Nikon lens suggestions for travel

[Baxter]

I'm a newbie...just took my Nikon D90 off of automatic the other day :). Got the 18-105 mm lens with it, and will buy a 50 mm to play with shortly. Doing some long-range planning, I am looking for lens suggestions for travellers. My husband likes doing the landscape pictures (so I presume I'm looking for a wide angle for that), and I will want a decent zoom but am hung up on how much is enough.

 

What are some recommendations of "must have" lenses for those who travel?

[awboater]

I also have a D90, and a good selection of lenses, but I don't take them all with me. For cruising, I have a "cruise kit" and I like to pack lightly. Your kit lens already has pretty decent wide angle capabilities, but there are lenses that can go wider.

 

The lenses I take on cruises are:

 

1. Tokina 11-16mm Dx f/2.8 super wide angle (I like it better than the Nikon 10-24, and I think it is perhaps the best super wide for DX).

2. Nikon 18-200mm Dx f/3.5-5.6 super zoom (I replaced my kit lens with this).

3. Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for low light (it's small and inexpensive).

4. Nikon 10.5mm Dx f/2.8 fisheye (also small)

 

If I really needed to, I could leave lens 3 and 4 home. But they are pretty small, lightweight, and pack easily. And if you don't want to replace your D90's 18-105mm kit lens, you could buy a 70-200 or 70-300, both of which are less expensive than #2. I bit the bullet and bought #2 as I could carry one less lens. Again, packing light.

 

One caveat; I used to carry a 70-300mm zoom, but ended up hardly using it. After the fourth cruise, I quit taking it. The issue, at least in the Caribbean, is that if you are looking to go long distances, the humidity and haze is going to wash out the photo. Perhaps it's different in Alaska, but all we do is Caribbean cruising. And haze filters really don't work. So unless I use the 300mm for close up portraiture, it stays home.

 

I leave my big lenses home as they are too heavy and bulky for cruising. As I said, I like to pack lightly for cruising. Unfortunately, I still take some amount of gear with me (3 cameras), so "lightly" isn't exactly light, but it is lighter than before...

[Jade13]

One caveat; I used to carry a 70-300mm zoom, but ended up hardly using it. After the fourth cruise, I quit taking it. The issue, at least in the Caribbean, is that if you are looking to go long distances, the humidity and haze is going to wash out the photo. Perhaps it's different in Alaska, but all we do is Caribbean cruising. And haze filters really don't work. So unless I use the 300mm for close up portraiture, it stays home.

 

quote]

 

I think the 70-300mm is a must if you are going on cruises that involve wildlife, such as the Arctic, Antarctica, and Galapagos. I don't bother with anything larger as they would just be way too heavy for me to carry on excursions from a cruise ship.

 

I second the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for low light, and that is one you could use if you wanted to carry the camera around the cruise ship at night (instead of a P&S). You need to zoom with your feet.

[awboater]

Jade, I don't disagree with you for Alaska and other areas that do not suffer from high temperatures and high humidity. But for long distance photography in the Caribbean, the haze and humidity is significant, and a telephoto lens tends to compress the image. The compression seems to amplify the haze, and you often end up with a washed out photo.

 

That is primarily the reason why I quit carrying the 70-300mm lens.

 

Again, this is mostly an issue in the Caribbean.

 

But it's something everyone needs to determine for themselves whether or not taking the lens is worth it. For me, it is not.

[chipmaster]

One lens solution of better quality than 18-105 is the 16-85. 2mm doesn't sound like a lot but its significant. I liked this lens a lot when I shot DX, thinking of getting another one but find the 18-105 good enough. The ultimate trave lens is the 18-200 superzoom.

 

Want a more specialized wide angle can be pricey but nikon, sigma and tamron all offer zooms in the 10-12 - 24mm for really neat wide angle.

 

You should seperate the fact you are not shooting mode to prospective from the focal length.

 

IMHO the 35 1.8 DX is a better one than the 50 1.4/1.8G or 50 1.8D. If you are looking for a portrait / midrange the 50 is the lens. If you want the classic "normal" lens the 35 1.8 DX is "the" lens.

