Jump to content

First FX lens recommendations


tristan_russell

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi there,<br>

I am just about to purchase a Nikon D810, having been using a D7000 for the past four years or so. I have been primarily using the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Obviously none of my existing DX specific lenses are going to be particularly suitable for an FX sensor, so I'm contemplating which lens to buy first. I've always wanted a 14-24, but am unsure if I should go for a more versatile lens first off, such as a 24-70 or a 70-200. While I've always found my 17-55 to be a fantastic focal range, I have to admit that I often found it a bit boring, which leads me to think I'd feel the same way with a 24-70. I think I'll end up with all three eventually, but would welcome ideas as to which one to start with. <br>

I like to shoot most things, but am quite into landscapes and larger scenes. Although I love taking photos of insects and animals too haha<br>

Cheers</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am using 24-70 and 70-200 for 80% of my photos with D810, which are street, street portraits and landscape. and occasionally sports activities. Organized landscape photography then I have 17-35, however, even that it is good, it will be antic in a few years time. I would start with 24-70 unless of course you can manage all 3 at the same time.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>While I've always found my 17-55 to be a fantastic focal range, I have to admit that I often found it a bit boring</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps you are contradicting yourself here - 'fantastic' and 'boring' just don't equate to my way of thinking.</p>

<p>What is your current DX set up lacking - where is it limiting your photographic experience? The D810 may not nec. be the answer.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matthew: I thought that as I wrote it; I guess it lacks the extremes of a wide end or long zoom, both of which I've never had the chance to play with before. Therefore 'fantastic' for a lot but 'boring' because I felt like there was a lot I couldn't achieve. My current DX set-up is lacking everything, as my camera and lens were stolen on a recent backpacking trip through Mexico. So I'm starting fresh with everything. I had definitely gotten to a point with my D7000 where the ISO capabilities were a bit limiting, and I feel that I'm ready to move to FX. I also don't see the point of not getting the best I can afford, which is a D810.<br>

Leslie: I've heard bad things about the 17-35, especially with distortion wide open. Do you have any experience with it? I definitely want a 105 2.8 for macro work at some point.<br>

Erik: Yeah, my head says 24-70 but my heart says 14-24! I may just get the new 105 1.4 and deal with this issue later!<br>

Thanks for the responses; it's greatly appreciated.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 24-70/2.8E would be a very good choice for landscape and general photography. The earlier G version is somewhat smaller and less expensive but has strong field curvature at 24mm which is significant for landscape users, otherwise it too is a very good lens. The 14-24/2.8G is excellent but somewhat special purpose. Either of the 70-200mm Nikkors (f/4 or f/2.8 II) would be great choices for longer lens; personally I would pick the f/4 version for outdoor use, it reduces the overall weight of your kit. These lenses cover most landscape and general photography applications.</p>

<p>For insects you probably want something with good working distance; the 105 VR Micro-Nikkor would be one way to get started, the 150mm Sigma another (very highly regarded), and I would like to mention also the 300/4 PF which has a nice 1:4 close-up capability (with excellent sharpness). For tight close-ups of insects you may want to consult more specialized web sites and books on the topic; macro photography is highly technical and with moving subjects it's very challenging.</p>

<p>By animals, do you mean domestic animals or wildlife? For the former, the pair of 24-70 and 70-200 should work nicely. For wildlife, you generally need something longer (>= 300mm) for many subjects. How much longer depends on the animal and whether you're happy making images of the animal in its environment or the landscape, or if you want tight close-ups. 300mm is good for groups of animals in many cases, but for close-ups something like the 200-500/5.6 would be an economical option (alternatively, Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lenses), but these lenses can be quite heavy. I'm a big fan of the 300mm PF beacause it's so compact, lightweight, sharp, and focuses very quickly and reliably (in my experience). However, it may or may not be long enough, depending on what you're trying to do.</p>

<p>I listed quite a few lenses. I think it's good to prioritise your subjects and start from there.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tristan,</p>

<p>I'm sorry to hear that your equipment was stolen, an experience I never wish to have. Thank you for explaining where you are at. Ok, I understand what you mean by 'boring'.</p>

