Ultra Wide Zoom lens vs General walkabout Zoom lens for Osaka/Kyoto/Nara


blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,242
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#1
Hi fellow CSers...

Will be travelling to the above mentioned places for a week soon...
Will a general walkabout lens i.e. 24-85/24-120/28-300 be wide enough??..
Or should I get a uwa lens instead? i.e. 16-35/18-35
Only has budget for one of the lenses mentioned... hee

thanks!.. looking forward for your advices... :)
 

richiemccaw1

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2013
3,103
27
48
Singapore
#2
Personally a UWA will prob limit quite a bit on what you can do overall. Lose a bit on the wide end, gain a lot on the long end.

The 24mm zooms are prob way better as a swiss army knife.
 

blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,242
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#3
Personally a UWA will prob limit quite a bit on what you can do overall. Lose a bit on the wide end, gain a lot on the long end.

The 24mm zooms are prob way better as a swiss army knife.
icic... thanks for ur input :)... my main worry is for those shrines, temples, castles a 24mm will not be wide enough....
 

keithwee

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 20, 2010
7,952
43
48
LittleRedDot
#4
Hi fellow CSers...

Will be travelling to the above mentioned places for a week soon...
Will a general walkabout lens i.e. 24-85/24-120/28-300 be wide enough??..
Or should I get a uwa lens instead? i.e. 16-35/18-35
Only has budget for one of the lenses mentioned... hee

thanks!.. looking forward for your advices... :)
general walkabout lens first , as it will be the one that you will shoot most on.

UWA as a second if one has the budget. And remember, one always always stitch panoramas instead of buying an UWA.
 

silencer13

New Member
Dec 2, 2011
471
0
0
#5
The 24-XX zooms should be wide enough.
I did Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto-Nara-Hiroshima with my m43 12-35mm (24-70 equivalent) and it suited almost all my needs.
 

blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,242
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#6
general walkabout lens first , as it will be the one that you will shoot most on.

UWA as a second if one has the budget. And remember, one always always stitch panoramas instead of buying an UWA.
The 24-XX zooms should be wide enough.
I did Tokyo-Osaka-Kyoto-Nara-Hiroshima with my m43 12-35mm (24-70 equivalent) and it suited almost all my needs.
Thanks keithwee and silencer13.. in this case I am more or less fixed on which lens to get le... one less headache.. :)
 

Apr 14, 2010
438
2
18
SG
www.flickr.com
#7
The 24-120mm would suit the walkabout very well. In Osaka and Kyoto, where they are more crowded or congested areas than in Nara, the longer zoom range would help isolate the subjects and exclude distractions around them. In Nara, like visiting any Zoo, you would zoom in to the deers; so the UWA might not be so useful. (The Osaka Aquarium and Science Museum are, in my opinion, very educational and good - world class, if I may say so. You might want to visit them if your schedule permits.) Enjoy your trip :)
 

Lancelot365

Deregistered
Oct 8, 2012
460
0
0
Singapore
#8
24-70 is enough for 90% of the case. If you dont mind the weight, can also bring a longer lens(70-200/4 or something with smaller aperture, 70-200/2.8 is definitely unnecessary). UWA is the least useful in Kyoto/Nara/Osaka unless you have some interesting ideas in mind (in that case I guess you wont ask the question).
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,164
12
38
#9
I love travelling with my 28-300mm (full frame)

I get the best of all worlds.. 28mm for wide, 50mm for general shooting, 85mm for potraits, 100-300mm for the tele hard to reach places :p

Plus points is f/5.6 at tele end for some nice bokeh, weather resistance (its a nikon), and convenient (no lens swapping)

The problem with UWA is that it can be tricky to shoot, anything wider then 24mm is just wacky if angled wrongly!
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,164
12
38
#10
Thanks keithwee and silencer13.. in this case I am more or less fixed on which lens to get le... one less headache.. :)
I went thru the qn of this once and ended trying all 3 lens (rented/borrowed)

24-70/2.8 = amazing lens, but its just too heavy and expensive!
24-120/4 = another great lens, bit pricey i find and the 120mm end means i would need to get a 70-200 to cover the tele end. F/4 is nice too
28-300 = light, cheap and great quality. Yeah it might be a f5.6, but the 300mm means its a swiss army knife of a lens. One lens, no swapping, do it all.

Note that there are good wide primes out there like the 20/2.8, 24/2.8 (love this guy) or 35/2 if u consider that wide. Its realy going to depend on ur shooting style.
 

blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,242
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#11
I went thru the qn of this once and ended trying all 3 lens (rented/borrowed)

24-70/2.8 = amazing lens, but its just too heavy and expensive!
24-120/4 = another great lens, bit pricey i find and the 120mm end means i would need to get a 70-200 to cover the tele end. F/4 is nice too
28-300 = light, cheap and great quality. Yeah it might be a f5.6, but the 300mm means its a swiss army knife of a lens. One lens, no swapping, do it all.

