Congratulations! Great pictures from an unforgettable voyage.

Maybe you can use a GPS in your next trip, in order to geotag your pictures. I have a geotagging device from Sony, very easy to use and helpful to organise the pictures and remember the trip.

Thanks Caz, much appreciated.
An intriguing hypothetical. I'll play.
The short answer is that I loved having every lens and got a lot of use out of each one. In fact, my dad who was also on the trip (shooting with a D70, an 18-70, an older 70-210 and a P&S) said it almost looked like we were on different trips.
The longer answer is more complex.
It was really two very different trips. In the Galapagos, while you're immersed in the wildlife, there are very strict limits as to where you can walk. For instance, if there's a cool looking mating dance taking place 100 feet from the edge of the trail, you are NOT going to get closer than 100 feet and your guide will make certain of that. It's pretty non-negotiable. So in that case, having the reach of the 80-400 was great. A lot of the penguin shots, the yellow warblers, the male sea lions guarding their beach and/or fighting were all taken at 400mm. Maybe I could have shot at 200mm and cropped, but I probably wouldn't have liked the results as much. One guy I became friendly with shot with a 70-300 and a 10-24 on a D7000 and was very pleased. Another women had a 28-300 and used it almost exclusively. Because things happened so fast and there was so much going on, having the huge range of the 80-400 was a major plus; much more so than I'd imagined. And I have to say, the 80-400 at 200mm is faster and of better quality than the 18-200 at the same focal length. On this trip the 12-24, while great to have, was something of a luxury. Yes, I got some great shots with it (particularly the close ups of the sea lions and the tortoises), but it wouldn't have ruined my trip not to have it. Same with the macro, but even more so; the only thing I shot with that was the cacti and some of the crab shots).
Peru was totally different. Aside from shooting hummingbirds in some botanical gardens the 80-400 was pretty much dead weight for the whole week. There were tons of flowers on those days as well so I got a lot out of having the macro. The 12-24 was a bit of a luxury item, but I don't think I could have gotten the shots I did of the rainbows at Machu Picchu without it (stepping back wasn't really an option, not unless I wanted to fall 1,500 feet or so). So for that reason alone I would call it essential. I used the 18-200 a lot in Peru as well, particularly for street scenes in Lima, Cusco, and some of the markets shooting people. And here's the other thing about Machu Picchu: there is a $300 "professional photographers' fee" charged to anyone who the guards think might be taking shots for commercial use. There were no set guidelines as to what was professional or not (even our guides couldn't really articulate it), but things like multiple lenses, long lenses, or carbon fiber tripods will certainly get their attention. I took my body, the 18-200, the 12-24, and stashed everything in a backpack. A word to the wise: this is not a place to flaunt your gear unless you have an extra $300 in cash you're willing to part with.
So that's my take. I've been scheming about a way to get back ever since I got home. Next time I'm going for a month. Who's with me?

Well done, geek ... You earned the proud. Thanks for sharing.

Let me ask a hypothetical. In general, I like to travel light. The most I would have taken with me is a 16-85mm and 70-200 or 70-300. For that matter, I might have just carried the 18-200mm.

How important do you think the extra few millimeters were with the 12-24. Also, how significant were that last 100-200mm of the 400mm lens you had? Also, if you had only taken the 18-200mm, how much would you have missed? Thanks.

Great Photos!

KK51B and kanuck, not sure you read through this all the way. The trip was in December; I've been home for two months. Carrying the lenses and body was a piece of cake (full disclosure: I run nearly every day). In fact, I wish I'd bought a second body. I didn't carry everything every time I left my ship. The expedition leader, who's a photographer himself, was generous enough to give me a heads up on days when I'd want a macro or a longer lens. That said, I pretty much carried 3 lenses at all times.
Anyway, the reason I revived the thread today was that I've finally organized and posted all the photos at danfordinc.com/photography.
Enjoy.

