I need Nikon DSLR travel lens suggestion for a upcoming Peru to see Machu Picchu  trip. I am fine with FX or DX lenses. Figure some day i might own a FX, but no rush. I will be using my old D300. Mostly i use the camera for wildlife when i am out in Yellowstone/Tetons. Out there i shoot a Nikon 300mm F4 with the 1.4 or 1.8 extender on it.  Other than that i have a 70-300 4.5-5. VR, 35mm 1.8, 60mm 2.8 Macro and a older 18-70 3.-4.5.  I got the 70-300 before going to a prime 300mm. I do like the flexibility at times but the prime is nicer at 300mm. But i am not married tot he 70-300.

All that being said for this trip to Peru i want to only bring one lens. I dont expect to be shooting many animal pictures but who really knows. I would like to stick with Nikon lenses, want VR, reasonably light, sharp and clear, and under $1000. I figure this will be my general all round lens after the trip. I have thought about the 18-200, 18-85 and the 16-80. I am not a pixel counter but like sharp quality glass. That being said i have relaxed a little in the last few years about getting every last ounce of sharpness out of a photo and realized great photos are often more about lighting and composition. Give me your lens thoughts.

Tamron 18-270

I know it's not a Nikon brand, but I used this same lens, on a Canon Camera for my trip to Thailand.

It truly is a perfect lens, if you only want to carry one.

If you end up hating it, it is very easy to sell and get most of your money back.
Attached File
Attached File

Attached File
Attached File

Budget, Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED.  $350 new, cheaper used at places like KEH.

Upper tier, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G.  $1,100 new, LOTS cheaper used.

Not so sure you need a super-zoom on El Camino Inca.

If you've got more budget money, I'd also suggest a super-wide, like the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8.  I know that I'd never go on a trek-type trip without a super-wide.

Bring extra batteries.  No charging stations on the trail.

You will have an incredible time.  My visit in 2001 was one of the best experiences of my life.

MachuPicchu-1 by FredMan, on Flickr

Dead Woman's Pass-1 by FredMan, on Flickr

But watch out for this guy, he'll push you off the side of the mountain.

FunkyLlama by FredMan, on Flickr

The superzooms like the 18-200mm are great for the convenience and do a good job at middle apertures.
That said, I have never been a fan of superzooms. You get slightly better image quality from a two-lens combo that covers the same focal length range.

Assuming your 70-300mm is the VR ($550) version and not the $180 "G" version, it matched with your 18-70mm would be my choice for the trip.

For travel, 18-200 and done. Best travel lense.

V

Machu Pizzo!

On my bucket list! How difficult was your breathing at this altitude?

Did you experience a energy type of vortex?

I envy you for this.

Looking back at my photos, I don't think there's much that I couldn't have gotten closer to for the most part. I sure as heck wouldn't want to lug around more gear than necessary either. If I were to leave tomorrow and do it all again with a real camera, I would take my 50mm F1.4, a 70-200 F2.8 and a 16-35 F2.8. That would be on a full frame camera and that's actually what I'm planning on taking when I go to HI in the spring. 

Here are a couple samples of what I got with a high end point and shoot a few years back.

Big question is do you plan to make this lens investment that you can use for newer body in the future ?

If so , forgo the superzooms  . I went through 4 different "travel lens " setups before I settled on the 24-120 F4 VRII ( the previous 24-120 was just ok )

Even though you shoot DX now , you may eventually go to FX body

I have the 18-200 I use with D7100 .  I guess its nice to have the long end but reality is all these superzooms tend to be soft in the corners .

Even if you don't pixel peep here is why its important on the newer bodies .

With the higher MP bodies, you raw file is so large that you can easily make multiple pictures from one exposure by cropping

For example, I would take architectural pic and make numerous cropped in to create new pic of a specific architectural detail

Obviously it helps to have sharpness across the frame  

The superzooms tend to be softer in the corner when racked out .

I used the Nikon 28-300 on trip and was bit underwhelmed . When I looked at efix data of the trip , there were really not that many where I zoomed in past 150ish mm

The focus speed is noticeably slower as well

With the newer bodies, you can get away with lens like the 24-120 F4 and just crop in closer ...the detail will be there

Since you are shooting DX now, the 24 is not very wide. A good supplement is the Tokina 11-16 and the newer version 11-20

The ultra wide 11 is much wider than 18mm of the 18-200 . The neat thing is you can use this Tokina on FX at about 15mm on up ! This way you can still use it if you upgrade to FX body

Thanks for allt he suggestions. Right now this will be one lens trip. I like traveling light and concentrating on the trip rather than swapping lenses and lugging gear. So one lens is a for sure thing. I dont really think i need the 200mm range but you never really know. the 18-200 would be handy at other times. I spend half the year in Yellowstone. It would be a nice lens to keep on the camera when driving around the park. Sometimes wild like gets really close. I have missed good shots become they get almost to close for the 70-300.  All that being said i really dont think the 18-200 would stack up to the 16-80. Ant i am at the point where i would really like to be buying lenses once, buy once cry once.