<p>I have used the 17-35mm on my D810 and found it produced equally as sharp images to the 14-24mm (which I now use) in side by side tests in the shared 17-24mm focal length range. At 17mm the 17-35mm produces more distortion than my 14-24mm does at 17mm which is hardly surprising, however, I never found the wide end of the 17-35mm a weak point of the lens. If anything the 17-35mm was slower to focus than the 14-24mm is and it also lacks a little contrast or pure clrity over the 14-24mm but this may be <br /> In my experience, the 17-35mm is better suited to very close focus subject matter like fungi on a forest floor or wildflowers in a meadow - that sort of thing - with the 17-35mm the background is rendered more pleasingly than the 14-24mm which, in my subjective opinion, produces some surprisingly ugly bokeh when focusing on very close subjects ie close or on the min. focus distance.</p>

<p>That said the 14-24mm has 14mm which on FX is truly vastly wide and really puts a smile on my face every time I use it. The wide end of the 14-24mm has distortion but mostly correctable in processing and a small price to pay for mind boggling wide angle. It's a challenge to use the 14-24mm a lot as framing up ultra wide exposures in the 14mm to 18mm range, I find is often a genuine compositional challenge about what to leave out more than what to put into the frame. The 14-24mm lens is def. a more 'exciting' lens than the 17-35mm, for many photographers is less practical being uber heavy, uber expensive and uber bulky and not being filter ready / compatible without the use of a third party custom filter set up like the ridiculously expensive Lee SW150 system.......... didn't stop me though, the 14-24mm is a gorgeous piece of glass to work with.</p>

<p>My hand held shooting technique is not first class, perhaps not even second class........... and I find the D810 requires me to concentrate and be more methodical about hand held shooting than any other FX or DX body I've used before the D810. I have recently discovered some faith in VR lenses, in particular the VR systems on the 70-200mm f/4, the 105mm f/2.8 micro Nikkor and the 300mm f/4 E PF prime really work a treat for me on the D810.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Lighter weight options for landscape wide angle would be the 18-35G, or the 16-35/4. I guess one of these could be combined with the 70-200/4 for a pair that covers quite a large range with more moderate weight, but it leaves a gap around the 50mm focal length, which to me is significant and I prefer the combination of 24-70 and 70-200mm.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I see the 14-24 could be an "exciting" lens but a bit short on the long side to be used as a standard. A 17-35 could solve this issue but it could be not so "sexy" being an aperture ringed version and without nano coatings. Don`t expect a perfect lens... there are always compromises.<br /> If I were buying again, I think I`d go for the 24-70E and 105VR. Then, 14-24, a 300PF and/or 70/200/4, and a 50/1.4. <br /> I think we should buy the most useful thing first, then the one we were missing for a specific task. Or the other way around. One lens doesn`t do it all, so sooner or later we will end buying a few ones.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The Tamron 24-70mm is also an excellent lens and is lighter. It's a great performer too, maybe better than the Nikon. Next would be a Nikon 105mm VR Micro, then whatever else. I'll add that when I went from a d7100 to a D800E it took me several months to start getting photos I was happy with. And, I ended up spending about $6,000 on lenses.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also disliked the middle zoom range, and only recently acquired a decent (fast) mid-range zoom. I got a general-purpose zoom for my D700 when I first got it just in case (28-200, sadly not up to the demands of a D810 and since sold), but my expenditure went towards a long option (originally a Sigma 150-500, these days I have a Nikkor 200-500) and a wide option (14-24).<br />

<br />

I tend to think photography is best when it shows you something you don't see in your usual life. Some of that is perspective or interesting things happening, but some of it the lens can do. Macro shots can show you a close up of an insect that you'd not normally see; a wide lens can immerese you in a landscape or force perspective that you'd not normally achieve; a telephoto can give you details of a remote subject that would normally be out of reach; a fast lens can isolate the subject in a way that the eye can't.<br />

