FX travel lens

[DiGdUb]

the 28-300vr is a all in one lens. its a jack of all trades but master of none. but to me, the things it does easily covers its shortcomings for its intended purpose.

 

[Abbot Man]

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

I am using the same gear as sf_kang on trips and share the same thought and experience as him on the lenses used to catch landscape, cityscape and scenes on strips.
Just to share some pictures I have taken while on last Nov Beijing trip using the 14-24, 50, 70-200 combo:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?fbid=493124278415&id=678843415&aid=283001

 

[sf_kang]

Is the 28-300 really a sharp lens.

When someone mentions for example, that this lens in 'sharp', it is subjective and relative, unless you use the lens' MTF charts as the basis for measureable comparisons.
When one chooses a lens, it's not just based on 'sharpness' alone. What about contrast, colour, distortion, speed, variable or constant aperture throughout zoom range (in the case of a zoom lens).

So when someone asks for the 'ideal' travel lens, the assumption is that the person is looking for lightweight? (not so tiring), or extended zoom range? (no need to keep changing lenses) as the two main priorities. This also means he/she would have to sacrifice some other parameters, e.g. large apertures for shallow DoF, or low light shooting, generally sharper pictures, constant apertures, usually brighter focussing viewfinder due to the bigger apertures, etc. which all increases the chances of a good shot, notwithstanding the skill of the photographer, composition, etc.

Truth is... it's always a trade off... you want something, you have to sacrifice something. All depends on which is more important or higher priority. For me, it's image quality, after, if you have taken time off, and spent thousands of dollars on a trip visiting a place you might never visit again, why not capture the best shots you can.

Just my views.

By the way, I also bring along a Canon G10 for 'fun' shots and as a backup. And also a Hasselblad XPan medium format film camera for panaromic shots.

Fred

 

[poolgirl]

agree with brapodam, there's no 70-300 on the Nikkor Dx line-up. It's an Fx lens

Apologies you are both right. I stand corrected

Thanks for all your views guys. It's a tough call between swapping lenses all the time and putting on the sharpest lens for the job and carrying all that weight.

Due to a previous bad experience I nw hand carry all essential gear (incl battery and laptop charger) when on a photog trip. Looks like I'll need a rollerbag now instead of a camera
backpack!

 

[David Lee]

If you are on a photography trip, yes, bring the best you have got..

However if you decide relaxing or bonding with family is the mian purpose for your trip and at the same time want to shoot some pictures with DSLR, than a all in one travel lens is advised.

 

[thenomad]

Due to a previous bad experience I nw hand carry all essential gear (incl battery and laptop charger) when on a photog trip. Looks like I'll need a rollerbag now instead of a camera
backpack!

try not to carry too much gear when travelling as you'll be carrying them most of the time. carry only the necessary so that you can enjoy the trip without the heavy weight on your shoulders. unless, it's specifically a photography trip, which will be different.

for FX, if you prefer an all-around zoom, 2 options are the 28-300 or the 24-120, depending on your budget. else, you may consider bringing 2 primes, a 50mm and another wide-angle, if you want good IQ with minimal lens changing.

 

[Umeiko]

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.

To have a sharp lens without switching is possible if you can live with one zoom lens, i.e. 24-70 or 70-200.

After using 24-70 and 70-200 myself, I am reluctant to use those super zoom lens or lens that are less sharp. It's like once you are spoilt with good things, you would only want something better. This may not necessarily be a good thing because we can get too indulgence sometimes.

If I am travelling far or places I am new to, I will carry 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, Fish-Eye 16mm and 50mm together with D3 and possibly a 2nd body. Once I reach the place, I will only choose specific lenses to bring out, depending on what I am visiting. The other lenses will rest in the hotel safe.

If I am travelling nearby or places I frequent, I will just bring my D7000 with 14-24, 70-200 and Fish-Eye 16mm or maybe just D7000 with 50mm.

It's a different mix and match every trip. Isn't it fun?

 

[ovaltinemilo]

if you want convenience...it's probably the Nikon 28-300mm...

 

[baggiolee]

If I am travelling far or places I am new to, I will carry 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, Fish-Eye 16mm and 50mm together with D3 and possibly a 2nd body.

i'll die flat even just to travel to the hotel... :bsmilie:

 

[brapodam]

If I am travelling nearby or places I frequent, I will just bring my D7000 with 14-24, 70-200 and Fish-Eye 16mm or maybe just D7000 with 50mm.

It's a different mix and match every trip. Isn't it fun?

Hmm, D7000 with 14-24? Why not D3 with 14-24 to have a wider angle of view?