Yes the lenses sound fine but the weight in the heat could be a killer for you. A good zoom and a wide lens should be enough I would imagine. Always try and keep it simple and post your pics when you get back! :)

All that glass is nice, but I would recommend a second D90 body. On a recent trip to Cape Cod, I carried two D90s, one with a Sigma 10-20mm and another with the 18-135mm (I have other lenses but that's what I used mostly). My girl friend had her D90 and its 18-105 lens and about half way through the trip the plastic lens mount cracked and locked up the camera and lens, couldn't get the lens off. They had to be sent to Nikon to get both the camera and lens fixed. I have made two trips since and have not improved on my 10-20 and 18-135 combination with two bodies. If something happens to your only body all that glass will not be of much use. Just sayin.

@proudgeek - Thanks for the link to your pictures. As much as I didn't give a lens suggestion I've been waiting to see the results of your trip and seeing the results of the suggestions others made. You took a lot of really beautiful pictures. The closest I'll probably get to Galapagos is the Discovery channel so thanks again.

Rx

OK, sorry for the delay. I've spent the last couple of months wading through shots. A friend of mine was generous enough to build a web presentation in Lightroom, which I just added to my own company's site. It's still a little glitchy, but good enough to show. If you're having trouble, view as Slideshow instead of Gallery, particularly in Cinchero.
The watermark seemed a little presumptuous to me since I'm something of an amateur, but my friend (who does this for a living) seemed to think it was necessary, particularly with some of the double rainbow shots on Machu Picchu. There are a lot here; sorry to make you all wade through them (I did organize everything by location), but I primarily did this for friends and family, who have been asking to see them since I got home.
So anyway, enjoy, and thanks again for the help.
http://www.danfordinc.com/photography

Just read this thread. Very, very interesting and instructive. As a person who went to the Galapagos about 25 years ago, before I was "into" photography, I thought that the lens recommendations for proudgeek were right on. I got some nice "snapshots", but wish that I had had my D90 and some lens at that time. You are right, at least for me. I will never get back and it was an unforgettable trip. Glad it worked out for you. Do post some nice pixs, we all will enjoy your trip...

Glad that the forum helped you out with your lens choices.

Now you owe us some photos, and perhaps stick around a bit more often. :D

Hi. I wanted to add a postscript to this thread, as I just returned from this trip over the weekend, just in case anyone is planning on making a trip like this. First, for those of you with a passion for photography, this is something you must do once in your life. I had incredibly high expectations and they were exceeded in every way. A few observations:
The 80-400 was invaluable. Yes, much of the wildlife was very close up, but very often I needed every one of those 400mm to get the shots I wanted. When I had the chance to set up a tripod with the 80-400 the results were very satisfying. The only bummer was that many times I wanted to go from shooting something tight to shooting something much wider, and it would have been great to have a second body.
The 12-24 was also amazing. Yes, it came in very handy with the scenery, but was even better when shooting wildlife from super close, such as giant tortoises and sea lions. Very cool perspective. As someone predicted, I spent much of my time alternating between the 80-400 and the 12-24.
The 18-200 didn't get much use, except in cities, like Cusco, Peru. Had I only gone to the Galapagos, I might have considered not bringing it at all. However, I was glad to have had it.
The 105 macro didn't get a ton of use, but I did get some of my best shots of the trip with it, including some Sally Lightfoot crabs, and some amazing flowers in a botanical garden in Peru. I was glad to have it.
If you go to Machu Picchu, the rumors about long lenses and tripods are true. The guards can be quite prickly about what they deem to be "professional equipment." I didn't want to get into a beef with a guard about whether my D90 was professional or not, so I came into the park as low profile as possible — 12-24, 18-200, and no tripod. I stuffed everything in a generic looking bag. I shot a few HDR shots (including one killer double rainbow that spanned the ruins from end to end) and had to be satisfied with wedging the body in between a couple of rocks to keep it steady.
There were very few times I felt I needed the superfast 50. But when I went inside some Incan homes, it might have been nice to have. However, cranking the ISO up to 1000 and holding my breath and leaning against the wall with my 18-200 worked. Again, one less lens change to worry about.
I did bring an extra battery, although I never depleted a battery on any one outing. I brought 14 gigs of memory, but uploaded everything to my laptop every night (much to my wife's delight :) ). Doing this also gave me a chance to weed out bad shots along the way, which helped reduce the workload now that I'm home. I shot about 5,000 images for the trip and have culled it back to about 2,000. Having a hard time parting with anything else.
The weight of my bag wasn't really an issue except for in airports or between destinations when I had everything in it. Then it was a bit of chore to carry. When carrying just the body and the glass it was totally manageable.
Good advice about Guayaquil. We were told by everyone involved not to leave the hotel. I was dubious, until I saw the lobby guarded by serious looking dudes in bulletproof vests. That made the hotel bar much more attractive.
As promised, I will post a link for pictures. Thanks again for your thoughts.

