Prime lenses potentially offer better IQ than zoom lenses. The other obvious huge advantage is the wider aperture providing more composition options (DOF, light intake capabilities).

For primes, 50mm is the best all around option with a lot of flexibility. For more people or singular subject photos the 85mm is also excellent. I have a 35mm that I will sometimes use if I'm needing something that captures more of the street or landscape while still giving me a shallow DOF or ability to capture a low light situation.

Excellent question. Tough question. Very thought provoking.

I would pick our D750 with 24-120 F4.

I love what the D750 does quality wise and the capabilities it has for various styles of captures.

For general purpose, I agree with many others that the 24-120 F4 is very flexible for a wide variety of situations and is capable of excellent quality images. I almost picked our 24-70 F2.8, for the extra bokeh but the extra zoom really helps in some situations.

There's a load of amazing cathedrals in Montreal that make for some excellent photos. St. Josephs, Notre Dame,

'Old Montreal' is full of great street photo opportunities. Old port. Botanical gardens. Mt. Royal Park. La Fontaine Park.

In Quebec City, Old Quebec is filled with opportunity. The old wall, the cannons over the St. Lawrence. The Plains of Abraham. Lots of cathedrals and colonial buildings.

I tried out a number of macro lenses before choosing the Tokina 100mm macro. I found the IQ comparable to the Nikon with a few IQ features that I preferred over the Nikon. (Generally, I prefer Nikon lenses.) Not to add to the list to make your decision harder... ;-)

I have this lens. I agree with this feedback. It's good up to 200mm, but from 200-300mm you do lose some sharpness.

I would recommend the B+W filters. The quality is excellent. In my opinion, you (generally) get what you pay for and the few extra bucks for B+W are worth it. Nikon filters are also excellent, but you do pay an extra premium for the name.

I've had several bad experiences with Hoya quality. Should you ever have an 'accident' in rough terrain (as I have), the Hoya filters shatter in a way that damages your front lens element. I've not had this with B+W. Yes, I know I should probably travel in less dangerous areas for photos, but what fun is that?

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the increased dynamic range of many films over many current digital cameras. That's a significant advantage. Of course, in software you can process it to death to simulate that, but it's not the same.

I liken shooting a good film to driving a fine car. Sure an average car will get you there just fine. But there's something about the experience of driving a high-end car that greatly adds to the driving experience, beyond getting to your destination.

Cooking over a fire with a cast iron pan/pot will likely give you a tastier meal than a stove and teflon pan. Such it is with film, in my opinion. Sure, more work, less convenient. But the image looks fantastic.

--

Nice! I know that area very well. My sister has a place near Derwent.

I love film and still shoot film with my Nikon F5. I'll never stop. The 'look' of film and the experience of film, for me, brings a lot of enjoyment and welcome challenge.

I've been shooting in Canadian winters (think down to -40º) for the past 25 years with no major problems.

Indeed bring extra batteries and have a plan to deal with condensation issues when bringing a cold camera into a warm house / car.

As a Canadian living in snow and frosty misery ~6 months of the year, and having been to the arctic multiple times, I'd offer a few pieces of advice.

Make sure that your clothing is adequate and rated for at least -40ºC (same as -40ºF). Churchill can get very cold in February and if you're unprepared, you will not only be miserable and likely unable to use your hands to operate your equipment, you can also put yourself in physical danger.

I'd suggest bringing a rain cover for your camera as blowing snow can very quickly accumulate and clog / jam up your equipment.

If possible, I'd suggest using a very sturdy carbon tripod as opposed to aluminium. As well, bring some weight for your tripod to help keep it sturdy as in northern areas like that wind is always a factor.

Next, 'pre-chill' your gear (sans battery), locked up in a car that is warm and (not running) will get cold more slowly. Once cooled, move it to the trunk so when you use the car the gear will not warm up too much. In those temperatures if there is any humidity in your equipment if you take it from a warm environment directly into the freezing cold you can have issues of ice forming inside reducing the functionality of your equipment. The slow 'pre-chill' helps to reduce this. After you use your equipment in that weather, place it in a sealable plastic (like ziplock) bag. This way the dry air from the outdoors will not cause unwanted condensation when you bring it into a warm environment with some moisture.

While it's good to bring some ultra-wide and wide angle lenses, don't leave the normal lenses (like 50mm) and mid-range at home. Sometimes the Aurora are more localized and in more narrow strands. Not having a narrower angle lens can mean getting less than desired compositions.

I would suggest renting or purchasing the new 80-400. It's a fantastic lens. Much smaller and lighter weight than the 200-400, which will be an issue as you travel as well as when your carrying it through the wilderness. As well, the 80-400 is more flexible with the extra zoom range. The loss of half to one F-stop is no big deal with a camera that has low light performance as good as yours.

I am curious to know which Tamron lenses you are using that you believe give equal IQ to Nikon's better lenses.

I use some third party lenses too and am not opposed to the idea of third party manufacturers putting out good stuff. My experience of Tamron thus far hasn't been the greatest, but I'd be happy to have my mind changed.