helder_santos

<p>Hello everyone, this is my decision...</p> <p>Picked up the nikon 24-120 for $600 and will take it with me on this trip. Will work with it for 1 week and will let you know what happens. I guess that If i am shooting 50mm and up I will go for the 70-200 if not it will be the 24-70. wither way if the 24-120 is satisfactory i can keep it, if not I will sell it for a minor loss.</p> <p>Thanks for your help</p>

<p>Hello everyone, sorry for the long silence but I have been busy with work.<br> So, I have carefully read all of the posts and there are a lot of very good points in either way.<br> Some simple info that i did not add before, I live in china right now, so 20mm is sometimes not enough to catch everything, so going to 17mm to catch a building is just a normal thing over here. Also, all of my images always had a similar feel (same field of view) so adding the 14-24 seemed ok even if for 75% of the time I am at 18-24mm and have the wider end for some special locations. I tried it recently and it is just way dramatic for me, so 18 and up for most of the time. <br> I also have an acceptable sony nex-5n for walking around easy... but it is never great, just acceptable.<br> Shooting with a 35mm or 50mm seems natural to me and i feel that 35-50 range means little in the real world as it is a matter of setting up or back to get the shot. But i always feel that on the run, to get the right frame i am always a bit short, either longer or wider would have done a better job. So it is hard to say that for the guys that are traveling, a fixed lens is the best answer. Is it the best quality? most of the time, yes, but it requires compromises. <br> So the 2 lenses that i looked at were the tamron 24-70 and the nikon non-VR but many are claiming that the newer gen lenses are going to quickly surpass the mid-range king (nikon). In china i can get the 24-120 for about $650 new and that is a deal but the higher end lenses not so much of a deal. so that does put things into perspective.<br> The 70-200 f4 is in the running just because 70-120 seems to be a reasonable range for landscape/travel/city and higher for the stuff i never had a chance to shoot!!<br> The question falls in the gap 14-24 and 70-200 is the mid a big deal? how much?<br> And for landscape and travel what is the best range? there is no such thing! So as I am setting up to head over to Vietnam for Hanoi and Halong Bay I need to make a decision and spending the money is not an issue as long as i have a lenses that will help me improve my photography. Not worrying about IQ from lesser lenses is a mind soother. Or maybe I am crazy!!!</p>

<p>The tripod i use is a 5.5lb setup. Sirui N3204x with a k30 ball head. In windy days with heavy lenses i feel confident that i will not have any movement... Love the thing, but it is heavy. it is similar to the gitzo but i got the whole thing for under 400usd.</p>

<p>Sorry, I have a D610</p>

<p>Hi Everyone, <br> I know this has been beaten to death but I need some real assistance making a decision.<br> My current equipment is a 14-24 f2.8, 35 f2.0 asf, 50 f1.4 ais... along with some other not so great primes.<br> At this point the question is should i get a 70-200 or a 24-70/24-120 as i do have a nice 50 prime and a acceptable 35.<br> Weight and convenience is a big deal although i am talking about monsters here, i did get tired of switching lenses all the time and had either the 35 or 50 all the time in other to not deal with my 24/28/35/50 setup and a crappy zoom not worth mentioning.<br> I also carry a monster tripod along so keeping it simple is key. I shoot mostly travel, architecture, landscapes.<br> Any thoughts?</p> <p>www.hsantosdv.500px.com</p>