I have to ask the obvious question- why not buy a bag that fits both lenses?

I'd take the 18-55mm.

Pinglee, sounds like that's going to be a great trip!

Wondering if renting a lens is an option? If so,
I would suggest the 16-85mm as a one lens solution. I have used this for trips, it is a terrific lens.

In addition, a low-light lens would be helpful too...so maybe consider the 35mm f1.8.

Another suggestion: you may also want to post on photo.net and get some input from the experts there.

Whatever you take you will be both right and wrong. There will shots for which the lens will be perfect and others not. Usually 55-300 are too heavy or too slow.

Unless you feel like carrying two lenses take the 18-55.

You'll take 99% with that.

I hear people say they're going on atrip and need a longer lens. Unless you're going for wildlife you want wide.

When you back back and review your photos you'll tell yourself they just don't look like what you saw.

That's because you eyes will see wider than your lens.
Wide, wide, wide.

Ideally buy a bag which will take both. Or carry the camera and long lens in the bag and the 18-55 in your pocket.
Most of the time you will use the wider lens though.

If you really are only taking one then take the 18-55. It is light and small and wide enough for both architecture and landscapes.

Actually 18mm is a lot wider than your eyes see. A 50mm lens used to be the standard to give approximately a human field of view, but with modern APS-C digitals you need about a 35mm lens.

I'm with Myer...take the 18-55. I'm not familiar with Nikon models, is the D5100 a crop sensor? if so, the 55mm end of your zoom lens is definitely too long for city pictures. You won't be able to get both of the towers of Notre Dame, for example, unless you are quite far away. Inside museums if you want to shoot something, you'll have to be across the room from it, and then people will walk in front of you.

I generally travel with a 28-135 as an all purpose lens, and a 10-22 for wide angle stuff. I leave the 70-300 at home unless I'm going to shoot wildlife.

or as others have said...buy a bag which fits both. I mean, why have a lovely DSLR with the ability to switch lenses to suit your needs, and then not carry any lenses?

I prefer faster and wider angle lens. In many places, you just cannot step back far enough to take picture of monuments, architectures, etc. They tend to be in tight squares or located on a narrow street.

A faster lens with an ability to take pictures without flash is a big plus inside many buildings.

If I want to take a telephoto "like" picture, I can "simulate" to some extent by cranking up the resolution and cropping and blowing up the pictures afterwards. It is harder to simulate what a wide angle can do with a telephoto.

Another vote for the 18-55. I use a 17-85 when I travel and it's great in the vast majority of situations (with limitations in low light, etc). I was with my brother on my last trip. He hauled around his telephoto but I don't think he ever used it.

The D1500 is a crop sensor approximately like the Canon crop. (Canon 1.6, Nikon 1.5)

That means it would be 28mm on a 35mm camera.

It's difficult to compare your lens to your eyes because your eyes move around and you can easily feel that your angle of view is over 90 degrees.

I have a Canon T2i (crop sensor) and an excellent 15-85 lens. This is great for travel and is 20% wider than the 18-55.

Other than when wildlife is involved that's the only lens I take on trips.

greg,
We all want faster (boy is that misleading!!!) don't we. We always want a larger (smaller number) apearture but life doesn't always give us what we want.

Take the 18-55 and have a good time.

When you come back download a free program from www.download.com called ExposurePlot. It will analyze all of the images in a folder. If you took a large percentage of your photos at the longest end then you could have used a longer lens. My guess is you'll be somewhere between the middle and wide end.

Take the 18-55mm for sure. This thing takes 16 Megapixel images - you can always crop later for stained glass, etc. if 55mm is not close enough in. You can't "uncrop" to zoom out later, though.

Figure out a way of taking both lenses.

