Travel lens recommendation with focus on quality?


Mar 15, 2006
1,070
0
0
28
Singapore
www.demonicangelz.com
#1
Heres my equipment list:
D300s, 14-24mm and 24-70mm. Also have a 50mm f1.8.

The problem is that I will be unable to bring the D300s and the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lens for travel as it is ridiculously heavy! Believe me I have tried (been to 8 countries in the last 9mths during my first year in the UK). Add to the fact that I am flying budget airlines without check in luggage (thats how I afford to go to so many places :sweatsm: ) I can't really bring all that equipment with me.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a single lens setup for me (most of my shots are either 14mm or between the 20-50 range). I was looking at the Tamron 18-270mm PZD but that seems to be too much of a compromise on picture quality. :think:
 

Squid

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,467
0
0
#2
You may check up on the following lenses:

-- Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (DX lens) (combination of built-in motor and/or vibration compensation or basic motor driven version)
-- Nikon 16-85mm VR F3.5-5.6 (DX lens)

and combine above selection with one of the following:

-- Tokina or Nikon 12-24mm F4
-- Tokina 11-16mm F2.8
-- Nikon 10-24mm lens

That should give you decent coverage from 12mm till 50mm (which is your favoured shooting range)
 

Last edited:
Mar 15, 2006
1,070
0
0
28
Singapore
www.demonicangelz.com
#3
I had the 11-16mm before I upgraded to 14-24mm. Its a good lens to use.

Hm. The Tamron 17-50mm with VC (latest version) vs Nikon 17-55mm f2.8mm (very old lens) which is better? Guys whats the general consensus on this matter?
 

Squid

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,467
0
0
#4
There are several discussion threads comparing Tamron 17-50 to Nikon 17-55 that you may catch up via search function.

Note that Tamron 17-50mm lens weighs 434g against 755g weight for Nikon 17-55mm.
 

GReddyZC76

New Member
Aug 28, 2008
590
0
0
singapore, northeast
#5
DemonicAngelz said:
I had the 11-16mm before I upgraded to 14-24mm. Its a good lens to use.

Hm. The Tamron 17-50mm with VC (latest version) vs Nikon 17-55mm f2.8mm (very old lens) which is better? Guys whats the generalconsensus on this matter?
Imho worthless few cts , nothing beats nikkor original lens, better resale value too. BuT, come with a hefty price tag, hence if u can forgo sharpness, alternative is tamron. Its about 70-80% sharpness of nikkor. But dun mis understand, it is a good affordable len.

I owning 1 tamron 17 50mm f/2.8. It yield good and pleasing results on my prev dslr body. However, weirdly, when I upgrade my dslr body, I no longer finder similiar pleasing results :( that y I letting it go to fund(some tiny bit) a nikkor len....

My few cts worth.
 

Joshua7D

New Member
Nov 16, 2009
141
0
0
#6
17-55 2.8 ! and then you will prolly end up replacing 24-70 with a 70-200 in the future :)


btw,as another approach ,instead of getting a lens - why not sell your d300s and buy a d700? its prolly just an 600-800 dollar upgrade.
It wll turn your 24-70 into the best all-rounder lens !
and your 14-24 will become the best ultrawide zoom lens on the planet- finally worth the price you paid for it.
 

Last edited:

K S Kong

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2007
752
1
18
www.flickr.com
#7
Lightweight + Best quality images = Fujifilm X100, if not wide enough, use pano to stitched. (only about 450g)
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#8
I would recommend tokina 11-16mm & tamron 17-50mm. Lightweight and affordable. I replace my 17-50mm to 28-75mm for more reach and in anticipation for future FX camera body.
 

Mar 15, 2006
1,070
0
0
28
Singapore
www.demonicangelz.com
#9
17-55 2.8 ! and then you will prolly end up replacing 24-70 with a 70-200 in the future :)


btw,as another approach ,instead of getting a lens - why not sell your d300s and buy a d700? its prolly just an 600-800 dollar upgrade.
It wll turn your 24-70 into the best all-rounder lens !
and your 14-24 will become the best ultrawide zoom lens on the planet- finally worth the price you paid for it.
I've thought of this as well, but I'm waiting for the new D700 upgrade (not really worth it to buy one now IMO, but I'll definitely buy the upgrade when it comes out!)
 

mod101

New Member
Dec 7, 2009
179
1
0
Singapore
#10
For my travels: 24-120 f4 + 24 f1.4 + 85 f1.4. This provides sufficient coverage inclusive of lighting conditions :)
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,644
63
48
lil red dot
#11
Replacing the 24-70 with a 17-55 is not going to save you too much on weight or bulk. They are both quite huge and heavy.

