best travel lens for FX body


Dec 13, 2012
84
0
0
Yishun
#1
other than the very pricey 24-70 f 2.8, any other lens to recommend?

want to travel light so looking for just one lens, maybe paired together with a 50mmf1.8
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#4
Tamron 24-70mm VC, if you don't mind 3 party lenses.


Otherwise, you can consider the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.
 

moonsymph

New Member
Sep 20, 2011
209
0
0
31
Singapore
#5
I used 24-85 VR for my TW trip.. in fact I bought 50 1.8, 85 1.8 with me too but I mainly use 24-85 as it's small and light.. the focal length it covers are versatile for street shot and landscape..
 

Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#6
Been traveling with a variety of lenses, the last being 20-35 f 2.8, 80-200 f 2.8, 2× and 50 f 1.4, expecting safari, and low light shooting. Heavy and versatile. Ordered 24-120 f 4 VR for normal range.
 

mod101

New Member
Dec 7, 2009
179
1
0
Singapore
#7
diediealsomustdive said:
Been traveling with a variety of lenses, the last being 20-35 f 2.8, 80-200 f 2.8, 2× and 50 f 1.4, expecting safari, and low light shooting. Heavy and versatile. Ordered 24-120 f 4 VR for normal range.
Travelled w 24-120/f4 + 50/f1.4. 80% of the time 24-120 was used.
 

s1221ljc

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
825
1
18
#8
Always have my 24-120 f4 on my travels. 80-90% of shots taken with it.
 

Last edited:
Jul 23, 2012
73
0
0
Hougang
#9
Am new to FF (D600) and brought along 28-300 and 28/f1.8 for my holidays last Dec. The orig plan was to use the 28mm for indoor food shots. But the noise control on the FF sensor is so good that my 28-300 was good enough for most, if not all, the shots. Higher ISO can compensate for the light but not the bokeh though. I am happy with this combination (together with R-strap) as my shoulder doesn't ache even after a full day out.
 

lenslust

New Member
Apr 22, 2012
1,211
2
0
#11
For me, 17-35. I like wides when travelling. Not much streetshoot for me. Else, would be 70-200VR.
 

sf_kang

New Member
Nov 3, 2004
642
0
0
65
Singapore
#12
For travel shooting, I use a D700 with a AFS 24-85 VR mounted on camera 95% of the time and find this very convenient and not too heavy. I also bring along a AFD 20/2.8, and AFS 70-200/2.8 VR for those days that I need to extend my coverage (like shooting wider landscapes) or more reach (like when I need to zoom in close to isolate interesting subjects).
 

Dec 13, 2012
84
0
0
Yishun
#16
no one suggested this?

decent range. plus limited macro function. i wished nikon updated this lens tho.
pardon me for my ignorance, i am not familiar with this series of older lens as i have never really used before, but sure looks like quite a gem!

whats the difference between such older AF lens and the newer AF-S models? is there any reason i should consider newer but much more expensive like 24-120 etc over this 24 105? i dont shoot sports at all, just still life, landscape, nature, portraits, people.

thanks very much in advance, hope my question is not too trivial, as it seriously looks good.
 

Last edited:
Apr 2, 2006
2,308
1
0
CCK
#18
still using it, along with the 28-70 f3.5-4.5.

gems.
I have used this lens 28-70 f 3.5-4.5 as well. Didn't pixel peep, looked descent but not up to the prime Ai lenses I usually carry. Decided to go with the best within the range and some compromise in price vs VR. Hence the decision to go with 24-120 f 4.
 

#19
I have used this lens 28-70 f 3.5-4.5 as well. Didn't pixel peep, looked descent but not up to the prime Ai lenses I usually carry. Decided to go with the best within the range and some compromise in price vs VR. Hence the decision to go with 24-120 f 4.
Still fairly decent and its small n light, ideal for travel.

Furthermore, paid arnd $180 with box for the 28-70. Cannot hiam. Very happy with both the 28-105 n 28-70.
 

Last edited:

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,858
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#20
pardon me for my ignorance, i am not familiar with this series of older lens as i have never really used before, but sure looks like quite a gem!

whats the difference between such older AF lens and the newer AF-S models? is there any reason i should consider newer but much more expensive like 24-120 etc over this 24 105? i dont shoot sports at all, just still life, landscape, nature, portraits, people.

thanks very much in advance, hope my question is not too trivial, as it seriously looks good.
AFD lenses focus using mechanical motors. AFS lenses are electronic motors. AFS focuses faster than AFD. but, IMO, AFD lenses are hardier than AFS lenses as they have less electronics. YMMV...

as to whether you want to get the AFS 24-120/f4VR or this... well, ask your wallet. ;p
 

Top Bottom