I recently looked at the focal lengths I used most often in taking photos during a trip to Italy 3 years ago. I wanted to figure out what focal lengths I actually shot at as part of deciding on a new lens purchase. For that trip, I had an 18-70 lens on a DX body, and carried a 70-300. I think I changed lenses only twice in the entire three week trip. It was just too much trouble. In fact often I didn't even take the long lens out for the day, leaving it in the hotel to decrease the weight I had to lug around. In looking back at the photos, I found that I shot at 18mm, or close to it, about 70% of the time. The rest were shot at about 65-70mm. For the few shots in which I was trying to get something really far away - like the next hill town in Tuscany, I was able to crop as mentioned above. So I think the 18-55 is the way to go, if you only take one lens. On my upcoming trip to London and the Netherlands, I am going to take a 10-20mm lens, to use on the tulip fields, but my new 18-270 will be on the Nikon most of the time.

Yeah, I use my 24-105mm about 80% of the time when I travel. (I have a full frame DSLR though - so 24mm is even wider for me than 18mm for cropped DSLRs.) However, on my last trip in September I was glad to use my 70-200mm (with a 1.4x extender) occasionally when needed, to get some shots I might otherwise have not gotten even with cropping. (Sometimes I still had to crop severely.) I used my wide lens 17-40mm the least but again, when I wanted it, it was still nice to have. I carry a lot of extra weight when I travel but I'm willing to sacrifice for a few extra shots I might otherwise not get.

For me the whole point of using a DSLR is the lenses. So purchase a bag which can guard them all, plus a decent flash gun and maybe some filters.

Two years ago we were in Tuscany. All I had with me is my 15-85 lens. I just went back to my photos and ran some statistics.

22% were taken at 85mm
75% were taken between 15 and 40mm.
7% were taken at 85mm.
13% were taken greater than 55mm (60 - 85).

At 16 megapixels you can always crop a little if you have to.

The main reason for purchasing a digital SLR instead of a compact camera is for the larger size image sensor, which gives a cleaner image, and more noticeable the higher the ISO setting you use; Andrew will attest to this considering he owns a camera with a full frame sensor.
Definitely take the 18-55mm, which is equivalent to a 27-83mm on a 35mm camera (standard print format)
When traveling I take two lenses, the wide angle only going to the full frame equivalent of 64mm. If I owned a lens that went to the equivalent of 83mm , I am guessing this would cover more than 80% of my shots. Think of the 18-55mm lens as a good walk around lens.
With regards to your last comment about getting far away enough
1) I guarantee you there will be lots of pictures you will not be able to take with the 55-300; a picture of a bakery in Paris from across the street for example, even Notre Dame could be a struggle at 55mm.
2) Normal perspective for a lens on your camera is about 30-35mm, meaning the image is roughly what you see, not compressed or expanded through the use of ranges either side of this( type in normal lens perspective in google for more info). If you take the 55-300, all your images will have some compression, mostly at the long end(300mm).
3) The longer focal length you use, the faster the shutter speed you will require to maintain a steady lens, and therefore a sharp image. You can up the iso setting to up the shutter speed, but at the loss of image quality.
I hope this is of assistance

hi all,

Wow thanks for the overwhelming response. Looks like the consensus is the 18-55. As to why I do not take both lenses, the reason is because I am trying to keep the weight down. I already have a bunch of stuff i probably need to carry in my backpack so i do not want to walk around all day with 2 lenses.

My son took both on our trip in Dec. He used the shorter lens almost exclusively

I know I'm late to the party, but here are my thoughts anyway:

I'm not convinced taking both lenses will make much of a difference unless you plan to carry both around with you all the time. You never know what shot will come up as you are wandering around. I'd go with a lens that at minimum includes what the normal eye sees (for a crop sensor, that would be 35mm). I like the idea of the 16-85.

It's too bad Nikon doesn't have a good zoom that covers a wider useful range. I love (love) my Canon 24-105 F4L. L lenses are top of the Canon line and what a great useful range. "Wide enough" to "telephoto enough".

What I used to do, when my main lens was the Canon 35mm F1.4L, was to always carry my P&S with me as well as the dSLR. The normal setting on a typical P&S is pretty wide straight out of the box, no fiddling required (I think my various Canon P&S, for instance, are around 18mm at the wide end). If I really wanted to "get it all in" I'd just pull out the P&S for that particular shot.

