Which Nikon DSLR lens for trip to Africa? (no there's no safari!)

November 12, 2008 12:02 PM

Which lenses/accessories should I have for my Nikon D60 for my trip to Africa? (no there will not be safaris!)

I'm headed to Africa to meet my extended family for the first time. Heading to a country in the West part. We are going to have lots of family gatherings, in and outdoors, day and evening.

As well, we'll be visiting a lot sites so I imagine there will be cool scenery to shoot - wide vistas but some cool architectural details too.

I'm a total novice - bought the D60 kit with the 18-55mm with VR. I have been reading through some of the questions here and figure I should get a zoom lens and/or a wide angle lens. Any thoughts on which I should look for? Does it need to be a VR lens? Would you recommend a mounted flash as well?

Man this hobby is expensive!

posted by urbanette to sports, hobbies, & recreation (32 comments total)

Get the 18-200mm VR AF-S DX. I love this lens, it does about 90% of what I want to do with my camera. I have taken it off once in the 4 months I've had it, and it was so my dad could try it out on his D70.
posted by wavering at 12:14 PM on November 12, 2008

VR is great to have. The Nikon 55-200 VR lens is a good complement to your kit lens. I did some testing when I first got mine, and the VR certainly made a difference, allowing handheld shots that would otherwise have been impossible or at least unusable. It's an inexpensive lens at around $200. A faster lens will be closer to a thousand dollars or more.

A friend of mine has the 18-200mm VR, and he loves it, because he never has to swap lenses for any normal situation. It's a pricey piece of work, though, at $799, but you didn't mention budget.

I would also consider taking a Nikon Speedlite flash if you can afford it. There are several models, so let your budget be your guide.

But the best thing you can do is familiarize yourself with your camera and practice a lot before you go. Learn about ISO settings, how to change the power output of the on-camera flash, how to change flash modes (rear-curtain, auto, etc.) and basically study up (and buy a book) on the basics of photography, including shutter speeds, f-stops, etc. It's very frustrating to get where you are going and miss a great shot because you are fumbling with your equipment.

Sounds like fun! Good for you!
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:22 PM on November 12, 2008

The flash on the camera is very good. 18mm is just about wide angle and you can use your feet to zoom not on safari. I would stick with what you have.
posted by lee at 12:29 PM on November 12, 2008

don't forget a tripod
posted by lockestockbarrel at 12:42 PM on November 12, 2008

I would advise taking the lens you have. Having a heavy bag full of equipment can be annoying and painful. I have started taking only one lens on trips and a pocket tripod.
posted by JJ86 at 12:59 PM on November 12, 2008

As Fuzzy Skinner says, the 55-200 VR is perfect, except the much more expensive 18-200 VR will mean you only take one lens (leaving your 18-55 VR at home) so you won't have to swap lenses. That would normally not be a big deal, but in a dusty climate swapping lenses could damage your camera. You could always buy a used 18-200 on eBay, and sell it when you get back, replacing it with the 55-200.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:00 PM on November 12, 2008

Get a polarizing filter (for whatever wideangle lens you decide to go with) to make your landscapes instantly more 'professional'. Don't forget to rotate it!
posted by echo target at 1:05 PM on November 12, 2008

I might be in the minority opinion, but a fast simple 35mm prime lens for your camera will give you nicer results than any normally-priced wide-ranging zoom, VR or not. Unless you really feel like you need the long focal lengths, don't bother with a cheap or medium-price zoom. With a fast prime you can shoot at regular speeds in light that would make an f/4 or f/5 zoom need the VR to keep steady. Zoom with your feet. Keep it simple.
posted by gyusan at 1:19 PM on November 12, 2008

I highly recommend the 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4 if you can swing it) if you think you are going to be shooting in lower light situations. It's affordable and super small. I take mine everywhere and it comes in handy quite often.
posted by smalls at 1:21 PM on November 12, 2008

^^^ That prime lens gyusan recommends is better. But if you were looking to spend a bit less, check out the 50mm 1.8.
posted by smalls at 1:23 PM on November 12, 2008

I Nth the 18-200 suggestion. As someone who sold zoom lenses in the late 80s I was stunned by the sharpness that this lens achieves. It's all I shoot with now, being a believer in the axiom that the picture you get is always better than the one you don't.

