Help with my lens setup

aeon3

Hello!

I have a D7000 and I'm about to move to another country for more than 1 year. I really want to bring all my camera gear with me but it's just NOT practical at all. The more lenses I ditch the better. I'm willing to sell them and buy different ones if it takes.
I was thinking about 4 lenses MAXIMUM, 3 would be perfect. I'm really lost and I've already tried to analyse which focal length I use more, which lenses I use more and ended up with no ideas.

Here's what I got right now:
35, 50, 85 primes
70-300
sigma 17-50, 2.8
sigma 10-20, 4.5
sigma 105 2.8

Couple things worth mentioning so you guys can help me out:
I don't use my tripod often. If I could I'd shoot always handheld 1.8 or 2.8.
I don't use longer FL a lot. However, I'd like to have a 18-200 or 18-140, if possible. (Still not sure if it's worth giving up the 2.8 for more FL though).
I need one UWA. I just love that. However I think I could use the tokina 11-16, 2.8 instead of the sigma, right? Easier handhelds, 17-20 FL is not wasted.
I need at least one prime. Which I'm clueless about which one to choose. I love them all.

Lots of info but WHAT DO YOU THINK!? Anyone willing to enlighten me?

ziggy53

Please tell us more about what you want, or expect, to shoot. Especially discuss indoor and night possibilities.
How will you use the images? What image quality?
How important are the images? (Is this a once-in-a-lifetime trip?)
What do you have for lighting equipment?
Are you not wanting to take more stuff because you have no place anticipated to store it?
Will you need to carry everything with you all of the time while you're gone?
What budget do you have in mind?
Is total weight a factor?

aeon3

ziggy53 wrote: »

Please tell us more about what you want, or expect, to shoot. Especially discuss indoor and night possibilities.
How will you use the images? What image quality?
How important are the images? (Is this a once-in-a-lifetime trip?)
What do you have for lighting equipment?
Are you not wanting to take more stuff because you have no place anticipated to store it?
Will you need to carry everything with you all of the time while you're gone?
What budget do you have in mind?
Is total weight a factor?

hey ziggy!

Probably a bit indoor and night as well, but not the priorities.

Web mostly, not large prints. Best quality as possible.

Pretty important yes.

SB700, still learning how to use it.

Not related to storage. Im just feeling that all these lenses are more like a burden instead of joy. I wanna get better by focusing my technique in only a couple of lenses. And of course, easier to transport them with me. Money I'd get from selling some would be nice as well.

I'll be moving quite a lot yes. In that case I'll have to carry all of them with me. But anyways I need an all-rounder with at least mid-range zoom. Something to throw in and forget about it, still knowing I'll be able to take 75% of the shots I want. At the moment my 17-50 performs that role.

I dont have a fixed budget in mind, but I'm not willing to spend more than $700 in one lens.

Total weight is not a factor.

ziggy53

My APS-C travel lens kit, which sounds a little like what you might want (but in a Nikon setup), is:

Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm, f/1.4 USM
Canon 1.4x teleconverter
Close focus adapter, 3.3 diopter, to fit the 50mm, f/1.4, gives about 1/2 lifesize.

That kit gives me a good, general photography capability, and in most situations and opportunities.

In your case that means, ...

1) Keep your:

sigma 17-50, 2.8
sigma 10-20, 4.5

... and one of your primes. (I suggest looking at your own images to see which prime you use the most.)

2) Purchase a Nikkor 70-200mm, f/4G ED VR AF-S and a TC-14E teleconverter. I realize that this is more than you wish to spend, but I do think that the improved image quality is worthwhile. Add a close-focus diopter for either your selected prime or for the 70-200mm so that you can do near-micro subjects, and you're set for the majority of subjects and scenes.

That's a very capable flash, but I would add something like a DEMB Classic Flip-it! flash modifier, to help when you can use 'bounce with fill flash' configuration. It's a very small device, but more flexible than a simple bounce card.

I would also add a P&S camera for those times when a full dSLR kit is unnecessary, like many casual social situations.

aeon3

That's a very nice setup ziggy!

I'll give it a nice study and see what I can come up with!

What do you think about replacing the 17-50 for the 18-140?

And would you find the tokina 11-16 2.8 worth it over the sigma? I'm thinking exclusively about handheld shots. At first, that would mean sharper shots for me.

ziggy53

The Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S (DX) is pretty new, so qualified reviews are a little thin. DXO rates it highly. It suffers some from the same things as all "super-zooms", namely the aperture is pretty slow at the middle and long ends of the zoom, and image quality drops some at the long end too. Still, it has the advantage of versatility.

I'm pretty happy with my Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, and I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon. If I had to replace it (damage or other loss), the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro (DX) would be pretty high on the list.

aeon3

ziggy53 wrote: »

The Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S (DX) is pretty new, so qualified reviews are a little thin. DXO rates it highly. It suffers some from the same things as all "super-zooms", namely the aperture is pretty slow at the middle and long ends of the zoom, and image quality drops some at the long end too. Still, it has the advantage of versatility.

I'm pretty happy with my Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, and I don't plan on replacing it anytime soon. If I had to replace it (damage or other loss), the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro (DX) would be pretty high on the list.

Alright, you convinced me on the UWA. I'll keep the sigma.

Now about the super-zoom, I'm aware it's all about compromise. That's the core issue I'm having right now. Given it's non-sense to have both 17-50 and 18-140, should I replace the 17-50 for a travel zoom, like the 18-140? I never really experienced that so called compromise. I started off with the 18-105, but at the time I knew zero about photography. Then I got the 17-50.

One solution would be: UWA, 18-140, macro 105mm and prime (probably 50mm as the 105mm is closer to the 85mm range).
Other idea would be: UWA, sigma 17-50, prime 85mm (as 50mm is covered by sigma) and macro for long range.

Either way, later I could sell the sigma 105mm, get a diopter for the prime as you recommended and save some cash for the 70-200.

ziggy53

Renting a lens is a good way to assess a particular model before purchase.

You already know what direction I took, but only you know what's right for your purposes and needs. I will say that while any of those choices might not be perfect, either kit mentioned should be usable for many purposes.

Qarik

I'd go:

tokina 11-16mm for UWA
sigma 17-50 for standard (don't know much about the lens though)
85mm (assuming it is 1.8 or 1.4 for low light, portrait, and slight zoom)