 

What you get next depends on what FOV you want to shoot and less to do with whether you shoot manual, aperture, shutter or automatic :D

 

I'm a newbie...just took my Nikon D90 off of automatic the other day :). Got the 18-105 mm lens with it, and will buy a 50 mm to play with shortly. Doing some long-range planning, I am looking for lens suggestions for travellers. My husband likes doing the landscape pictures (so I presume I'm looking for a wide angle for that), and I will want a decent zoom but am hung up on how much is enough.

 

What are some recommendations of "must have" lenses for those who travel?

[TLCOhio]

I recently got the Nikon D3100 and have previously had a Nikon D50, plus a number earlier Nikon "film" cameras, lenses, etc.

 

From our recent Med cruise last month and Norway/fjords/North Cape cruise last July, two of my lenses were the Nikon 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Both of these worked well. BUT, for many churches and inside settings, I really love my Sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens that I got in July 2008 before going to St. Petersburg, the Baltics, etc. Below are a few examples for how that wide angle and other longer lens works, gives added "view/feel" for many visual situations, etc. Most of my shots are done with the 18-55mm lens, but it is great to have the flexibility to have that longer lens and the wide-angle options. You can see lots of photo examples from the two blog/live postings below noted.

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Just back from a June 7-19 Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc. These postings are now at 20,954 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

 

For details and visuals, etc., from our July 1-16, 2011, Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise experience from Copenhagen on the Silver Cloud, check out this posting. This posting is now at 46,414 views.

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

 

Appreciate those who have “tuned in” for these two posts. Don’t be shy and feel free to comment and/or ask any questions of interest.

 

 

This Solarium was one of our favorite areas on the Celebrity Solstice during last month's cruise. Only a wide angle lens could capture well the full size and scope of this area. Food and drinks were nearby and it was very relaxed and sophisticated. Quieter, too, as it is an adults-only area. Two hot tubs here. Not crowded, especially in the evenings. Nice art and design with this sparkling ship facility.:

 

 

 

Fountains and water at the spectacular Peterhof outside of St. Petersburg:

 

 

 

Here is the view of the Cable Car going down from the high point over Dubrovnik with areas and islands west of the city shown. This cable car has been re-built since the early 1990’s war years.:

 

 

 

These are some added view of St. Marks and its spectacular architecture and design in Venice. The 55-300mm lens was very sharp when going in close for these architectural details. Finally, below, are the “clankers” as the top of the 500-year-old clock on San Marco Square striking the hourly mark.:

 

 

 

 

 

[awboater]

If you are interested in the Nikon 18-200, it is rather expensive, but I bought mine refurbished. It looks like new, and I have not had any issue with it.

 

http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/list/parentCategoryID.43896400/categoryID.43897200

 

Nikon lists the current production (VR II version) of the refurbished lens at $699. Normally it's $850.

 

They also have the older version of this lens (VR) refurbished at $625.

 

It's my understanding that both lenses are essentially identical, and that even though the older lens is listed as VR, it is actually VR II. Not totally sure about that, but the only difference I see is the newer lens has a barrel lock to prevent lens creep.

 

I bought the VR II version as someday, if/when I go to a FX camera, the resale would be better.

 

They update their list daily so sometimes the lenses are in stock, and sometimes they are not.

 

Nikon defines refurbished as:

 

"Nikon occasionally offers reconditioned products either directly to customers or through dealers. These products have been carefully reconditioned by Nikon Inc. to meet all factory specifications.They contain all original cables, batteries, manuals and other accessories and are protected by a 90-day limited warranty. Reconditioned products offer truly exceptional value and can be an excellent way for you to begin or expand your Nikon imaging system. The assortment of reconditioned products changes, so it's a good idea to visit the Nikon Mall often to see what's new and what just might be the next addition to your system"

 

which really doesn't say much. But Helen Oster (from Adorama) provided a good description on the "Help! I need a new camera" thread.

 

 

This would be a less expensive alternative to buying a $850 lens. I have found that sometimes Adorama also has refurbished Nikon gear; and sometimes they are a bit less expensive than Nikon's outlet store - so check there as well.

[Baxter]

Thank you very much for the responses (and please...keep 'em coming). As I said, I am new at this and my instinct would have been to go big....I didn't consider the humidity issue. While Alaska is on the list, we spend most of our vacation time in the Caribbean -- being from central Canada we like to get away from the cold come February! So that is a serious consideration.

 

TLCOhio: thanks for sharing the pics. The detail in the shots is exactly the reason I wanted to step up to a DSLR.