I had the 55-200 during the period of time when I couldn't get a 18-200 and sometimes still use it now, as it's on a D70 knocking around the house. It is consistently frustrating. The 55-200 doesn't allow you to simply grab the focus knob and override the focus the way the 18-200 does, which is a big downside in low-light situations.

And it's no longer $800 - Adorama has it in stock for $640 or a refurb for $600. Worth every penny.
posted by phearlez at 2:02 PM on November 12, 2008

The 18-200VR is the best lens I've ever bought. It handles the vast majority of situations you'll ever encounter. The primary exception is low light, where I tend to switch to a 50mm prime (non-zoom) f/1.8.

If you use the 50mm f/1.8 AF (not AF-S) on your D60, you'll be focusing manually with it. Your camera does not support autofocus on AF lenses (but it does support autofocus on AF-S and AF-I lenses). If you don't mind manual focus, it's a great, cheap addition to your arsenal.
posted by knave at 2:15 PM on November 12, 2008

Not sure what you like to shoot (you give some clues in the question), for all the family gatherings, the lens you've got is perfect. Anything more (tripod, other lenses) is weight that you don't want. The best way to get in the habit of taking pictures is to have your camera with you all the time. If you're lugging around 50 pounds (or even 5 pounds), you'll take your camera with you less and less. Since you don't seem to know much about using a camera, getting an extra flash will just be another thing to lug around (you don't need it at all during the day time, if you're competent at using natural light and waiting for when your subjects are in the light, and you don't need it at night if you're clever) and another thing to figure out how to use. If you're using it on the camera and ttl, you'll likely see little improvement over the built-in flash. Now, if you were getting fancy and using the flash off-camera (either with a sync cord or with wireless transmitters like pocket wizards) you'd see a world of difference, but that's another learning curve to climb.
posted by msbrauer at 2:23 PM on November 12, 2008

I brought the 18-200 VR and a 20mm fixed lens to East Africa with my Nikon D70s. The 18-200 is amazing in its versatility although after a year on the road the screws literally fell out while I as using it and I had to duct tape it together (too much vibration from the buses maybe?) If you're just going for a short while that shouldn't happen. It's expensive though and I don't think it takes great low light pictures. If you're just going to visit family and see some stuff and are an amateur why not stick with the zoom you've got? Maybe bring a tiny tabletop tripod (that's sturdy enough to hold your camera AND lens up) as well, for family/indoor shots.
posted by Bunglegirl at 2:41 PM on November 12, 2008

KISS principle. Keep it simple. Know your camera's (comparable D40) controls and how to set for differing conditions. A flash is certainly worthwhile. Consider filters, both to cover and protect the lens and to enhance images. A clamp, mono-pod or tripod is an item that I would take.

How about a portable printer so you can give paper copies of pictures to your family while you're there? I see the Canon i90 printer (<5lbs) with battery available for $200 or less. A computer connection would of course be necessary. I've been really pleased with my i90, and it's nice to give people in out of the way places a copy of the picture while you're there.
posted by X4ster at 3:37 PM on November 12, 2008

After review of prior comments I'll agree with msbrauer; the flash is not a necessity.
posted by X4ster at 3:53 PM on November 12, 2008

Along with a good zoom ,24-135 or there abouts (like the ones mentioned above), you need a 50mm prime lens. What you see is what you get. Fast as you can afford. You will be glad you bought it.

The lens that came with your kit is crap, btw.

I find that the built in flashes on DSLRs are crap as well. Invest in a good speedlight.

