FX travel lens


poolgirl

New Member
Oct 26, 2007
109
0
0
#1
There just doesn't seem to be a 18-200mm vr equivalent for the fx camera yet. Anyone have any recommendations?

I want a sharp lens to walk about with without requiring switching. The 24-70 and 70-200 vr combo would still be tolerable except for what I think is excessive weight to lug around.
 

pasay

New Member
May 13, 2010
508
0
0
Singapore
#3
28-300 on Fx would be the rough equivalent to the FOV of the 18-200 on Dx
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#5
baggiolee has listed all the common FX travel lens.

Since you are looking at IQ, that leaves only 24-70 and 70-200. 28-300 and 24-120 shots looks decent but it might not be the sharpest wide open. If you are sure you don't need the 70-200, then leave that at home. Or get 24-70 with a TC-20 III. To add 2x magnification. I am assuming you are using FX body right?
 

kentwong81

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2010
1,793
1
38
Singapore
www.kentwongphoto.com
#6
I would prefer bringing a wide and a tele f1.4 prime lens. Sharper and much lighter than FX zooms, better performance in low light and more control on depth of field with better bokeh. The setback are:

1) the fixed focal length, which you have to learn to zoom with your legs, but some places you can't reach even you zoom your legs like shooting tiger far away in a zoo or shooting a ship far away.
2) you have to change lenses if you only have 1 camera
 

kwttan

New Member
Jan 8, 2010
845
0
0
Concrete jungle
#7
If you are looking for 18-200 requivalent on FX, IMO there are 2 lens:
1. 24-120 f/4 -> 36-180 on DX
2. 28-300 f3.5-5.6 -> 42-450 on DX

Note: 18-200 -> 27-300 on DX.
 

poolgirl

New Member
Oct 26, 2007
109
0
0
#8
Thanks for all the responses. I am thinking of buying an FX camera body and use my current DX as backup. I own the 18-200mm vr but am quite dissatisfied with it's softness esp at the tele end. Surprisingly my cheapo 70-300mm tele Is much sharper!

The reason for contemplating an upgrade to FX is the sharpness of the pictures in the 70-200mm range (on my friends d3 attached to 70-200mm vr). Top of the line stuff no doubt but I wonder how much of the sharpness is atttributrd to the lens and how much to the body?
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#9
Thanks for all the responses. I am thinking of buying an FX camera body and use my current DX as backup. I own the 18-200mm vr but am quite dissatisfied with it's softness esp at the tele end. Surprisingly my cheapo 70-300mm tele Is much sharper!

The reason for contemplating an upgrade to FX is the sharpness of the pictures in the 70-200mm range (on my friends d3 attached to 70-200mm vr). Top of the line stuff no doubt but I wonder how much of the sharpness is atttributrd to the lens and how much to the body?
More "pro" bodies can get more out of better lenses, but they don't bring out much more quality from crappy lenses. So I would recommend you getting a FX only if you're planning to get good lenses. Otherwise a DX body with good lenses still beats a FX with a 28-300.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#10
Thanks for all the responses. I am thinking of buying an FX camera body and use my current DX as backup. I own the 18-200mm vr but am quite dissatisfied with it's softness esp at the tele end. Surprisingly my cheapo 70-300mm tele Is much sharper!

The reason for contemplating an upgrade to FX is the sharpness of the pictures in the 70-200mm range (on my friends d3 attached to 70-200mm vr). Top of the line stuff no doubt but I wonder how much of the sharpness is atttributrd to the lens and how much to the body?
Unfortunately in life there is always a tradeoff, professional large constant aperture zooms and weight and yada yada. I thought the 24-120 f4 VR could be a good "compromise"

Ryan
 

jeff7id

Senior Member
Oct 15, 2008
4,863
10
38
#11
Thanks for all the responses. I am thinking of buying an FX camera body and use my current DX as backup. I own the 18-200mm vr but am quite dissatisfied with it's softness esp at the tele end. Surprisingly my cheapo 70-300mm tele Is much sharper!

The reason for contemplating an upgrade to FX is the sharpness of the pictures in the 70-200mm range (on my friends d3 attached to 70-200mm vr). Top of the line stuff no doubt but I wonder how much of the sharpness is atttributrd to the lens and how much to the body?
IMHO, the sharpness of picture would depend on:
- shooting skills: 60%
- lens: 20%
- body: 20%

As you have owned 70-300mm tele-lens, just add the 24-70mm f/2.8 and you will have a FX travel lens :)
(24-70 f/2.8 + 70-300 combo)
 

#12
It really depends on the type of travel you are planning. If light weight is of relevance, the 24-120mm VR is great. It covers a very useful range of focal lenghts and is relatively light. A good combination with your 70-300mm VR.

If you decide to go for the 24-70mm instead, you may want to wait for a few months, a new VR version should be coming up soon.

To be noted however that if your interest is mainly in the FX equivalent 70-200mm zoom range, you may not require a FX camera. FX is mainly useful for wide angle photography and better depth of field control... and is much heavier...
 

