Nittanylepard

I'll be traveling to Switzerland in September and plan to visit Zermatt (Matterhorn and others) and Grindelwald (Wetterhorn, Jungfrau and others.) I have a Sony R10 with a 200 mm lens and a Nikon with Tameron 18-270 lens. Will a 600 mm lens make that much difference? Please advise. My budget is tight and don't want to spend the money if not absolutely necessary.
Thanks,
NittanyLepard

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Unless shooting wildlife I would be happy taking the Tamron 18-270 lens or preferably the Sony RX10 (if that is what you have).

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I've been to Zermatt, and the sweeping vistas of the Alps make the 18-270 pretty useful.

(Download)

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I have been to Zermatt too...and bought a camera to take with me! Unless you want images of climbers or skiers far far away my 70-300 was more than enough. Beware of snow and expose correctly....I didn't know how to. Learn to shoot through glass....as the train rides are spectacular....I didn't do that well either. But the villages are well worth walking around. The Matterhorn needs to be shot very early or very late, so check train and ski lift times....it is a long walk back....I know... I did it. Watch for Marmots....the tourist feed them so they are incredibly tame. if you sit quiet they will come right up to you.

Jealous as hell - 5 years on I now know how to use the damn camera!

Have fun

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I remember that walk back to town. Much longer than it looked from the end of the tram.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

re:.I didn't know how to. Learn to shoot through glass.

I use a flexible rubber hood - press it against the glass to eliminate reflections.
Being flexible you can change the angle of the camera.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KJTWM

StanRP

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

NittanyLepard,

When you consider a super zoom lens (150 - 600mm) think about two issues;
1. the physical size of the lens and its travel case.
2. the weight to carry around in its case, or attached to the camera.

You already have two lenses that will provide good captures. Think about a doubler attachment to increase the effective range. A 1.4x will provide approximately 1.4 times the reach of your current lens, a 2.0x two times the reach. Make sure to look at the doublers that are specifically designed for the lens you will use them on, this will minimize any distortions from adding a secondary glass to your lens.

Michael G

wanderingbear Loc: San Diego

First I envy you. I had always wanted to go there for 50 years and I was able to. It without doubt of all the countries in the world I have visited the most picturest, clean and efficient. 18mm with zoom I would say would be adequate. You will be up close and personal in a lot of the areas you mention.
I would love to chat further with you regarding some the highlights if you wish. One area of disappointment to many is some the mountains you mention are are shrouded in clouds much of the time. Enjoy.
Bear

F8 Forever Loc: Lng Island, NY

I lived in Germany in the late 60's with an Exakta VX 1000 and a Soligor 350 with an extender. Aside from the Soligor being bottle glass, the truth is that I rarely saw anything in a dozen countries I needed it for. The shorter Schneider glass I had did a much better job. Eventually, 90% of what I shot was with a Rolleiflex TLR. There's some truth to when you are limited in your field of view, you view things more carefully.

Return trips before digital were with a Nikon 8080 and a Tamron wide zoom, Nikkor 50 1.8, 70-200, and a Tokina 400. Again, almost never used the 400. Eventually just dumped the bottleglass Tamron and went through a few WA lenses.

Next trip I've got the Nikon D90, 3200, and the old stuff plus the kit lenses and a new macro lens. I'm looking for the "ultimate' superwide zoom(s) and saving weight is a huge priority. The kit stuff is plastic and almost weightless. It's also cheap, so not the biggest deal if lost or damaged. (I got the Exacta after I dropped my first Nikon off a cliff over the Nahe).

Wandering the Alps means cutting weight unless you're being paid to shoot skiers or birds. I'll never lug the 400 out of an airplane again and buying a bigger is out of the question for travel.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

The 150-600 would be used very little in the situation you described. Consider the size and weight and ask is maybe 5% (if that) of the images worth the trouble.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

I carried a 200-500mm to Alaska and used it just once. It was too much lens for anything except wildlife shots. The 70-300mm was enough for all other shots. It was way too heavy to carry for just a few shots. I now have a 1.4x & 2.0x Kenko teleconverters.

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

You could consider a bridge camera. Nikon, Canon and Sony make excellent zoom cameras that zoom from about 20 to 400 or more at decent lens speeds ranging from f/2.x to about f/4 or f/5, depending on the camera of course. Sony's RX10lll is the heaviest at just over 2 pounds and the others are considerably lighter.
Have a great trip and best regards, Ricker

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It depends on what you are expecting to shoot.

If money is a consideration, consider renting one.

madaduff

madaduff
The lenses you have are very adequate, but if you really want something longer, how about a doubler? You already have enough weight in what you have. A doubler weight would be very minimal, and also the cost, but it will accomplish what you need on the odd occasions you need something really long.
If you do take this route, practice using the doubler before you leave on your trip, so you know exactly how to use it. Do not wait until you get there, and then try and figure out how to use it as you may loose the shot.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

When taking a once-in-a-lifetime trip, my rule of thumb has become take a lens with a lot of reach! Why not consider renting that 600mm you wrote about??