Lenses for travel photography

[sf_kang]

Anyone has any experience with these two lenses as a travelling setup with a FX body?
1) AFS VR 24-120/3.5-5.6
2) AFS VR 80-400/3.5-5.6

Reasons for considering this setup:
1) will be a good walk-about lens and likely to stay on the camera most of the time.
2) will give good tele power when you need to get 'close' but not able to physically get close.
Both a VR and working with a FX with good high-ISO noise tolerance, the max aperture of 3.5-5.6 shouldn't present problems (except in very low light conditions).
Big aperture for portraiture is a low priority for travel photography.

Would appreciate sharing your opinions and experience with these lenses - image quality, handling, etc.

Thanks,
Fred

[JacePhoto]

Cant really comment much but i have the 80-400 on a DX body.

I think as a walk ard lens... with the 80-400, its not such a gd idea. While the coverage is 'sufficient' in my opinion, the weight is heavy and the AF is slow. It works just 'barely' well for me during the F-1 night race. I could get a good close-up of the cars about 20-25 meters away from me and i could shoot through the lens. But its a monster of its size and weight.

Am considering of letting go but havent found a replacement yet... haha.

Hope it helps (a tiny bit)....

[two200]

If you need to also take photos in room, buses, of food then a shorter focal len better. Even my 55-250mm zoom was inconvenient in confined places stated above.

Edit: my 55mm = 88 mm on 35mm equivalent

[YSLee]

Ok, whatever you do, drop the 24-120 and walk slowly and carefully away from it. It's nasty. I remember it from the film days and it was terrible from a price-performance standpoint. I can't imagine it being any better on digital FX.

Edit: Actually I'd also like to mention the 80-400 isn't that hot either. Two lenses in the Nikkor line-up then that I was distinctly underwhelmed by.

[sf_kang]

I think as a walk ard lens... with the 80-400, its not such a gd idea. While the coverage is 'sufficient' in my opinion, the weight is heavy and the AF is slow. But its a monster of its size and weight.


Thanks jacephoto for your inputs.
I was thinking of having the 24-120 mounted on the body most of the time as a 'walk-around' lens during travel to places. The 80-400 would be taken out of the bag only when needed. I am mindful of the 'slow' 4-5.6 aperture but I suppose there is always a trade off between performance, weight, speed. Since I have shooting with FX (D3), I can dial up the ISO to compensate for the 'slower' apertures.

Currently, I also own the following:
AFS 14-24/2.8G
AFS 24-70/2.8G
AFS 70-200/2.8G VR
But these are just plain too heavy to lug around for travel shooting.
Just looking for a alternative setup for travel shooting (which is going to be a compromise I suppose).

What is you opinion regarding the image quality of both the 24-120 and the 80-400?

Thanks.
Fred

[jnet6]

I'm not so sure about your travelling style, if for me with FX body.

1 FE
2 20mm F2.8
3 24-70 F2.8
4 85mm F1.8 or 70-300 VR

+ a flash too.

this covers from wide to tele.

[JacePhoto]

Originally Posted by sf_kang I think as a walk ard lens... with the 80-400, its not such a gd idea. While the coverage is 'sufficient' in my opinion, the weight is heavy and the AF is slow. But its a monster of its size and weight. Thanks jacephoto for your inputs. I was thinking of having the 24-120 mounted on the body most of the time as a 'walk-around' lens during travel to places. The 80-400 would be taken out of the bag only when needed. I am mindful of the 'slow' 4-5.6 aperture but I suppose there is always a trade off between performance, weight, speed. Since I have shooting with FX (D3), I can dial up the ISO to compensate for the 'slower' apertures. Currently, I also own the following: AFS 14-24/2.8G AFS 24-70/2.8G AFS 70-200/2.8G VR But these are just plain too heavy to lug around for travel shooting. Just looking for a alternative setup for travel shooting (which is going to be a compromise I suppose). What is you opinion regarding the image quality of both the 24-120 and the 80-400? Thanks. Fred

If you ask me with all the weight and AF aside... yeah, its a sharp lens.