[dodger501]

My galleries are loaded with Caribbean cruise pictures, I never noticed haze being an issue. Or at least how using a smaller lens will make it better . . .

 

My gear:

 

Nikon D700

Nikkor 28-300mm VR. It's small enough for walking around, a tad heavy.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 for indoor

Sigma 12-24 UWA

SB-800 Speedlight

[awboater]

Haze seems to be the worst when you are trying to take long distance photos over water; even with a wide angle lens and shooting landscape where the subject is a long distance away can show haze.

 

But it is not as irritating as when you are trying to get a closeup of a long away object and are using a long lens.

[awboater]

There is a lot of haze in this photo - taken at Labadee, Haiti with a 70-300mm lens @ 300mm.

 

 

The colors don't look very vibrant and rich - they are subdued, which is from haze.

[Habenero]

A simple adjustment of the curves in a post processing program like Photoshop can eliminate the effect of haze. If you would like to see your scene corrected for the haze, contact me. The single adjustment I made took about 5 seconds.

[HomePlanet]

Baxter, I used to have a D80 with the 18-200. As a single lens solution, it was great for travel. About a year and a half ago, I upgraded to the D90, and replaced the lens with the 16-85 and 70-300 combo. I believe it gives better quality and enough extra range at both ends to more than justify the need to switch lenses. I have a 50/1.8 for low light (rarely used). And I just acquired, but haven't used, the Tokina 11-16, which I wanted for our upcoming Europe cruise.

 

I just checked, and my photos are about 60% with the 16-85 and 40% with the 70-300. The 70-300 is actually higher than I would have thought, since my 16-85 is my default lens, but it's clear that I switch them enough to justify having both.

 

You've started off right. Think about how you plan to use the camera. You said for travel, but not specifically cruising. Think about how much weight you are comfortable carrying. What else do you carry when travelling? Will you actually switch lenses, or just use whatever is on the camera? Do you have any specific shots in mind? My 70-300 has been invaluable for wildlife, but it's also useful for taking candid family portraits from a distance. And sometimes the haze can be a plus, for example with sunsets.

 

You're also right to plan longer term. Bodies may get upgraded quickly (I'm already thinking about the D7000) but you can hang onto lenses for a long time. Once you decide on weight limits, the number of lenses you're comfortable with, and the focal lengths you want to cover - a short list of possibilities should become clear. But there's no one right answer. Whatever you decide, have fun with it!

[Baxter]

 

You've started off right. Think about how you plan to use the camera. You said for travel, but not specifically cruising. Think about how much weight you are comfortable carrying. What else do you carry when travelling? Will you actually switch lenses, or just use whatever is on the camera? Do you have any specific shots in mind? My 70-300 has been invaluable for wildlife, but it's also useful for taking candid family portraits from a distance. And sometimes the haze can be a plus, for example with sunsets.

 

The weight, in my mind, is the least of my issue simply because my husband doubles as a pack mule. So if I need a weightier lens to do the job, I'm ok with that. Not that I'm not prepared to haul my own gear, but when we travel he's great about that.

 

We have two young children, so the bulk of our pictures will be family-centric...portraits, kids at the park, soccer games, family gatherings, etc. Travel certainly includes cruising, but we will probably do an equal amount of all-inclusive vacations. Still Caribbean destinations, but different.

 

Because my husband is getting more excited about the capabilities of the camera, we have schizophrenic needs. He is a landscape kind of guy, which is why I forsee a wide angle lens in the future. My interest, outside of my family pics, is lightening and fireworks. But i have a lot of homework to do before I can think about that. I am heading to Las Vegas in the next month and look forward to seeing what I can do in the evening with the lights and the basic equipment I have now.

 

I was going to buy the standard 18-55 kit lens, but am finding myself glad I upgraded to the 18-105. When the kids are young, it is nice to be able to hang back a bit and be less intrusive when they are playing.

[Habenero]

My hands down favorite lens these days is a 28-300mm f1:3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor. It covers 90% of the shots I take. It focuses as close as 20", which means I can get closeups of flowers and bugs that fill the frame nicely. I also have used it to capture animals at a reasonable distance.

 

I supplement that with a 10-20mm f1:3.5 Sigma. That enables me to get creative with landscapes, tabletop displays, and my favorite optical illusions (making a 3' tall alien interact with models of normal human proportions!