What I eventually found, though, is that all the shots I really ended up liking were the closeups. The wide ones I take tend to be documentary for the most part (gotta get the whole church!) or shots of friends/family (say cheese and lift your drinks for the camera!). Documentary ones I don't usually bother sharing except with the people who were on the trip with me.

You could of course buy something like the Tamron 18-270 which would cover everything. But I have no idea what the picture quality is with it. Probably no worse than your current kit lens.
You would need to read some reviews of the Tamron and look at the price (or see if you can pick up a second-hand one for a good price) before deciding to go for the all in one solution.

I usually travel with my DA17-70 lens, and DA60-250 (or even my Bigma if I'm after wildlife). This year I took a Sigma 18-250 and regretted it tbh, but the Tamron has a better reputation I believe.

As someone pointed out, when you print, crop and zoom then. Take your pictures at a high resolution when planning to do that, I think.

I have two similar lenses with my Canon and took both. I used the telephoto lens exactly twice.

And from my long past experience with a telephoto, the "opportunity" to get that pic comes up fast--faster than you can find the lens and change them!!

flygirl,

Can I assume that if your standard, walkaround lens is a 24-105 you're using a full-frame camera? Otherwise, in my opinion, that isn't wide enough for daily use.

As Gretchen pointed out. Always take your photos at the highest resolution. The only time I might consider anything but the highest resolution is if my memory card were almost full, I couldn't delete a few images and I didn't have another memory card with me. All highly unlikely.

In Britain at least, it still seems possible to get Nikon's equivalent of that lens for their crop-sensor cameras...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00139KCLY/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0013A1XDE&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0SE52GXKWD5PS946SYZ0

About as nice a range as you'll find in a single piece of glass?

Peter

Lenses are anything but a single piece of glass, they are series of pieces which are constructed by computer programs. In fact the lens highlighted has 17 lens elements and 11 lens groups.

Aduchamp1,

The term "glass" wasn't used to describe the contruction but is commonly used to refer to a lens. I don't use the term but many do.

A_Brit_in_Ischia
I'm not sure if you were referring to my post about the 24-105 not being wide enough to be a walk around lens on a crop frame camera.

I don't know Nikons very well but for a *Canon* camera lenses that fit and work properly on a full-frame camera also work on a crop-frame. The difference, of course, is in the crop factor and how the lens behaves. These are EF lenses. The suffix L indicates a more professional quality.

Lenses that are made specifically for crop-frame cameras don't fit on full-frame cameras. These would be EF-S lenses.

I used "single piece of glass" as my education goes back to a time when we were taught not to repeat a word or phrase unless our vocabulary was inadequate to provide an alternative.

Whilst I found Canon's old 24/85 a very handy walk-around objective on my EOS film cameras, for cities at least I did indeed prefer a 17/35.

As only a hobbyist, I wouldn't stump the European price of that 24/105 version - but then, despite a pair of DSLRs that only sit gathering dust, for me today's pocket-sized models are quite sufficient for the use I make of their images...

http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde

Peter

>>> for cities at least I did indeed prefer a 17/35.

In the way these things can nag at you, that should have been 18/35 - this one, although I seem to have liked mine more than the reviewer did!

http://www.phototestcenter.com/html/sigma_18-35.html

Peter

Myer

The 24-105 works fantastically, I'm quite pleased with it. Most of the photos I share here were taken with it. I tend to find closeups more interesting than wide - usually when I see wide photos it seems the person is trying too hard to bunch as much into the photo as they can. If I really must go wider (like with a group of people over dinner, etc) I will pull out the pocket camera.

Since 35mm on a crop camera is "normal", anything more than that is a bonus. I do have feet.

I am sure most do not know how a lens is constructed and why they are so heavy. It is just a point of information.

I have used Nikons for the past 30 years and have fixed and zoom lenses and have carried them all, or should say, Mrs. Adu has carried them on many occasions and I have used her shoulder and head as a tripod.