[An drew]

In my recent travel I refrained from bringing my D700 and 24-70 due to their weight and went DX instead.

Perhaps you would like to consider the 24-85 and 70-300 VR.

[woofmy]

Originally Posted by An drew In my recent travel I refrained from bringing my D700 and 24-70 due to their weight and went DX instead. Perhaps you would like to consider the 24-85 and 70-300 VR.

tried 24-120 and 24-85 before settling on 24-120, although 24-85 runs from 2.8 to 4 but based on my evaluation at the store then, 24-120 gave me better confidence on the sharpness of the focus compared to 24-85, thus I decided on the 24-120.

[johnkt]

the 24-120 should be a good travel lens for outdoor. For me I would choose a fast lens to go as well, maybe the 50mm f1.8 or 24-70 f2.8 for indoor. Very useful when you visit aquariums, evening shots and etc. just my 2c worth

edit: fyi i am on dx

[voldisinarta]

Originally Posted by YSLee Ok, whatever you do, drop the 24-120 and walk slowly and carefully away from it. It's nasty. I remember it from the film days and it was terrible from a price-performance standpoint. I can't imagine it being any better on digital FX.

I have to disagree with this...

I use this lens for a walk around, daily lens in my pre-DSLR days, and I can say that it was one of the lens that I love a lot. Yes, I agree that it was not a high quality lens. It has some distortion on straight lines on the wider side, and slightly soft on the tele end, especially in wide open aperture.

Nevertheless, the coverage of this lens, from the more-than-usual wide 24mm to the short tele 120mm gives opportunity to an amateur like me to be able to capture almost all that I encountered in my walkaround, including during my travel. My purpose of travelling with this lens is to capture memories of what I saw during the journey, which were not in perfect setting either.

If I am a pro who capture images for National geographic magazine, I will stay away from this lens. But if I am sitting in a cable car in San Francisco, trying to capture the experience of travel, this is my choice for my full frame cameras.

Price wise, I will not buy it new, there are some better alternative you can get within the same price, but if I can get a cheap second hand, I will take it.

P.S. I still use the old 24-120mm on my D200 until this day... and it was more than enough to capture what I want...

[YSLee]

I'm not going to disagree that it's ok if you can get it cheap, like say, $500. But new, at 1k then, it represented really poor value. Compare this to the 16-85 AFS VR DX. At a similar price level new, it's a phenomally sharp lens regardless of aperture.

[thedaniel]

Hi Fred,

Looks like you have also created another thread talking on the 24-120vr.
But I will reply here.

I have also considered this lens before. But review by Thom indicates that this is a soft lens http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm and Kenrockwell rates it as one of the 10 worst lens Nikon has ever build.

But I found someone wrote in dpreview that newer version are sharper so you may want to get new one if you want a sharper lens. I can't find anyone that review older and newer version so I cannot comment on that.

If new one is about 1K, I will rather get the Tamron 28-300 VC. Many said that it is sharper than the older 24-120 VR.

[mcn]

never base on reviews

never hear say from humans who read off some where and reply here; some one who never owns one ... how to offer good comment

even those who try in shop ... come on sisters; what can u tell from just a few hours testing in the shops

works well on film does not mean works well on digital and versa vice

only way is to buy it and try yourself

if happy, keep
not happy, can always sell at a loss

here, you have been told

[thedaniel]

Originally Posted by mcn never base on reviews never hear say from humans who read off some where and reply here; some one who never owns one ... how to offer good comment even those who try in shop ... come on sisters; what can u tell from just a few hours testing in the shops works well on film does not mean works well on digital and versa vice only way is to buy it and try yourself if happy, keep not happy, can always sell at a loss here, you have been told

Looks like you are living in your own world.

How to decide if you don't go through review by someone who has used many lenses. You may not trust one review but when every review gives similar conclusion, you know that it is true. I'm not rich, I can't buy and sell at will.

"Because you have not read any review and bought the worst lens in the world thinking it's the best. You keep thinking the worst lens you own produces the best quality because you never read a review."

