you pick

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I think a bit of a mix would work best... for example, you could take 2 to 3 zooms, one or two primes:

To me it comes down to which you prefer for landscapes.... is the 20mm alone adequate or do you need the flexibility of the zoom? 16-35mm... but if it saved size and weight and were adequate, you could substitute the 20mm. Especially if you take both cameras, that prime can act very wide on FX or moderately wide on DX.

50/1.8.... For low light conditions on FX and it also can serve as a portrait lens on the DX camera

70-200mm... Maybe not, for travel I take an smaller, lighter f/4 instead of my f/2.8... if I take a 70-200 at all. It's another place you might be able to substitute, this time with the 85mm (again, I use a smaller, lighter f/1.8 instead of an f/1.4). You've got 200mm covered with the big zoom.

200-500mm... You'll want it for wildlife. Do you use it handheld... or need a tripod/gimbal or monopod?

The old rule of thumb to "pack & travel light" when all we used was primes (because cause old zooms mostly sucked!), was to double focal lengths, or approx. so. For example I'd often carry a 20 or 21mm, 35 or 40mm, 85mm, 135mm and a 300mm with a 1.4X. It isn't an exact doubling of focal lengths, but the closest I could get with the system I was using. I also often added a 24mm, breaking the "minimal kit" rule, but it's a focal lenght I really liked to use on my film cameras. HOWEVER, I think it's important to note that cameras and lenses were smaller then. All hose lenses along with two camera bodies and accessories fit into a medium size shoulder bag. The wide angle and short telephoto lenses, in particular, were about 2/3 the size or less of the modern lenses I carry now. The cameras were easily half the size, too. OTOH, I had to pack film and batteries... both in a separate carry-on for hand inspection purposes. I also wore a photo vest (actually a fishing vest... much cheaper but does the same job) with light meter and other smaller items... occasionally even a small lens. Air travel today is different though... A fully packed photo vest can cause raise eyebrows and worried glances!

It also matters HOW you'll be traveling. If by car, I'd take more gear. If by air or train or boat, a lot less!

Last time I traveled by air I had to get it all in one backpack that would fit into an overhead bin. I NEVER put camera gear through as checked baggage... I would ship some or all of it ahead to my destination instead, if I couldn't carry it on. The only exception... I have put monopods or tripods into checked bags. They're pretty indestructible, though if anyone can find a way to break a monopod, it would probably be an airline baggage handler! I had two flashes smashed to pieces in checked bags. Never again!

For that trip I wasn't planning a lot of landscapes or wildlife, but you never know. So I packed a 20mm, 24-70mm, 135mm and 300mm, along with a 1.4X that works well with either the 135mm or the 300mm (giving me 189mm and 420mm as well). That with a single flash and a full frame body w/grip, a couple extra batteries, charger, memory cards and the other usual paraphernalia... it weighed about 22 lb. Not bad.... unless you find yourself having to run from one terminal to the next to catch a connecting flight or wandering around looking for a shuttle service.... 22 lb. soon seems like 40, then 60, then 80 lb! That particular trip I ended up almost exclusively shooting with the 24-70 and 135mm... weather didn't cooperate and snowless, overcast winter scenery was pretty bland. Also didn't see much in the way of wildlife, despite re-visiting some places where I had in the past.