[Jade13]

Baxter, I used to have a D80 with the 18-200. As a single lens solution, it was great for travel. About a year and a half ago, I upgraded to the D90, and replaced the lens with the 16-85 and 70-300 combo.

You're also right to plan longer term. Bodies may get upgraded quickly (I'm already thinking about the D7000) but you can hang onto lenses for a long time. quote]

 

What is the differance between the D90 and D7000? By next year I would be interested in replacing my D60 body, but I do not want anything larger. I am still waiting for the perfect solution.

[awboater]

Sounds like you are torn between a super-wide and a telephoto. Most folks buy something in the 50-200mm range for their second lens, and then go with a super wide. But you only can answer that as your needs might differ from others.

 

Although there are always exceptions to the rule (and/or photographic rules are made to be broken), generally the best portrait lenses are fast lenses and in the low to moderate telephoto range.

 

Moderate telephotos are generally preferable to wide angle for portraits as telephotos tend to compress (or flatten) the features. Wide angles on the other hand, tend to expand features. For instance, wide angles used close-up for portraits would generally distort your face and make your nose look big.

 

And portraits seem to benefit from a limited depth-of-field, with the foreground and/or background subdued, so that it tends to focus your attention on the subject.

 

Surprisingly, many professionals use 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for portraiture, but those are 3lb lenses! I have a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 that I call my bazooka, really good for portraiture, but it is way too large for me to carry on a trip.

 

Therefore, again, the 18-200mm lens that I do carry is a great compromise. While it is not as fast as the f/2.8, at f/3.5~5.6, it still gives a fairly limited DoF when you are close. So your 105mm should provide decent limited DoF at it's most open aperture.

 

But for landscape use, it's hard to beat a super-wide. I really like my Tokina as it is perhaps the best lens you can buy for a Dx camera. I purchased it over the Nikon 10-24 as the Tokina is highly regarded.

 

But the DoF for super wides is almost infinity even at the most open aperture (11mm - DoF is about 6ft to infinity @ 2.8). In fact, you hardly even need to focus it (which is good news for D40/D3100/D5100, etc. owners, that cannot autofocus this lens).

 

But all wide angle lenses do distort somewhat, and will give your portraits big "noses", so it is not really useful for portraiture.

 

While there is some discussion about the usefulness of a f/2.8 aperture for a super-wide angle as landscapes are typically shot with tripods, or often in bright daylight, I have found especially for shipboard use, shooting inside of the ship is where this lens excels. With available light @ f/2.8, you can capture much of what you would miss with even a 18mm lens. At the extreme wide angles, even a very capable flash will have some falloff.

 

At 11mm, the field of view is 104 deg; at 18mm, it's 76 deg, so the 11mm lens is going to give you an almost 50% wider photo.

 

And I also throw in my 10.5mm fisheye (180deg field of view) into my camera bag. While it distorts, it is pretty linear along the horizontal center line. I can be creative and accentuate the lens's distortion, or by proper placement, get a photo that is not distorted nearly as much. You can also straighten the distortion in post processing, but it's been my experience that if you straighten part of the photo, you distort other areas.

 

This is all dependent on your subject matter and where you put the centerline, but a fisheye will give you hours of keeping busy trying different things.

 

So that is why I carry a 10.5mm fisheye, a 11-16mm superwide, and 18-200mm super telephoto lenses. Each lens has it's own purpose, and together they provide excellent coverage for almost any situation that might arise.

 

Again, there are rules, and the rules are made to be broken, so I am sure others will have different opinions and uses for the various lenses. This is part of what makes photography so interesting. Give two people the same equipment, and they will in some cases give you two very different photos. Neither is right or wrong - just each person's individual preference.

 

Heck, even super el-cheapo Holga cameras have their creative following. But I would certainly not have one as it is just not my style. But I have seen some photos taken with them, and I am impressed at the results.

 

While this is getting off topic, have you heard of those that experiment by putting the camera into long exposure in the evening and then throwing it in the air? I'd never do that with even my cheapest camera, but they do have "interesting" visual results...

 

So hopefully you won't be throwing your camera in the air, but I think it might be best to figure out what your next step is - then buy the appropriate lens. It might be good to have a 5 year plan of what lenses you eventually want to own; perhaps coinciding with the trips you plan on taking in the next few years - then purchase them in the order that makes sense to you.