Hi

Personally, for the Galapagos I wouldn't take the 80-400 as the wildlife won't be that far away or the 18-200 as it is too much a walkaround lens. A 70-200 with a 1.4 converter would (imo) be a better (though more expensive) solution, especially if you are taking the 12-24. Add in a prime (50 1.4 would be ideal) and you are covered. The exception to this is the birdlife but if you are shooting the 80-400 then you'll struggle to get a fast shutter speed without v high iso anyway for the evening shots. But even in most cases, the bird life is not that far away. And if you wanted a lighter solution then the 70-300 would be a better bet than the 80-400.

And I would also agree with the poster who said to take a quick P&S type camera .. for those moments that you don't have the right lens on and don't have time to change.

We went on a yacht for 16 people for 10 days and it was superb. You'll have no problem recharging batteries as if the boat (whatever size) doesn't have power then you aren't going anywhere. But I still took 5 batteries!

You don't do a lot of walking on the Galapagos - the islands are relatively small and for the most part you'll only spend a few hours on each. This isn't the Himalaya. Hence, you can take heavier lenses and not worry about the weight so much as on a walking trip. The addition of Machu Pichhu might change some of the above but given you say you are comfortable walking with heavy kit then a 12-24, 50, 70-200 +1.4 converter should cover you fine.

Whatever you take - have a great trip and post the pictures when you get back!

1. Get the MB-D80 grip (buy used or borrow). Get an extra battery. Bring some AA batteries (a benefit of the grip) as well in the event you don't have the ability to get a charge. The grip will be more comfortable to hold your camera . . . especially with the 80-400mm
2. Get twice as many memory cards as you think you need. I would recommend enough to store the whole trip. I assume you are bringing a laptop, so keep a copy on the cards, and a copy of the pics on the laptop (redundancy). Don't cheap out on the cards, get at least 1 fast one. You may find some good wildlife shots where you need continuous shots
3. Shoot RAW. You will hate yourself when you figure out how much better it will make your pictures later. You won't be able to re-do any of the pictures, not to mention the latitude in processing. Don't even bother wasting space shooting RAW+JPG
4. Forget the polarizer (if you are just wanting blue sky, you can do that in post processing. Shoot RAW)
5. Bring all your lenses, you won't be able to get a lens later
6. Workout before going, make sure you are in shape. Carrying all that glass in high altitudes may get to you.
7. Try not to use the 18-200mm lens except for snapshots. The primes are better than that lens, and the 80-400 will give you better quality in the 80-200mm range than the 18-200mm (bad distortion, and low contrast zoomed out)
8. Don't shoot from 350-400mm on the 80-400mm. Lots of lost contrast. I have used this lens, I know.
9. Bring an SB-400 . . . nice fill flash in a pinch. The pop-up won't clear the 18-200mm at wide
10. Have fun and post pictures when you get back

proudgeek said:
Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I hadn't really considered a prime. I do have an old 28mm f2.8; not in the same class as some of the others mentioned but I may bring it.

As for the suggestion to leave my 18-200 at home I'd considered that but have decided against it for a few reasons:
1. I don't want to be 100% dependent on lenses that I don't know the history of (a rented 12-24 and a borrowed 80-400). I know mine works flawlessly.
2. For places like Cuzco and Guayaquil I'd like to be able to walk around and shoot keeping a fairly low profile. Not sure the 80-400 can help with that. No reason to be culturally insensitive or to make myself a target by carrying around a massive lens.
3. AF-S vs. AF.
4. I've heard rumors that the park people at Machu Picchu don't allow lenses longer than 200mm without charging a $300 "professional photographers" fee. Having the 18-200 and not solely reliant on the 80-400 for the long end could be good in that case.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

Sure, no problem.

Let us how your trip goes.

Thanks for your thoughtful answers. I hadn't really considered a prime. I do have an old 28mm f2.8; not in the same class as some of the others mentioned but I may bring it.