Using the lens that I brought that day, has led to happy accidents, where I had to change the angle or the apeture for the photo to something I did not want originally but became a much better shot.

Unless you are a pro or have a committment to an exhibtion I would not worry about it.

I have the same 24-105mm Canon lens flygirl has, but I use it on my full frame 5D, so it's really 24mm wide. We all have different styles, but I would say I use it more often closer to 24mm, because I tend to shoot landscapes. But it's nice to have the range. And it is a really nice lens - very sharp and fast.

I agree that 24mm wouldn't be wide enough for me on a crop camera. I once suffered with a crop DSLR and a 28-135mm lens, and that was challenging - but I also had an old 35mm film body with me...

I once suffered with a crop DSLR and a 28-135mm lens, and that was challenging

Just take overlapping vertical shots and then use a panorama program to create the wide-angle view.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mksfca/7022031807/in/set-72157624668777412

Hi Andrew

I have the 7D, which is a pretty spiffy camera. I love it. I kept my old 30D, the 35mm F1.4L is parked on it.

I occasionally think about a FF but I have to say I love the cropped camera - I tend to zoom more than widen - closeups - flowers, details on buildings, etc. I can see why you'd want wider for landscapes. The 24 would be more useful than the 28 though. It's still fairly wide without too much distortion.

What an amazing thread to read. I don't have only used a little pocket camera and rarely use that anymore. What I love about this thread is all the amazing people who have all this knowledge and are so great about helping someone.

It's interesting to see the different photography styles.

I had my beloved 28-105 lens on my last film camera. When I converted to digital I found the lens ok. Then I went on a trip and the lens was just not wide enough. All too often the subject was just too large for the camera/lens combination and was crammed in.

It pained me to retire the lens but I had to.

Since I don't shoot the inside of flowers or insects I needed a wider lens.

I now use a 15-85 on a Canon crop frame camera body. It's sharp throughout the range. Excellent lens.

- - - - -
Something that Gretchen brought up that I'd like to stress.

Always shoot at the highest resolution you have. I realize that you get more images on a memory card at a lower resolution. Don't do it. If your memory card isn't large enough, get a larger one. Carry an extra card. And an extra battery.

A higher resolution not only allows you to make larger prints but also allows you to crop more and still maintain a reasonable quality.

These were all with my 24-105. A fair amount of landscapes as well as closeups. If it's too tight, walk backwards. I really love this lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/skywalkerbeth/tags/norwayfinalcut/show/

flygirl: I have the 7D, which is a pretty spiffy camera. I love it. I kept my old 30D, the 35mm F1.4L is parked on it.

Yeah, but I love the fact that with my 5D, a 24mm lens is actually 24mm. There are real optical differences, too.

The Canon 5D Mark III was just announced and will be released in a few weeks. I've been using my 5D since January 2006 and have shot over 80,000 frames on it! Time for a new camera. I'm either going for the Mark III or for a (soon-to-be cheaper) Mark II. What I'm really looking for is low noise at high ISO, so I can shoot in low light hand-held! Plus, the sensor on my 5D is a dust magnet - the newer cameras have built-in sensor cleaners. You have no idea how much time I've had to waste over the years fixing dust spots on my pictures afterward...

Oh, and the Mark III sounds like a bargain at "only" $3500. That's just the BODY with no lens and no built-in flash!!!!

flygirl,

What I can't tell the focal length of the various shots.

If they're taken at 24mm then the lens isn't wide enough for me as I would have shot many a bit wider. If so, I could have shot them with the same effect by using something like 35-40mm on my 15-85 lens.

However, if you shot them closer to the 105 end, then my 15-85 wouldn't go anywhere near that long. I have to change to a longer lens.

I think if you read the posts on this thread most people would have liked something wider than 24 for landscapes. That doesn't mean you can't do what you want. Just not what I like to do.

I think going back further you could fall of a cliff.

Andrew, I might have to get the MarkIII - and throw a 70-200L on it!

Myer, yep, we all have different styles. I like to take components/details, many times. Sometimes, to me, wide is too much. I frequently focus on elements.