Note that there are good wide primes out there like the 20/2.8, 24/2.8 (love this guy) or 35/2 if u consider that wide. Its realy going to depend on ur shooting style.
Hi thanks for sharing ur valuable exp.. ya i used to own the 28300. Its really flexible all in one lens... i have a 35 and 85 prime... but will like flexibility for my trip... 28300, hmm qn is is 28 wide enough? Hee...
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,164
12
38
#12
Hi thanks for sharing ur valuable exp.. ya i used to own the 28300. Its really flexible all in one lens... i have a 35 and 85 prime... but will like flexibility for my trip... 28300, hmm qn is is 28 wide enough? Hee...
Here's the interesting part, my 28-300 performed badly on my d600 for a weird reason. (Other lens performed fine, so i doubt it was a body issue?) images were really soft, especially at the wide end and tele ends. when i upgraded to the D810, the focusing was sharp ! (for a non-pro zoom) and the usability of the camera increased greatly. I've another fren who got the same lens/combo and was quite amazed of how well it performed on the new body.

Its never wide enough till you get 180degrees fisheye. lol. I've tried the 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 recently, and I realised a problem i had was that UWA lens distort beyond a normal human field of vision, so it looked wierd if I didnt level the shot properly, etc. So far, 18-20mm (ff equ) is my 'limit' before its hard to get good shots. I've a 24/2.8 af-d and I find it to be the best wide lens so far. I'm eyeing the 20/1.8 now. haha..

Saw your previous posts that you got the new nikon D750.. so a f/5.6 lens should be fine.. You got great ISO performance like my D810 and a f/5.6 is very usable at night even. (You're 2 stops from f/2.8, so just think that instead of ISO 3200, you be using ISO 12800.. hahaa)
 

blurboiboi

Senior Member
Jan 8, 2003
6,242
0
36
38
Loyang
blurboiboi.instantlogic.com
#13
Here's the interesting part, my 28-300 performed badly on my d600 for a weird reason. (Other lens performed fine, so i doubt it was a body issue?) images were really soft, especially at the wide end and tele ends. when i upgraded to the D810, the focusing was sharp ! (for a non-pro zoom) and the usability of the camera increased greatly. I've another fren who got the same lens/combo and was quite amazed of how well it performed on the new body.

Its never wide enough till you get 180degrees fisheye. lol. I've tried the 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 recently, and I realised a problem i had was that UWA lens distort beyond a normal human field of vision, so it looked wierd if I didnt level the shot properly, etc. So far, 18-20mm (ff equ) is my 'limit' before its hard to get good shots. I've a 24/2.8 af-d and I find it to be the best wide lens so far. I'm eyeing the 20/1.8 now. haha..

Saw your previous posts that you got the new nikon D750.. so a f/5.6 lens should be fine.. You got great ISO performance like my D810 and a f/5.6 is very usable at night even. (You're 2 stops from f/2.8, so just think that instead of ISO 3200, you be using ISO 12800.. hahaa)
Hmm.. could it be d810 doesnt come with AA filter?.. d750 has one... wonder will it exhibit same prob as ur d600...
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,164
12
38
#14
Hmm.. could it be d810 doesnt come with AA filter?.. d750 has one... wonder will it exhibit same prob as ur d600...
No clue. So far my tests, the non pro zooms are giving me great value. Hahah.
 

#15
The thing to ALSO note about investing in ultra wide lens especially among those who are willing to drop good money to buy like the 14-24mm, we did not buy this lens to solve the problem of capturing really W-I-D-E scenes or to capture more in a tight room.

Once you start to play with ultra wide lens, you find that this is a super lens to get up close and person with people and things. this is due to it's generous depth of field. In some cases the distortion or an all encompassing photo scene just sucks in the ambient scene around it makes the story of the shot 'pop' but you have to know and when to use it. Not something you need in your lens set but if you have an interest in that type of shooting style then ultra lens is a good investment. But not the main lens to walk about for sure.
 

Last edited:

tiago

New Member
Mar 9, 2011
123
0
0
#16
I went thru the qn of this once and ended trying all 3 lens (rented/borrowed)

24-70/2.8 = amazing lens, but its just too heavy and expensive!
24-120/4 = another great lens, bit pricey i find and the 120mm end means i would need to get a 70-200 to cover the tele end. F/4 is nice too
28-300 = light, cheap and great quality. Yeah it might be a f5.6, but the 300mm means its a swiss army knife of a lens. One lens, no swapping, do it all.
at 1.2k i would say the 28-300 is the most affordable among the 3, but to call it cheap, definitely not. hehehe
 

Last edited:

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,164
12
38
#17
at 1.2k i would say the 28-300 is the most affordable among the 3, cheap, definitely not. hehehe
hehe. sorry.. rephrase.. 'cheapest of the lot'. :p
 

Top Bottom