As for the suggestion to leave my 18-200 at home I'd considered that but have decided against it for a few reasons:
1. I don't want to be 100% dependent on lenses that I don't know the history of (a rented 12-24 and a borrowed 80-400). I know mine works flawlessly.
2. For places like Cuzco and Guayaquil I'd like to be able to walk around and shoot keeping a fairly low profile. Not sure the 80-400 can help with that. No reason to be culturally insensitive or to make myself a target by carrying around a massive lens.
3. AF-S vs. AF.
4. I've heard rumors that the park people at Machu Picchu don't allow lenses longer than 200mm without charging a $300 "professional photographers" fee. Having the 18-200 and not solely reliant on the 80-400 for the long end could be good in that case.

Again, thanks for your thoughts.

You are going to love Ecuador, I worked there some in the 80's. My only suggestion is a safety suggestion if you are going through Guayaquil.......BE CAREFUL if you go walking around that city with all that camera gear. Guayaquil is a city you'll want to take pictures of because it's quite the human interest story and you'll be fine if you walk around with just one camera. I would suggest hiring one of those kids at the airport to walk around Guayaquil with you. Please don't let what I said scare you because you'll be fine. Just wanted to give you a heads up about Guayaquil before you got there.

18-200 is faster than 80-400

Sounds like a nicely covered range. Maybe you might want to drop the 18-200 since you're already carrying a 50 or 35 prime, and you have the long end covered with the 80-400.

I would take one of the nice new P&S as well.. just in case the D90 breaks down on you.. like you said, its not like you will be "going again next year or ever". The new coolpix P7000 may be worth looking into. That's what I'd will be bringing along. other than that I agree with your lens choices. I understand that the birds there are fairly approachable and that the 18-200 is surprisingly sufficient in many cases. I would still take that 80-400 you friend offered!

+1 on the 50mm or the 35 1.8. Good all around lens. Light, fast, and great DOF.

I'm willing to bet the 80-400 will live on you camera. A lighter option would be the 70-300vr. But if you are borrowing one, I wouldn't pass it up.

12-24 good wide. I'm not sure if you will use the 18-200 all that much but who knows.

I think you have all the bases covered well. A fast prime may be a good pick up for low light.

Sounds like a great trip!!! I am jealous.

Hmm +1 on the 50mm.. it's so cheap and light.. it's a no brainer.

the 80-400 sounds good for wildlife..
The UWA zoom is a must for landscape, obviously.

That means your 18-200 gives you these ranges: 25-49mm, 51-79mm with a shitty aperture.. I wouldn't bring it..

it can easily be replaced by a single 50mm prime which is much smaller and has a more interesting aperture to work it.

the 25-35 range is not really crucial when you have your wide angle zoom.. the 35-49 is close enough to 50mm prime...

and what you can do with 75ish mm you can do with 50mm... or then switch to 80-400.

So yeah.. you should enjoy that 80-400 to the max rather than bringing the 18-200... Only reason I see to carry the 18-200 would be if you don't carry the 80-400 around and you still need a telephoto.. all the 18-200 do is being versatile.

I won't even talk about the macro.. for someone who loves macro, you just need your macro lens. I feel that way with ultra wide angles.. I'd bring my uwa zoom at a bird shoot lol..

welcome to the forum, as for Your lenses they sound ok, just be prepare for the weight.

Thank you, I'd forgotten about that role in the movie. I'm actually reading Darwin's journals chronicling his travels on the Beagle. Regarding the 12-24, do you have any suggestions for ultra-thin polarizer filters to avoid vignetting at wide focal lengths? I suppose I could just forgo the protective haze filter and use it "bareback" (no stacking) but since I'd be renting I'm not sure I want to take the risk.

First @ Machu Piichu bring the 12-24mm Nikkor. I own that lens and wide in that place is extremely effective. The 18-200VR will also be imortant. Plus the 80-400VR and you will have it made. I have by the way never been to the Galapagos Islands and it is very hard to get there. It is by all accounts a great place to photograph. One of the best insights to Galapagos is in Russel Crowe's movie "Master and Commander of the Far Side of the World". The movie has a lot of scenes from the Islands and it is a must see. Paul Bettany plays a naturalist medical doctor in a Darwin like role.