These answers were based on what you need to complement your camera; your trip not withstanding.
posted by captainsohler at 4:23 PM on November 12, 2008

Beware the 50mm prime, while they are nice, it is not the greatest travel lens because you zoom with your feet. Also, the D60 only autofocuses on AF-S lens. The two Nikkor 50mm lens on the market today are AF (a 50mm AF-S is being developed but it's not out yet).

From what you alluded to in your post, you want a camera for shooting family pics, some landscapes and perhaps some details of buildings. The 18-200 will give you from super wide to telephoto and all stops in between.

One thing you may also want to consider is a battery grip. It only takes a battery dieing once (45min from home on a beach shooting a meteor shower at 3am) for you to really appreciate the capacity of two batteries, with the added bonus of making your camera fit in your hands just a little better.

A wiser person than I told me when I commented on being an amateur, "whenever you don't know what to do, set it to auto and shoot until your finger bleeds". That's also the basis for the final recommendation, buy lots and lots of memory. I carry 3 4gb memory cards with me, for as cheap as they are there's never a reason to run out of space.

Whatever you do, enjoy it. The world seems so much bigger and amazing when you see it through that little aperture.
posted by wavering at 4:27 PM on November 12, 2008

50mm primes aren't 50mm primes on a D60. Which is really annoying if you're expecting the fabled WYSIWYG behavior of 50mm primes.

Personally? You're going to Africa. That's truly big-sky country. That means wide. No safaris means no need for telephotos. And you'll be meeting family, which means people-shots. Nothing screams "photojournalistic-look" like a nice, wide-angle lens. If you were playing with a full-frame sensor, you could pick up a cheap 35mm f/2.8 prime. But even 18mm doesn't feel wide enough for me on my D70.

If I were you, I would leave all the heavy glass at home and take this single lens: the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

Read that again. 11-16mm. f/2.8. That's an extremely awesome fucking travel lens. Oh yeah, because it's not a Nikkor, here's another nice number for you: $570. Your welcome.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:29 PM on November 12, 2008

good to know about the non-primeness of 50mm on D60. Thanks Civil_Disobedient
posted by captainsohler at 6:25 PM on November 12, 2008

I'll put in another vote for a wide angle.

I love shooting with this. Wide enough to capture loads of people and lots of environment in a shot and lovely in low light.

But if I had a choice, I would've got something with a zoom, rather than a prime.

Because sometimes you can't zoom with your feet!
posted by t0astie at 6:27 PM on November 12, 2008

good to know about the non-primeness of 50mm on D60.

A prime is a prime. C_D was trying to say that a 50mm prime on a DX camera like the D60 becomes a 75mm prime because of the crop factor. This means it is not comparable to the field of view of a human eye, and instead acts as a modest zoom lens. The equivalent focal length of 75mm is great for candid portraits, which is my favorite use of the lens (i.e. in a low light restaurant or bar, but you have to back up a little bit because of the modest "zoom" effect).
posted by knave at 8:04 PM on November 12, 2008

PedantFilter: Replace "zoom" with "telephoto" in the above answer — a prime lens does not "zoom".
posted by knave at 8:05 PM on November 12, 2008

Go with a wide-angle! The 11-16 mm suggested by C_D is a great piece of kit but note that it does not autofocus with your D60. This may not be an issue with ultrawides; be sure you're comfortable with manual focusing before purchase. The Nikon equivalent would be the more expensive 12-24 mm f/4 which has a larger zoom range though smaller maximum aperture.

