framer Posted February 16, 2017 #1 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I'm doing a trip around Great Britain in late April. The question I have is there any reason to have a 300 or 400 mm lens with me. Anything to take photos of north of Scotland in the north sea? I'm thinking a 70-200 as the largest lens to hull around. We'll be doing 7 cities so I'm planning on using WA for most stuff. framer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommui987 Posted February 16, 2017 #2 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I lugged around a 70-300mm lens on my last trip and found it a tad too heavy (remember my physical condition and age). But it came in handy for some occasional bird shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare mskaufman Posted February 17, 2017 #3 Share Posted February 17, 2017 On my last Europe cruise I just took my 18 - 270 and left it on the camera. Did not feel bad about leaving the 400mm at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody73 Posted February 17, 2017 #4 Share Posted February 17, 2017 . . . The question I have is there any reason to have a 300 or 400 mm lens with me. We visited Great Britain last May. Although I took various lenses, I found myself using a 24-120mm f/4 probably 90% of the time. I suggest taking a 300 or 400mm only if there were specific plans to view wildlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framer Posted February 18, 2017 Author #5 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I'm not planning on much wildlife stuff, but we have two sea days from Ireland to Germany around the north of Scotland. Unless there is something of interest on that part of the cruise that require a long lens they will be staying home. framer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUT2407 Posted February 18, 2017 #6 Share Posted February 18, 2017 Take the 70-200 and a 2x, doubt you'll use the 2x but I always go for better safe than sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havoc315 Posted February 18, 2017 #7 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I've started to find that unless I'm really planning on wildlife viewing, I don't need anything longer than 100mm for when I travel. In fact, my longest is often 70mm or 85mm on full frame (equivalent of a 50mm on crop) When I travel, I'm trying to capture the scene, re-create the Impression I'm forming with my own eyes. Not usually zooming in on a distant detail. I always carry ultrawide -- a 10-18 on crop, or 14mm or 18-35 on full frame. I'll carry something normal view-- on full frame, either 24-70 or 45/1.8. And for portraits of my family, I'll use the 70mm end of the 24-70 or I'll also bring a 85. I may end up missing a few telephoto shots but really not that many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare pierces Posted February 18, 2017 #8 Share Posted February 18, 2017 My 2¢ comes from a string of recent non-Alaskan cruises where the 18-105 never came off the camera and the second body was 99% wide angle or Lensbaby. I still carry the 55-210 along but it is used less and less since I got the 18-105. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireStation46 Posted February 18, 2017 #9 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I take mine. I also take a Manfrotto tripod. With bag, lenses, flash units it is a lot to lug around. Good for serious shots where you take time and set up. For situtations you will be seeing a lot of sights and briefly, it can be cumbersome to deal with. How many if your shots are distant vs closer up. Big lens may too overkill for some. Have a great trip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now