[awboater]

Jade; the D7000 is more or less considered the D90 replacement, so it basically has upgraded specs reflecting the current state of the art. While the D7000 is a fine camera, I don't plan on upgrading to the D7000 as I don't consider the D7000 enough of a step up from the D90. I figure if I am buying a new camera, I want to go to the next class higher.

 

I think my next Nikon will be the (hopefully soon to be announced) D800 - the presumably replacement for the D700. At minimum, it would be the replacement for the D300s.

 

This is my unofficial list of cameras offered by Nikon (but feel free to come up with your own list):

 

D3 (or it's replacement) - professional.

D700 (or it's replacement) - lower-cost (and/or light-weight) professional.

 

D300 (or it's replacement) - advanced amateur.

D7000 - lower-cost advanced amateur.

 

D5100 - entry level.

D3100 - lower-cost entry level.

 

Nikon has let it be known it is coming out with at least two DSLRs in Aug 2011. Since the D700, D300s, and D3s are the oldest cameras, there is a good bet that at least two of these will be replaced soon.

 

At Nikon's web site, you can do a side-by-side comparison of any cameras with the compare tool.

 

A D90 and D7000 are larger mid-sized DSLRS, and are larger than the D60. If you want to stay within the same smaller form-factor, and want to stay Nikon - the D5100 or D3100 are probably your best bet. These are both new cameras. You can do a comparison between the D5100 and D3100 on Nikon's web site.

 

 

D60

Width 5.0 in.

Height 3.7 in.

Depth 2.5 in.

16.1 oz.

 

 

D3100

Width 4.9 in.

Height 3.8 in.

Depth 2.9 in.

16 oz.

 

 

D5100

Width 5.0 in.

Height 3.8 in.

Depth 3.1 in.

19.7 oz.

 

 

 

D90

Width 5.2 in.

Height 4.1 in.

Depth 3.0 in.

22 oz.

 

D7000

Width 5.2 in.

Height 4.1 in.

Depth 3.0 in.

24.3 oz.

[dodger501]

A simple adjustment of the curves in a post processing program like Photoshop can eliminate the effect of haze. If you would like to see your scene corrected for the haze, contact me. The single adjustment I made took about 5 seconds.

 

Exactly. This has been part of my PS workflow for so long, I forget I'm doing it.

[dodger501]

I think my next Nikon will be the (hopefully soon to be announced) D800 - the presumably replacement for the D700. At minimum, it would be the replacement for the D300s.

 

D3 (or it's replacement) - professional.

D700 (or it's replacement) - lower-cost (and/or light-weight) professional.

 

Every rumor I have seen is that the D700 replacement will be in the August announcement. Since that is my weapon of choice, I am very interested in that.

I actually downgraded from a D3, the D700 has the same feature set except for the dual CF slots. Really like this camera.

[awboater]

Every rumor I have seen is that the D700 replacement will be in the August announcement. Since that is my weapon of choice, I am very interested in that.

I actually downgraded from a D3, the D700 has the same feature set except for the dual CF slots. Really like this camera.

 

The other thing I like about the D700 is that it is a standard (or relatively so) body - i.e. without a built-in battery grip.

 

I think I would prefer that. I do have a battery grip on my D90, and it just makes the camera heavier, bulkier, and harder to find a suitable camera bag.

 

And if you have the need for a dual battery, you can always buy a grip for the D700.

[Jade13]

Every rumor I have seen is that the D700 replacement will be in the August announcement. Since that is my weapon of choice, I am very interested in that.

I actually downgraded from a D3, the D700 has the same feature set except for the dual CF slots. Really like this camera.

 

How light weight will the D700 be? What about the size? Full frame. Of course than maybe there is a D800?

[Jade13]

Jade; the D7000 is more or less considered the D90 replacement, so it basically has upgraded specs reflecting the current state of the art. While the D7000 is a fine camera, I don't plan on upgrading to the D7000 as I don't consider the D7000 enough of a step up from the D90. I figure if I am buying a new camera, I want to go to the next class higher.

 

I think my next Nikon will be the (hopefully soon to be announced) D800 - the presumably replacement for the D700. At minimum, it would be the replacement for the D300s.

 

This is my unofficial list of cameras offered by Nikon (but feel free to come up with your own list):

 

D3 (or it's replacement) - professional.

