tom_bulloch

<p>I've been to Africa several times, and I, too, agree with Joe's thoughts for a couple of reasons. Africa is a very dusty place, making lens changes problematic. Also, when photographing wildlife, things tend to happen quickly, and you don't want to be caught with the "wrong" lens on your D500 in such an instance. If it were me, I'd pick up a second DSLR body and keep your 16-80 on it with the 200-500 on your D500. This makes for the optimum "fast draw" when conditions change quickly.<br> I agree that the 70-200 f4 is a terrific lens if you're feeling naked in that range. If you go that route, having a second body with lens in place becomes even more important, IMHO.<br> Your Leica will serve you well in many instances. Most people concentrate on the wildlife opportunities in Africa, with good reason, but the people and villages you will encounter offer fantastic photo ops. You will probably spend at least some time in cities and/or villages, and your Leica with 50mm would be an ideal "street photography" setup, giving you many opportunities and not being as intrusive as a DSLR with massive lens. You would be wise to avoid carrying a large, expensive camera in more urban environments for both safety and cultural reasons.<br> Have a great trip!<br> Tom</p>

<p>That is a heckuva deal on the 24-120 f4, Sandeep. I paid much more than that for mine two years ago. It is not a perfect lens by any means, but IMHO its convenience more than makes up for any shortcomings. I think you will find it far superior to most "kit" lenses, especially when stopped down a notch or two. I've taken very good quality photos handheld inside dimly lit cathedrals and museums at ISO 2000 with VR on with a D610 body. I think it will make your trip much more enjoyable. Good luck!</p>

<p>I'll add another vote for the Nikon 24-120 f4. I travel a good deal, and unless a trip is specifically for photography, such as an African safari, it is now the only lens I will carry on a true "vacation." I learned my lesson during a trip to Iceland a couple years ago, when I went armed with a 16-35, 70-200, and a prime or two (but only one FX body). It seemed that no matter the situation, I had the wrong lens on the camera. Constantly changing lenses is tiresome, problematic (especially in wind or rain), and not pleasant for my long-suffering wife (who ends up holding lenses, carrying extra gear, etc.).</p> <p>Perhaps most important, and somewhat ironic, is how having all this gear seemed to result (at least in my case) poorer photos. With one good mid-range zoom, I can concentrate upon what I see, and my surroundings, instead of on hardware. This is particularly critical in "street" photography, where people and situations are fleeting and always changing. After missing what could have been several nice shots while fumbling with lens changes, I realized that sacrificing a large number of potentially good candids for one or two "maybes" with specialized lenses was pretty foolish. It's hard to beat being able to capture a wide angle cityscape or landscape, and moments later pick an interesting face out of a crowd with a medium telephoto with the simple turn of a zoom ring.</p> <p>Not looking like a news reporter is also a benefit, especially in cities.</p> <p>Back in the Jurassic days when I first got paid for using a camera, for years I carried two Nikkormat bodies, one with a 28mm and the other with a 105mm--primarily because that was all I could afford. I learned to "see" in those focal lengths, so clicking the shutter was merely an afterthought. I'd done all the preliminary work with my eyes. Acquiring more hardware over the years, thinking "more is better," I got away from that, and my photography suffered. The 24-120 f4 thankfully refreshed my memory.</p> <p>If it were me, I'd buy or rent the Nikon 24-120 f4 and leave it on the FX body, put the 300mm on the DX body for maximum reach on birds/wildlife, and enjoy the trip.</p>

<p>I feel Mr. Brennan's pain, as 21 is a long way in the rear view mirror for me, as well. I spend quite a bit of time overseas, much of it on hiking trails, so weight--and bulk, as much as weight--is also a major consideration for me. My travel kit consists of a Nikon 16-35 f/4 (also a brick, but I like it), a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 prime which weighs next to nothing, and the Nikon 70-200 f/4.</p> <p>I have been very, very impressed with the 70-200 f/4 in every regard. Most of my shooting with it is wide open or at most stopped down by one or two stops, and sharpness and bokeh, at least to my eyes, are outstanding. Better, I dare say, than the old Nikon 200mm f/4 prime I've had for decades. AF is fast and accurate, even at very close distances. Very easy to hand hold. </p> <p>I also have a 24-120 f/4, which I carry if I am absolutely limited to one lens, but my admittedly unscientific observations are that while it is a fine "f/8" lens, it is not in the same league optically as the 70-200 f/4.</p> <p>On a related note, a couple of years ago I was stupid enough to drop my 70-200 f/4 a good two feet onto a concrete airport runway, with enough force to shatter the B+H UV filter I had installed. Fortunately, no ill effects on the lens whatsoever, which speaks well of its build quality, if not of its owner.</p> <p>In addition to losing only one f/stop, as Mr. Javkin pointed out, you also save $500 in cost vs. the f2.8, no small consideration for me. Most of my work requires as much resolution as possible in my images, and substantial enlargements. With the excellent VR on the 70-200 f/4, I can at the same time bump up the ISO a couple of notches an an FX body to compensate for the loss of one f/stop with little, if any, noticeable loss of saturation or increase in background noise, especially on landscapes. I find that I need less post-processing "magic" with the 70-200 f/4 than with most of my other lenses.</p> <p>Again, these are strictly field observations with no scientific or hardware analysis, but performance in the field is all I care about. Hope this helps in some regard.</p>

<p>Hi Ray,<br> I purchased a Nikon 70-200 f4 early in 2014 in anticipation of a trip to Iceland, to use on my D610. I have been extremely pleased with it; no way could I justify $1000 more for the f2/8 version. The f4 is not a small lens, but it is an inch shorter and close to half the weight of the f2.8. Most of my photography is travel-oriented, so this is an important consideration. The f4 takes 67mm filters, as opposed to 77mm for the 2.8. This gives it a slimmer profile and reduces the size of the filters I carry when traveling. As you know, every little bit helps when on the road.<br> I've found the f4 to be extremely sharp and the focusing is quick and positive. VR allows some pretty impressive images even down to 1/60th if you can hold it relatively steady. I once managed to drop it on concrete, too, with no ill effects, so I guess it is pretty well built.<br> Perhaps there are differences in bokeh between the two lenses wide open, but budget issues don't allow me to be that picky.<br> I also purchased the Vello tripod collar you referenced. I have no complaints; it works fine. The 70-200mm f4 is not difficult to shoot handheld, which is my normal modus operandi. The lens balances well and is not excessively front-heavy. So, the Vello collar works just fine for me on the few occasions I use it.<br> Even if cost were not an issue, I personally would prefer the lighter weight and slimmer profile of the f4 for traveling. Cost is always an issue for most of us, though, and going with the f4 lets you buy some good filters, a tripod collar, and have plenty of money left over for travel.</p> <p>Tom</p>