We are no longer in stone age. The internet is that for you to make full use of it. Use it.

[woofmy]

Originally Posted by thedaniel Looks like you are living in your own world. How to decide if you don't go through review by someone who has used many lenses. You may not trust one review but when every review gives similar conclusion, you know that it is true. I'm not rich, I can't buy and sell at will. "Because you have not read any review and bought the worst lens in the world thinking it's the best. You keep thinking the worst lens you own produces the best quality because you never read a review." We are no longer in stone age. The internet is that for you to make full use of it. Use it.

different people has different approach to assess something they wanted.

for most, reading reviews, asking people who have used it, playing with it in the store will be the default.

for some, since they have deep pockets, they rather buy, try and sell to assess.

I guess mcn is of later.

[Dfive]

Originally Posted by sf_kang I think as a walk ard lens... with the 80-400, its not such a gd idea. While the coverage is 'sufficient' in my opinion, the weight is heavy and the AF is slow. But its a monster of its size and weight. Thanks jacephoto for your inputs. I was thinking of having the 24-120 mounted on the body most of the time as a 'walk-around' lens during travel to places. The 80-400 would be taken out of the bag only when needed. I am mindful of the 'slow' 4-5.6 aperture but I suppose there is always a trade off between performance, weight, speed. Since I have shooting with FX (D3), I can dial up the ISO to compensate for the 'slower' apertures. Currently, I also own the following: AFS 14-24/2.8G AFS 24-70/2.8G AFS 70-200/2.8G VR But these are just plain too heavy to lug around for travel shooting. Just looking for a alternative setup for travel shooting (which is going to be a compromise I suppose). What is you opinion regarding the image quality of both the 24-120 and the 80-400? Thanks. Fred

24-120 is crap and the 80-400 will be updated in the next 18 months.
I would travel with the 24-70 and chuck in a 20 f2.8 and enjoy....

[jnet6]

Originally Posted by Dfive 24-120 is crap and the 80-400 will be updated in the next 18 months. I would travel with the 24-70 and chuck in a 20 f2.8 and enjoy....

Same idea... *five*

[Reno]

I have both lens and the 24-120VR surprising works well with D700, focusing is fast and sharp too. The speed of the 80-400VR has improved a lot on D700 too.

Last time i try the 80-400VR on D200, i find it sharp even at wide open at 400mm at F5.6. I agree that the 80-400VR is heavy but if you need the reach, it is still worth it and a plus point that it is a VR lens. I brought it over to overseas for 2 months and I do complain it is heavy but it is worth bringing it over as i got many good wildlife shots with it and a lot are taken under poor lighting conditions. For TS, i believe it would performs a lot better on your camera.

I heard about a lot of bad things on the 24-120VR lens but there are still some good comments on it in certain japanese photography magazines. However one thing is true is that there is a slight vignetting at 24mm but if you can live with it, why not?

Lastly, if i were to go overseas with a full-frame camera, these 2 lens would be my pick, well, i only got these 2 lens and i do not see the need of purchasing new lens just to bring it to overseas for holiday. I consider these 2 lens are fast enough for my need and i do not need very fast lens.

[Lord Soth]

Originally Posted by sf_kang ........ Currently, I also own the following: AFS 14-24/2.8G AFS 24-70/2.8G AFS 70-200/2.8G VR But these are just plain too heavy to lug around for travel shooting. Just looking for a alternative setup for travel shooting (which is going to be a compromise I suppose). ..........................

I originally bought my Tamron 28-75 as a light (500g) walkabout travel lens.

However, my Nikkor 14-24 eventually became my walkabout lens as it is simply the sharpest wide-angled lens in the world!

After some time, you don't really feel the weight as it balances very well on my D700, which weighs 1 kilo too.

I've even gone up the Swiss Alps and the Great Wall of China with the 14-24 and the D700 setup.

However, if you really want something lighter and of good quality, I recommend the Tamron 28-75 or the Nikkor AFS 24-85 as a walkabout lens.