D700 (or it's replacement) - lower-cost (and/or light-weight) professional.

 

D300 (or it's replacement) - advanced amateur.

D7000 - lower-cost advanced amateur.

 

D5100 - entry level.

D3100 - lower-cost entry level.

 

Nikon has let it be known it is coming out with at least two DSLRs in Aug 2011. Since the D700, D300s, and D3s are the oldest cameras, there is a good bet that at least two of these will be replaced soon.

 

At Nikon's web site, you can do a side-by-side comparison of any cameras with the compare tool.

 

A D90 and D7000 are larger mid-sized DSLRS, and are larger than the D60. If you want to stay within the same smaller form-factor, and want to stay Nikon - the D5100 or D3100 are probably your best bet. These are both new cameras. You can do a comparison between the D5100 and D3100 on Nikon's web site.

 

 

D60

Width 5.0 in.

Height 3.7 in.

Depth 2.5 in.

16.1 oz.

 

 

D3100

Width 4.9 in.

Height 3.8 in.

Depth 2.9 in.

16 oz.

 

 

D5100

Width 5.0 in.

Height 3.8 in.

Depth 3.1 in.

19.7 oz.

 

 

 

D90

Width 5.2 in.

Height 4.1 in.

Depth 3.0 in.

22 oz.

 

D7000

Width 5.2 in.

Height 4.1 in.

Depth 3.0 in.

24.3 oz.

 

Thank you for all of the specs and size comparisons!

[TLCOhio]

A simple adjustment of the curves in a post processing program like Photoshop can eliminate the effect of haze. If you would like to see your scene corrected for the haze, contact me. The single adjustment I made took about 5 seconds.

 

Do you or anyone else have any ideas/suggestions on a "curves adjustment" that works with iPhoto on my MacBook Pro? Appreciate any ideas or suggestions for "fixing" through my iPhoto program? Would beefing up the contrast help in that type of manner?

 

THANKS! Enjoy! Terry in Ohio

 

Just back from a June 7-19 Solstice cruise from Barcelona that had stops in Villefranche, ports near Pisa and Rome, Naples, Kotor, Venice and Dubrovnik. Enjoyed great weather and a wonderful trip. Dozens of wonderful visuals with key highlights, tips, comments, etc. These postings are now at 21,349 views for this live/blog re-cap on our first sailing with Celebrity and much on wonderful Barcelona. Check these postings and added info at:

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1426474

 

For details and visuals, etc., from our July 1-16, 2011, Norway Coast/Fjords/Arctic Circle cruise experience from Copenhagen on the Silver Cloud, check out this posting. This posting is now at 46,531 views.

http://www.boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1227923

 

Appreciate those who have “tuned in” for these two posts. Don’t be shy and feel free to comment and/or ask any questions of interest.

[HomePlanet]

The weight, in my mind, is the least of my issue simply because my husband doubles as a pack mule. So if I need a weightier lens to do the job, I'm ok with that. Not that I'm not prepared to haul my own gear, but when we travel he's great about that.

 

We have two young children, so the bulk of our pictures will be family-centric...portraits, kids at the park, soccer games, family gatherings, etc. Travel certainly includes cruising, but we will probably do an equal amount of all-inclusive vacations. Still Caribbean destinations, but different.

 

Because my husband is getting more excited about the capabilities of the camera, we have schizophrenic needs. He is a landscape kind of guy, which is why I forsee a wide angle lens in the future. My interest, outside of my family pics, is lightening and fireworks. But i have a lot of homework to do before I can think about that. I am heading to Las Vegas in the next month and look forward to seeing what I can do in the evening with the lights and the basic equipment I have now.

 

I was going to buy the standard 18-55 kit lens, but am finding myself glad I upgraded to the 18-105. When the kids are young, it is nice to be able to hang back a bit and be less intrusive when they are playing.

 

In my family, I'm the pack mule! The 18-105 is quite a good lens. You can do a lot with that. It sounds like you will eventually want a longer and a wider lens. Use what you have now, and see how it fits your needs, and then you can decide on your priorities. Adding something like the 70-300 or a wide angle zoom will add on to what you have. You also might upgrade your current lens, or replace it with something like the 18-200. But use it for a bit so you can come up with your overall plan. Then you'll know that a purchase will fit for the longer term.