 

[szeping]

I don't own a FX *yet*.

But if I do, I will follow what I'm doing for my current DX travel setup as well. Currently, I'm mounting my Tokina 12-24 ~80% of the time, 18-200 ~15% & 50mm ~5% (indoor/food).

So for FX body... 16-35 + 50 + 105 Micro maybe.

Also depends on which area you are going, if scenery intensive... UWA is very preferable for me.

 

[photobugg]

For travelling I would rather carry less. I only have a 17-50 and 105 Micro during my last trip to Australia. I don't missed much.

For FX, I would do the same as Szeping. Maybe replace the 105mm with a 70-300 if I want more versatility.

 

[Akatsuki]

28-300mm would be your 1 lens for all situation lens... :thumbsup:

personally would go for sigma 12-24mm + 35mm + 50mm... 3 relatively light load...

 

[Umeiko]

i'll die flat even just to travel to the hotel... :bsmilie:

Ha ha, over the years, the bag gets heavier. So can get used to it. Not forgetting my large Deuter back pack.

Hmm, D7000 with 14-24? Why not D3 with 14-24 to have a wider angle of view?

14-24 is too wide for me on FX. In term of focal length, 14-24 is quite similar to my favourite DX lens 12-24, which I already sold some years back. It's just personal preference.

 

[Big Kahuna]

See some of our comments on 28-300mm here....might need to bring along a wide lens for wide stuff

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6782636#post6782636

To me....it's ok for casual travelling....kena rob also not so heart pain......:sweatsm:But for serious stuff...I think we better off staying with the trinities :lovegrin:

 

[kingpin]

To have a sharp lens without switching is possible if you can live with one zoom lens, i.e. 24-70 or 70-200.

After using 24-70 and 70-200 myself, I am reluctant to use those super zoom lens or lens that are less sharp. It's like once you are spoilt with good things, you would only want something better. This may not necessarily be a good thing because we can get too indulgence sometimes.

If I am travelling far or places I am new to, I will carry 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, Fish-Eye 16mm and 50mm together with D3 and possibly a 2nd body. Once I reach the place, I will only choose specific lenses to bring out, depending on what I am visiting. The other lenses will rest in the hotel safe.

If I am travelling nearby or places I frequent, I will just bring my D7000 with 14-24, 70-200 and Fish-Eye 16mm or maybe just D7000 with 50mm.

It's a different mix and match every trip. Isn't it fun?

I agree with umeiko on bringing the lens and then packing for each day's shoot accordingly. A word about the choice of the trinity lens these lens makes more sense on the D700 rather than the D7000. The 24-70 is a better mid range on the D700 than the D7000 (DX where it becomes an awkward 36-105). For D7000 the 3 lens choice would be 12-24, 17-55 and of course 70-200.

I don't have the 14-24 as I am using my trusty 17-35 since the film days. On the D700 17-35 is my usual wide range.

Poolgirl - if weight is an issue than the 28-300 is good enough for your travel. If u really want sharper photos than 24-70 and 70-200 are the better lens. 24 or 28 may not be wide enough for tight spaces and certain landscapes. In the end the choice depends on what is your shooting objective for the trip. If it is just casual photography take the walk about 28-300.

 

[jeff7id]

For safety and convenience issue, I would prefer to use 18-200 +35 mm when traveling with DX body, and use 28-300 + 50 mm when traveling with FX body.

Although it's 10.5x zoom, nobody said that you couldn't make a good picture with it

 

[pasay]

For safety and convenience issue, I would prefer to use 18-200 +35 mm when traveling with DX body, and use 28-300 + 50 mm when traveling with FX body.

Although it's 10.5x zoom, nobody said that you couldn't make a good picture with it

:thumbsup: for travel, i'd rather have the convenience of an ultra-zoom than miss a potential good shot coz i'm too near/too far/changing lenses. it was made for light travel/walkabout, and it does its job.

 

[lsisaxon]

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.

Then should just stick with DX.

 

[lsisaxon]

Apologies you are both right. I stand corrected

Thanks for all your views guys. It's a tough call between swapping lenses all the time and putting on the sharpest lens for the job and carrying all that weight.

Due to a previous bad experience I nw hand carry all essential gear (incl battery and laptop charger) when on a photog trip. Looks like I'll need a rollerbag now instead of a camera
backpack!

Anyway, a good picture is not just all about sharpness. How many of your travel pictures end up in a 20" print? An 18-200VR is more than sharp enough for a 4R print. The only reason I would carry a faster lens would be because it would allow me to shoot in poorer lighting conditions.

And yes, always handcarry all your photographic gears.