But i have also found that i think i find IS or VR more useful for what i shoot that super fast lenses. I dont always like the super shallow depth of field. But the fast lenses do focus nice for sure.

After this lens a super wide is on my list. maybe the nikon 10-24 or tokina 11-16? But that will be later. I really dont shoot much at the wide end. But i would like to start exploring that posibility in the near future. Maybe after this trip.

If you're only going to take one lens my vote is for the 24-120 f/4.  It's a spectacular lens, IMO, and I'm very happy with mine.

Thinking back to my IC trip, I never felt that I needed a very long lens.  You'll have plenty of opportunity to get closer or farther form subjects, and as you'll only have this one trip to get these shots, get the sharpest you can afford with a reasonable zoom.  In my book that's the 24-120.

If I was going to hike the Trail again I'd take the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 24-120, and Nikon 70-300 f/3.5-5.6.  If I had to ditch one it'd be the 70-300.

More negative scans from the trail.  These were shot with a Canon SLR, have no idea EXIF.

Phuyupatamarca by FredMan, on Flickr

Camp4a-1 by FredMan, on Flickr

Huayna Picchu-1 by FredMan, on Flickr

DSC_0073-Guard Dog by FredMan, on Flickr

DSC_0041-Pisaq Terraces by FredMan, on Flickr

This.  Get the Nikon second generation and bring your 35mm also and you should be good to go.

I see a few of you guys mention the 24-120. I bet it is a great lens but i am shooting a D300 with the small sensor. So 24 is not really wide enough for me on that end.

Also see a few suggestions of the 18-200. I am not opposed to that, but just dont know if it will be sharp enough. For the most part people sound like they really like them. But now i am seeing some really great reviews of the 18-140. It is kind of a cheap lens but if it delivers the results i should not be snobbish about it. I used to have a 55-200 that was just smokin sharp for a dirt cheap lens. So maybe i will give the 18-140 a try. ANy feelings about that one? I really dont want extra lenses but maybe that paired with the super small but fast and sharp 35 1.8 i have?

For years, my go-to lens was a 24-85D. I got a refurb at a local shop years ago (back when I shot film). A couple years ago an 18-140DX appeared under the Christmas tree for me. It is my go-to now, but is frequently travelling alongside a 12-24 Tokina (pretty low use) and an 80-200 f2.8 (old school lens, pre the 70-200s).

If you told me I was only travelling with one lens, it would be the 18-140 for sure.

To put this in context - in my "lens closet" there are:
Tokina 12-24DX
Nikon 18-140DX
Nikon 24-85D
Nikon 35-70 (pre-D lens, and pretty much junk at this point)
NIkon 70-210 (pre-D lens)
Sigma 70-300 (better than it has a right to be)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8D

For travel purposes, that 70-300 is a good pick when I don't want to lug the 80-200...

-shooter

OK guys. I think i about have this decided. I am leaning towards the 18-140. I am relatively happy with my old 18-70. The 18-140 will add the VR which is my primary wish. it will also add some level of better image quality and obviously a longer focal length. I think i would be happy with my plain jane 18-70 if it had my VR. So i think the 18-140 will do the job. Plus, in the long run i also have a 35 1.8 and a 60mm prime that are smokin sharp and fast. I dont mind spending more on a better lens but i dont really think the extra spent on the 16-80 will really get me much more.

The 18-140 is pretty cheap. KEH has them around $300. I figure the money i save will get me into a 10-24 that much sooner in the future. I think spending more to get a really nice super wide might help me better in the long run.

that will get me a nice overall set up. 10-24, 18-140, 70-300 VR and then some nice primes, 35 1.8, 60mm macro, 300 f4 with 1.8 converter.

What do you guys think? Solid plan.

I would consider trading that 70-300 for a 70-200 f2.8 (or an older 80-200). If there is one lens that has changed my photography, it is being able to shoot in gyms and other poorly lit places at f2.8.

-shooter

I will consider the 80-200 or 70-200 2.8. but i do really like the VR in the 70-300. the 80-200 VR is still kind of pricy.

The 70-300 is a sleeper of a lens.  It was my first long zoom, and opened my eyes.

It also showed me how much more reach I wanted, and THAT led to the Tamzooka.  

The 70-300 is a very good travel lens; not too big.

DSCN2043-D7100_Tamron600 by FredMan, on Flickr

This. It's combination of size and versatility make it superior to any other single lens in the nikon dx lineup for travel. It's plenty sharp.

As it turns out I have to go to HAWAII next week, for two weeks, to supervise some herbicide work.  Big island.

I'm taking the D500, Tokina 11-16, Nikon 24-120, and Nikon 70-300.

I'm pretty excited about the work and pretty excited about getting some interesting shots.

Please update us when you get back. I'm headed there in the spring and I need to pick up an ultra wide zoom. As a Canon shooter I'm leaning toward the 16-35 F2.8, but the Tamron 15-30 VR is less than half the cost. I'll be interested to see what you do with your selection.