Another lens question (Page 4): Yea, you are helping talk me into the 18-200 which may generally be a better lens than the 16-300. But I really like your last advice--my take on that...

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Reinaldokool wrote:

I have been using the 18-200 on my last three Nikons. It is a great lens and exhibits very little of the expected distortion. Of course that doesn't answer your main question. Bureaucracies are often not consistent. Folk wisdom. Do it and apologize later if you get caught. (Of course this doesn't apply to real criminal behavior)

Yea, you are helping talk me into the 18-200 which may generally be a better lens than the 16-300. But I really like your last advice--my take on that is that it is almost always easier to get forgiveness than permission.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

ganmar37 wrote:

Just Googled your question, as to why a lens longer than 200mm is not allowed at Machu Picchu. The answer was that you would be charged a $300 fee, because they consider any lens over 200mm to be "professional gear".

Yes, that's the same answer I got. I was mostly interested in hearing ideas about a 200mm or less lens that would compliment my 16-300. I'm now looking at 200mm or less zooms that will give me something more than my Tamron.

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

jaycoffman wrote:

I know this has been discussed a lot but I'd appre... (show quote)

here's a good read from a fellow photographer.
http://www.meaningfultraveler.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/How-to-Photograph-Machu-Picchu.pdf

My trip there was right after the the original 7D came out many years ago and I carried the 28-135 and a G7. Wish I can make another trip there with the gear I have now.

Nobody checked bags and such and you can easily take in a 100-400 etc. in your backpack. In hindsight, a good wide angle would be more beneficial. If I did the trip again my 24-70 2.8ii would get the most of use on the 5D3.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Reinaldokool wrote:

I have been using the 18-200 on my last three Nikons. It is a great lens and exhibits very little of the expected distortion. Of course that doesn't answer your main question. Bureaucracies are often not consistent. Folk wisdom. Do it and apologize later if you get caught. (Of course this doesn't apply to real criminal behavior)

Thanks to everyone and specially thanks for the tip about the refurbished Nikon lens at Adorama--I just bought it. I think it will be a good addition to the lens I have and will probably give me a permanent GAS attack after I've fought it off for a year.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

Anandnra wrote:

here's a good read from a fellow photographer. br ... (show quote)

Thanks! This is a great overview of photographing Machu Picchu. I will read it a number of times before I go.

ppenrod Loc: Salt Lake City

jaycoffman wrote:

Thanks to everyone and specially thanks for the tip about the refurbished Nikon lens at Adorama--I just bought it. I think it will be a good addition to the lens I have and will probably give me a permanent GAS attack after I've fought it off for a year.

You should enjoy it. You may find it's rather annealed to front of your camera after a while, as it's that useful. :-)
I found when I first bought mine, that I needed to spend a number of frames to get used to the personality of the lens before I used it in production. Quite a few of my lenses a internal focus and metal, so the getting use to the 18-200 took some practice.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

ppenrod wrote:

You should enjoy it. You may find it's rather annealed to front of your camera after a while, as it's that useful. :-)
I found when I first bought mine, that I needed to spend a number of frames to get used to the personality of the lens before I used it in production. Quite a few of my lenses a internal focus and metal, so the getting use to the 18-200 took some practice.

Thanks again and that's why I wanted to get is now--I will have a month or so to practice, practice, practice.