Travel with NIKON D5 & 200MM F/2 VR2
Jun 27, 2017, 6:12 am
#2
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Jun 28, 2017, 9:47 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: NW Ohio & Sri Lanka
Posts: 374
I have the entire 200-800 Super Telephotos in Nikon but yet to have traveled with any of them but this years trip to Panama, I am seriously thinking of taking my NIKKOR 800mm F/5.6 FL ED VR Lens...
Jun 30, 2017, 12:16 am
#7
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: 42.1% in PDX , 49.9% in PVG & 8% in the air somewhere
Programs: Marriott Ambassador Elite, UA 1K, AS MVP GLD 75K, DL Pt
Posts: 1,086
I can see lugging the D5, what is the motivation for chubby. With D5 who needs F2 
I'd say the 70-200 2.8 not exactly small and portable can do 90% of chubby. Lugging D5 and holy is totally doable but to add chubby is serious commitment. As another suggested the 105 1.4 is an interesting bokeh alternative.
I'd say the 70-200 2.8 not exactly small and portable can do 90% of chubby. Lugging D5 and holy is totally doable but to add chubby is serious commitment. As another suggested the 105 1.4 is an interesting bokeh alternative.
Jun 30, 2017, 1:27 am
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: NW Ohio & Sri Lanka
Posts: 374
I can see lugging the D5, what is the motivation for chubby. With D5 who needs F2
I'd say the 70-200 2.8 not exactly small and portable can do 90% of chubby. Lugging D5 and holy is totally doable but to add chubby is serious commitment. As another suggested the 105 1.4 is an interesting bokeh alternative.
I'd say the 70-200 2.8 not exactly small and portable can do 90% of chubby. Lugging D5 and holy is totally doable but to add chubby is serious commitment. As another suggested the 105 1.4 is an interesting bokeh alternative.
Just bought the new Nikon 105MM F/1.4 G from B&H the other day and I must say what a lovely lens...
Jul 6, 2017, 1:52 am
#9
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 343
I think the choice of lens when depends on what you intend to shoot. If you don't need the speed Nikon's F4 lenses are considerably less expensive, lighter and smaller. They're also less intrusive/obviously expensive looking which is something to consider depending on where you travel to.
After a few trips with the 2.8's I figured out the F4's and a couple of nice primes made sense for what I do. YMMV...but the 2.8 VrII's are a very nice bit of glass.
After a few trips with the 2.8's I figured out the F4's and a couple of nice primes made sense for what I do. YMMV...but the 2.8 VrII's are a very nice bit of glass.
Jul 10, 2017, 6:42 am
#12
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAX
Programs: AA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 54
Finally mounted my new 200 f/2 VR2 on the D5 Nikon and that sure is a handful to be lugging around compered to the 70-200 FLED..
Attachment 35866
Attachment 35866
"LensWizard"?
Sep 7, 2017, 1:34 pm
#13
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SE England
Programs: Amex Cent and all that comes with it
Posts: 332
Yup, often transatlantic with the 200 F2 or the 300 F2.8. But not both!
Carry the lens in the carry case they come with (as hand luggage) and camera and other lenses, laptop etc in a photo backpack also as hand luggage.
Hard effort but tend to forget the pain and the end results are worth it (bit like giving birth, apparently) :-)
Adey
Carry the lens in the carry case they come with (as hand luggage) and camera and other lenses, laptop etc in a photo backpack also as hand luggage.
Hard effort but tend to forget the pain and the end results are worth it (bit like giving birth, apparently) :-)
Adey
Oct 8, 2017, 7:59 am
#14
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: GRR, USA
Posts: 3,298
Managed getting to and from JNB from ORD with the cameras and lenses including the Nikon 600mm. Heavy lifting, but manageable. Packed the D5, 2 D800s, Sigma 150-600, Nikon 24-70, Rokinon 24mm 1.4, the nikon 600mm, and 2 GoPros. Had more equipment than clothes. The way it should be.