Jan 15, 2004
418
0
16
Bukit Batok
www.flickr.com
#13
To a photographer, there is nothing more stressful than deciding what to bring for a holiday.
A thousand and one worries start cropping up even before you leave?!

I would highly recommend the nikon 28-300. I know because i used it for a 2 week holiday and i shot 98% with it. The other 2% was either with my 24mm f 2 or an 85 f1.4.

It serves the purpose of a "Travel Lens" very well!

1) First off, it saves you from bringing along 2 zooms ( popular range 24-70, 70-300 )
2) Less changing of lenses ( less chance of dust entering to foul up your sensor )
3) It has VR II. This is a life saver!!
4) It focuses close ( shoot flowers, food )
5) It is sharp even at 300mm.
6) As it is the new 9 bladed aperture design, you get nice rounded highlight bokeh

I do have minor complaints. They are :
1) Barrel distortion. Obvious if you are shooting objects with lines. But these can be corrected in post.
2) Can be quite heavy paired with the D700 unless you are constantly using it.

This is just my opinion. Other people are entitled to their own.
 

David Lee

New Member
Jan 22, 2005
216
0
0
44
North..
#14
I carry my D700, 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, fisheye n 50mmf1.4 to Europe last month for a 14days trip, although i like the pictures a lot but that will be the 1st and the last time i am bringing these for a winter hoilday.

I have to carry the luggage, wear thick clothings, wear gloves, change lenses with gloves on, position my camera bag in front to prevent pick pockets etc, it is a trip full of hard work:cry:

i would strongly suggest the 24-120 or the 28-300 as a FX Travel lens if quality of photos is not the priority of the trip. :D
 

#15
i oni carried my 35mm abd 70200 last winter... i sorely missed the wide end but was only
able to get it after the trip

winter is better for me, all the layers of clothing acted as additional padding for my camera bag, somehow easing the stress on my shoulders hehe... maybe i should wrap more foam on my bag strap when im home in sg hehe
 

poolgirl

New Member
Oct 26, 2007
109
0
0
#16
It really depends on the type of travel you are planning. If light weight is of relevance, the 24-120mm VR is great. It covers a very useful range of focal lenghts and is relatively light. A good combination with your 70-300mm VR.

If you decide to go for the 24-70mm instead, you may want to wait for a few months, a new VR version should be coming up soon.

To be noted however that if your interest is mainly in the FX equivalent 70-200mm zoom range, you may not require a FX camera. FX is mainly useful for wide angle photography and better depth of field control... and is much heavier...

just to clarify, my 70-300mm is a DX lens. no VR. it would not make sense to use it on an FX body.

interesting point about the fx camera being useful for wide angle photography. to make the most of DOF i guess you have to get a fast lens, min f2.8.

going back to FX camera sharpness though, the shot that really impressed me was taken using the 70-200mm VR lens at the long end - even after magnification onscreen the details were so sharp! however, the body lens combination weighs and looks like a machine gun - no way i could lug that around without a porter / vehicle.

ken rockwell's website has a review of the 28-200mm G lens which is now discontinued as well as for the tamron 28-300mm VC. has anyone tried them on a d700 and if so, any comments on its performance vis a vis the 28-70mm VR and 70-200mm VR ?
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#17
just to clarify, my 70-300mm is a DX lens. no VR. it would not make sense to use it on an FX body.
afaik there was never a 70-300 lens made for DX. All the 70-300 I know are FX.
 

sf_kang

New Member
Nov 3, 2004
642
0
0
65
Singapore
#19
There is no 'ideal' travel lens. Depends on what your priorities and expectations are.
I shoot with a D700 FX body to get better image quality, better dynamic range, better low light performance, and also to do justice to many FX and older lenses I have from the film (35mm) days.
I find the AF-S 14-24/f2.8 and the AF-S 70-200/f2.8 indispensible from travel (people and landscape). The UWA captures the awesome sceneries and landscapes. The 70-200 allows you to zoom in and capture the moods of local folks, etc. without intruding to close on them. For the mid range, I bring along a AF-S 50/1.4G that gives me extreme low light capabilities, shooting local dances and performances, etc. without flash. I always leave the standard 50mm on the camera and try to really use this lens well. This prime lens is usually very sharp from anywhere from f2.8 to f11.
On some trips, I replace the 50mm prime with the AF-S 24-7-/2.8 which then stays on the camera most of the time.
You're welcome to check out my flickr photo set to see some shots taken during my recent trip to Turkey using the combination of 14-24, 50, 70-200 lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28858702@N07/sets/72157625532446002/

Choosing one lens to cover the entire range will naturally have some trade offs, i.e. lens speed (smaller apertures), and greater distortion (since the lenses are required to zoom over such a huge range of focal lengths), sharpness and contrast.

Happy shooting.
Fred
 

Last edited:

tabako

Senior Member
Nov 25, 2005
1,104
1
38
#20
Is the 28-300 really a sharp lens, I'm seriously contemplating buying it for my D700. Saw really mixed reviews on it and even the sample shots I see are mixed.
 

Top Bottom