Oh, and get a tripod too!
posted by wei at 10:21 PM on November 12, 2008

Another amateur here - if I may hijack the thread for a follow-up: how does the Nikkor 18-200mm VR compare with the Tokina 11-16 mm Civil_Disobedient suggested, at the widest angle (18 and 11 mm, respectively)? Do those 7 mm of lens make a big difference in sharpness and quality and...wide-angle-ness?
posted by zardoz at 11:22 PM on November 12, 2008

wow - great feedback! Love the Hive. I was definitely leaning towards the 18-200mm anyway so I might as well take the plunge on that one. I'm interested in the wide-angles that have been discussed but...I suck with manual focus; I'm working on it but I worry I won't get it in time for the trip. I'd hate to f-up shots because I blew the focus. So do you still reco the wide angle considering my newbieness? I'd likely look to pick up a used one and then upgrade once the new one comes out for the D60.

Tripod was also in the works so will get that. Speedlight I'm also intrigued by. I like the suggestions that I should think longer term - I'll be shooting a lot indoors in the future: restaurants, bars, parties, friends kids etc. I do want this to become a serious hobby. The trip was/is the excuse to take the plunge with the gear.
posted by urbanette at 3:40 AM on November 13, 2008

note that it does not autofocus with your D60

Crap, didn't notice that. In that case, the second-best option is the 12-24mm DX Nikkor, but that's probably three hundred more than the Tokina, and it's an f/4 instead of an f/2.8.

Do those 7 mm of lens make a big difference in sharpness and quality and...wide-angle-ness?

Quality and sharpness? In all likelihood. Most zoom lenses are worst at the edges of their range, in terms of image clarity (chromatic aberrations, color fringing, etc.)

But wide-angle-ness? Oh yes, quite a bit (10mm vs. 18mm).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:14 AM on November 13, 2008 [1 favorite]

I'll be shooting a lot indoors in the future (...)

Available light? The 18-200, while versatile, is rather slow, i.e. has a small and variable maximum aperture.

Do you think 18 mm of your kit lens is wide enough for you right now? If you don't need anything wider, consider a faster lens in the same range like Nikon 17-55 mm f/2.8 which is great when you don't want or can't use flash. (A cheaper alternative is the 17-50 mm f/2.8 from Tamron.)

Otherwise for indoor photography, a Speedlight is very useful too.
posted by wei at 4:46 AM on November 13, 2008

Available light? The 18-200, while versatile, is rather slow, i.e. has a small and variable maximum aperture.

Really it's about a wash. When I'm shooting things indoors w/o a flash I set my D80 to auto ISO and a minimum shutter of 1/15. With the VR and cocktail-party movement (ie, people not darting about a lot) this gets pretty good shots at wider angles. I'm not sure I buy Nikon's metric of the VR being good for two stops worth of speed in general but it's certainly a reasonable rule of thumb for that sort of thing.
posted by phearlez at 8:56 AM on November 13, 2008

For what it's worth, I know a few people that love the Sigma 10-20mm for super wide, and its probably the next lens I'll pick up for landscapes and such. It does distort (bend) at 10mm but honestly thats to be expected.

Don't skimp on a tripod when the time comes. I was running around with a BestBuy special for a while and if you breathed on it the thing would wobble. I picked up a Manfrotto tripod a few months back and that thing will take you out if you bump into it, it's not going anywhere.
posted by wavering at 9:49 AM on November 13, 2008

I'm not sure I buy Nikon's metric of the VR being good for two stops worth of speed in general but it's certainly a reasonable rule of thumb for that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, VR only helps stabilize your hand movements while shooting. If your subject is moving, it's not going to help. This is why I wouldn't recommend the 18-200VR for indoor available light shots. (Although occasionally, you can get lucky.)
posted by knave at 12:07 PM on November 13, 2008

Thank you for all the advice on this. I leave tomorrow and I've ended up with the 18-200mm VR and the brand spankin' new 50mm AF-S f1.4. I LOVE the 50mm. It's amazing for indoor party shots and will be great at the gatherings. The 18-200mm is honking, huge but it'll do for now. I'll probably sell it and trade down for something a bit lighter when I'm back.

Thanks again for all the help - I'll post links to some pics when I'm back!
posted by urbanette at 11:19 AM on December 15, 2008