Prime Lenses for Cambodia/Angkor Wat


Status
Not open for further replies.

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#1
I will be going to Cambodia at the end of the year to visit the Angkor Wat for 3 days and I am wondering what are some prime lenses suitable for the trip? I am using the Nikon D80 and thinking of getting the 50/1.4 and/or the 20/2.8 soon. Will these two primes be able to get me through the trip or do I need some other lenses?
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#2
Hi Randius
I understand that you have an 18-200mm VR in ur arsenal, and i thought it might cover for most of my needs . A wider angle lens would be nice complement.

Ryan
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#3
I will be going to Cambodia at the end of the year to visit the Angkor Wat for 3 days and I am wondering what are some prime lenses suitable for the trip? I am using the Nikon D80 and thinking of getting the 50/1.4 and/or the 20/2.8 soon. Will these two primes be able to get me through the trip or do I need some other lenses?
one for portrait, one for scenaries and buildings. 18-200 is good if you need to switch rapidly
 

May 30, 2003
245
0
0
Visit site
#4
i used a 10-22mm alot during my trip to Cambodia. With you 18-200, you would have covered most focal range.
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#5
I believe I will be taking quite a lot of portrait and landscape shots and the best portrait lens seems to be either a prime or an expensive zoom. For landscape shots, the 17-35 is way out of my budget (have to sell the 18-200 + top-up in order to get a 2nd hand) and I am wondering if the 20/2.8 is a good substitute?

I am now trying out prime lens to get my basics right and have just bought a 50/1.4 for the purpose ;p
 

kingpin

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2002
2,256
0
36
Visit site
#6
I'd been to Angkor Wat. If u are taking wide angle shots then 18mm on digital (=27mm) is not wide enough. Some of the spots are tight and u will need a really wide angle. I suggest the 12-24 lens. 12mm on D80 (=18 mm). Portraits at 50 mm (=75mm) is not long enough as u will have to be quite near to shoot full face portraits. You will do better at 120-200mm (=160-300mm). Since u have the 18-200mm lens, get a wider angle zoom lens (12-24) to complement it. If u want primes then u have a lot to consider (and carry and lots of $$$) from 10.5mm to 200mm. With one camera body it will be very inconvenient to keep switching. If u can afford it the following zooms are my recommendations: 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200.
Oh do bring a flash. Its very useful in difficult lighting situations.

Enjoy your trip to Angkor Wat.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#7
If u can afford it the following zooms are my recommendations: 12-24, 17-55 and 70-200.
Yup. Great zooms.

Tho the idea of changing my 70-200 on the go for another lens horrifies me a little
:bsmilie:

Do take in mind the bulk that u will be lugging around, and the tripod if u are bringing :sweatsm:

Best of luck
Ryan
 

rOnGrEn

New Member
Jan 8, 2005
1,507
0
0
Hougang
#8
Just came back from Cambodia in July. I used the 17-50 95% of the time, only switched to the 70-210 f4 on 2 occasions, 1st at the Apsara performance, 2nd during the boat trip on Great Lake Tonle Sap.

You don't necessary need to use a prime or expensive zoom to take good portraits.. what is more important is the ability to connect with your subjects.

It can get quite hot sometimes in Cambodia and theres a lot of walking and climbing ...and the roads there are real dusty.. I wouldn't want to change lens often. (and dont change lens while travelling in your tuktuk!!)..a 20 f2.8 will be neither here nor there.. I think your 18-200 should suffice for most situation unless you want to take architectural shots, which will require a wider zoom as mentioned by the other bros. Otherwise, 18mm on digital is also sufficient for capturing the sunrise in front of the pond at angkor wat. =)
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#9
Thanks for the recommendations, bros. I do have a tripod and flashlight ready :D But of the zooms recommended, the 12-24 may be the only one I can afford to buy. Woot, that will make me go the same path as Rockwell ;p I am quite concerned about the bulk and weight of zoom lenses as I've heard the steps of Angkor Wat are quite narrow and steep and carrying a tripod can be quite cumbersome already...
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#11
Other than going primes, I have always thought about getting the trinity lenses. Doing so will require me to sell off my 18-200 (and perhaps the 50/1.4 as well) Will the 17-35 alone be able to see me through the 3 days in Cambodia?
 

hongjone

New Member
Jan 6, 2006
1,272
0
0
Singapore
#12
Other than going primes, I have always thought about getting the trinity lenses. Doing so will require me to sell off my 18-200 (and perhaps the 50/1.4 as well) Will the 17-35 alone be able to see me through the 3 days in Cambodia?
Yes, of course. You may want to think about the 17-55mm too. It's a great option too, and I'm simply loving mine. :bsmilie:
 

londonray

New Member
Mar 25, 2005
839
0
0
#13
Other than going primes, I have always thought about getting the trinity lenses. Doing so will require me to sell off my 18-200 (and perhaps the 50/1.4 as well) Will the 17-35 alone be able to see me through the 3 days in Cambodia?
just came back from cambodia on thu 17th Aug. I was there with a 17-35 and 35-70 both F2.8. used my 17-35 almost >90% of the time with my CP on. like what King Pin said, if you can afford it, get the 12-24, it'll be really nice at Ta Phrom (tomb raider Temple) and some parts of angkor wat. just my 2 cents... cheers! enjoy ur trip!
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#14
Is it worth giving up the 18-200 to get the 17-35? Or just save up to get the 12-24 to complement the 18-200?

Still, I am curious to know if anyone had managed to pull through Cambodia, particularly Angkor Wat, with only prime lenses?
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#15
Is it worth giving up the 18-200 to get the 17-35? Or just save up to get the 12-24 to complement the 18-200?
it is a question of focal length versus image quality, so i think you can't compare that way. you can drop 18-200 if you find that you hardly ever shoot pictures at 50-200 range, or that those are easily sacrificed and you would not regret missing those standard views and shot tele. if you just need to cover the 35-50mm range for portraits on top of 17-35, get a 17-35 50mm prime, or use 17-55 instead.
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#16
it is a question of focal length versus image quality, so i think you can't compare that way. you can drop 18-200 if you find that you hardly ever shoot pictures at 50-200 range, or that those are easily sacrificed and you would not regret missing those standard views and shot tele. if you just need to cover the 35-50mm range for portraits on top of 17-35, get a 17-35 50mm prime, or use 17-55 instead.
Thanks for the advice :D It is the worry for unexpected needs of the 50-200mm range and the potential inconvenience of changing lenses that kept me from dropping the 18-200...
 

zoossh

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2005
8,725
0
0
Singapore
#17
Thanks for the advice :D It is the worry for unexpected needs of the 50-200mm range and the potential inconvenience of changing lenses that kept me from dropping the 18-200...
then keep using this lens until you grow out of that fear. those people who are happy with only 17-35mm for everything are those who knows what they want and are very specific, or do not know what they miss out.
 

Oct 23, 2006
364
0
16
38
#19
IMHO, prime lens will be good only if you have 2 bodies.... Can switch in between without changing lens, without missing the moment...
 

kingpin

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2002
2,256
0
36
Visit site
#20
IMHO, prime lens will be good only if you have 2 bodies.... Can switch in between without changing lens, without missing the moment...

I agree if u have 2 bodies, it is good to carry one with a wide lens and and other with a long lens (I usually prefer zooms). But then again the weight is a big consideration. I do carry 2 bodies on trips. Serve as redundancy too. V flexible for most situations.

I also agree if u can afford (both $$ and muscle) to carry large aperture lens (of course for zooms it would be the f2.8). The large aperture eg f2.8 would be useful in low light or to keep the focal plane very tight around the subject (ie blur the background).
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom