A quick search didn’t show a similar question being asked so looking for advice here please.
My wife and I have a 6 week NZ tour planned and booked. Following the main tourist trail, driving and staying in hotels etc.
it’s not a photo trip per se but I will be looking to use the opportunity to the full. It’s not a birding trip but I will be looking for birding opportunities and we have a couple of nights on Stewart Island with a dedicated trip to Ulva.
So the question is what lenses? We’re from the UK and I can only realistically take a smallish amount of kit. I’ll take the Z9 and the 24-120 which should cover most landscape and general stuff. I can realitonly take one telephoto lens.
I’ve been holding back on the 180-600 (it’s heavier than I want). For wildlife and birds I’m currently using the 500pf.
I am tempted by the 400 f4.5 and TC which gives 2 options. Or the 100-400 plus TC for the range. It’s the same considerations covered in a number of threads. So I’m looking for a specific NZ angle on this. I suspect the landscapes will offer more than the birds much of the time. Would the 100-400 add something if I took that instead of the 500pf? And if I did that would I lose out on the birding shots?
Thanks in anticipation
I have done New Zealand South Island especially as a photography trip with a mate, we drove a car and all our camera gear was in the boot.
The one thing that is apparent is being more south like Tasmania the light is amazing, its just a whole level up.
I took just a 28-300, 24-70 2.8G, some filters, 50mm 1.4G, 16mm f2.8 fish eye, tripod, and a phone camera, had a ball.
Your 24-120 and 100-400 is fine, the light is so contrasting, colorful, clean, it made my 28-300 look awesome LOL.
Cameras i took the 16mm DF, and my D3X, Phone camera and never looked back.
Did sunrises sunsets, Astro, landscapes, magic.
Today i would just take the D850, 28-300, 24-70 2.8 G, 16mm fish eye, i never needed the 200-500 once. Tripod filters.
Less is more.