I think a cheap sigma 10-20 or tokina 12-24 + 24-120/4 would do you very well.

Personally I travel with FX + 16-35, Tamron 28-75, 50/1.4 and a 14/2.8, depending on what I expect to shoot. When I traveled with D300s, I carry Tokina 11-16, Tamron 17-50, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 55-200.
 

Last edited:

bruggink

New Member
Jul 2, 2008
901
0
0
#12
I will bring a Nikon 18-200 VR2 and a prime (35 or 50) for low light condition. I guess this is quite minimum unless you wanna look into mirrorless systems.
 

deltatango

New Member
Jul 2, 2010
117
0
0
Singapore
#13
Recommend Nikkor 16-85mm, it's light and sharp, and 16mm gets you a little more on the wide side. If you're looking for a light combo 17-55 isn't exactly light, especially with a D300s.
 

#14
If I really need a DSLR and can't do with my M4/3 stuff then I pack a DX body with a 14 f2.8...35 f1.8...and a 50 f1.8...along with a pair of sb28"s and a trio of cactus V5's....It all fits into my Backpack along with my clothes and a minicomputer....

Cheers

P.S. M4/3 is the way to go for travel though.....;)
 

bobofish

New Member
May 12, 2006
121
0
0
#15
daredevil123 said:
Personally I travel with FX + 16-35, Tamron 28-75, 50/1.4 and a 14/2.8, depending on what I expect to shoot. When I traveled with D300s, I carry Tokina 11-16, Tamron 17-50, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 55-200.
Contemplating your Fx set up less the 14mm for my family trip to HK next week. Thx for the suggestion.
 

Joshua7D

New Member
Nov 16, 2009
141
0
0
#16
I've thought of this as well, but I'm waiting for the new D700 upgrade (not really worth it to buy one now IMO, but I'll definitely buy the upgrade when it comes out!)
yeah, but you wont lose much anyway if you buy used d700 body for 2.3k. coz you can sell it again - its price wont be dropping that much when a d800 comes out - because that d800 will definitely cost close to 4k sgd initially.

anyway, both options you cash out - buy light DX travel lens - cash out , upgrade to FX d700 body - cash out.
In the end you will also sell em both once D800 comes out :)
 

Last edited:
May 4, 2007
148
0
16
42
#17
I'm a lazy person and prefer a light set up when holidaying. Honestly speaking, I admire those who bring all their machineries when travel.

My nikon 12-24 and 35f2 have been my travel buddies for the last 5 years or so and they are just good enough for basically everything.
 

sf_kang

New Member
Nov 3, 2004
642
0
0
65
Singapore
#18
DemonicAngelz said:
Heres my equipment list:
D300s, 14-24mm and 24-70mm. Also have a 50mm f1.8.

The problem is that I will be unable to bring the D300s and the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lens for travel as it is ridiculously heavy! Believe me I have tried (been to 8 countries in the last 9mths during my first year in the UK). Add to the fact that I am flying budget airlines without check in luggage (thats how I afford to go to so many places :sweatsm: ) I can't really bring all that equipment with me.

Does anyone have a recommendation for a single lens setup for me (most of my shots are either 14mm or between the 20-50 range). I was looking at the Tamron 18-270mm PZD but that seems to be too much of a compromise on picture quality. :think:
Based on yr priority for quality, I'd suggest a simpler long term idea.
1. Sell yr D300 n buy a used D700 (go FX for better high ISO performance).
2. Get a Nikon AF-S 24-120/4 ED VR.
This will cover yr needs n yet deliver image quality.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#19
I had the 11-16mm before I upgraded to 14-24mm. Its a good lens to use.

Hm. The Tamron 17-50mm with VC (latest version) vs Nikon 17-55mm f2.8mm (very old lens) which is better? Guys whats the general consensus on this matter?
Surprising (to me) that you replaced 11-16 with 14-24. I guess you don't need such a wide FOV?
The weight penalty is quite terrible with this upgrade.

For DX setup, I think 11-16, 35/1.8DX and 55-200 is light and pretty compact. Can even forgo the telezoom if reach is not necessary. Replace with small external flash instead ;)
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#20
Based on yr priority for quality, I'd suggest a simpler long term idea.
1. Sell yr D300 n buy a used D700 (go FX for better high ISO performance).
2. Get a Nikon AF-S 24-120/4 ED VR.
This will cover yr needs n yet deliver image quality.
Actually that is quite true.

A D700 + 24-120 F4 is much better than a D300s + 24-70mm f2.8.

The DOF is around the same. you end up with better ISO performance, wider FOV, VR for 3-4 stops improvement. Weight is also around the same.
 

Top Bottom