<br />

The 14-24 is an exceptional lens. It <i>does</i> have some field curvature (along with barrel distortion) - I end up typically using it at around f/7 to keep the subject in focus for something landscapey. It's different if you're trying to produce a distorted view of a close subject, obviously. It's not absolutely perfect, although something like DxO can pull out a lot more corner detail than an uncorrected image can. I've never bothered trying to filter it - a polariser on an ultrawide is rarely what you want because of varying polarisation over the subject, and the dynamic range of recent Nikon sensors is so good that an ND grad is much less important than it used to be. I'd say you'll be happy with the 14-24 and a long lens, and can come back to filling in the gap (and you can do worse than a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF-S, or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art if you want to spend more). As an <i>only</i> lens? A 14-24 is pretty restrictive. You can crop, but there aren't infinitely many pixels, and the aperture starts to be limiting fast for that. The 16-35 f/4 is decent and a bit more flexible if you want to have a wide walk-around.<br />

<br />

On the 24-70 front (and I'm assuming you're discounting the 24-120 f/4, although to be fair it's not that much lighter or cheaper...) I'd recommend a serious look at the Tamron 24-70. It's pretty good, especially at the wide end - and if you might have a 70-200 in your future the long end is less critical. It's much smaller and cheaper than the Nikkor options. I've been known to travel mostly with a 14-24 and a 70-200; the 24-70 is a more recent compromise.<br />

<br />

In your shoes, I think I'd start with the 70-200. It's easier to pick out an interesting component of a landscape with a 70mm or longer and, if you need to, stitch images for a wider angle. It's by far the most flexible of these for wildlife (unless you skip the range and go straight to the 300mm f/4 - the cheaper non-VR version is also very good - or the 200-500, or if you want to plug the gap with the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro instead). The 70-200 is a workable portrait lens, too. I'd get the 14-24 next, but then I like book-ending my focal ranges (I can do 8mm-800mm, although not in very good quality at the ends) and then filling in gaps. I wouldn't necessarily ignore the 35mm and 50mm prime options in between for their aperture capabilities. Only then would I worry about the 24-70. Someone who needed mid-range flexibility (which is why journalists and wedding photographers often have this lens) and who was less averse to a "boring" focal length would probably do something different. I think you'll be very compromised on detail if you try to make do with a 14-24 alone and crop it.<br />

<br />

That said, it looks like you have an interest in the new 105mm f/1.4. If you don't need the flexibility of the zoom, maybe you'd be better eventually ending up with an 85mm f/1.4 (I'm awaiting reports on Sigma's Art one), the 105 and the Sigma 150mm macro, which collectively make the 70-200 a bit redundant. I actually got even that lens relatively late, having had a 135mm f/2 DC (which I don't recommend especially on a modern body), then a 200mm f/2, and the 150mm Sigma, along with some 85mm options. I think it depends how soon you expect to get long primes and whether you are happy holding off on the 70-200 in the meantime. You could always save money and go with the f/4 version...<br />

<br />

When you shot with the 17-55, which end did you gravitate to? Good luck with your new collection - I hope you have insurance helping you.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for the Tamron SP VC 24-70 f/2.8 zoom. The

money saved over Nikon's version could go

towards a less "boring" lens.

 

 

I suspect that most users of 70-200mm zooms

tend to use them at the long end most of the time.

So I'd suggest looking at a 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor

prime. It's lighter, cheaper and more compact than any 70-

200 f/2.8 zoom, and its image quality is stunning.

 

Going wider than 24mm gets you into super or ultra-wide territory, which IMHO isn't as generally useful as a medium tele. But that very much depends on your own style and subject area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Since you have lost your entire kit, I would suggest looking at high quality older lenses used. When I made the switch to FX I already had a collection of AI S lenses. I bought the 50 1.8 that came with the DF in the original launch and used the old Nikon lenses with considerable success. I have only bought used or refurb since, all very good. I find the 24-120 to be excellent, the 18-35 quite good. The Micro Nikkor 105 2.8D superb. I have got these for as little as half the price (or less) of new or current model. Recent purchase a 600 5.6 IF ED that continues to amaze me with its sharpness. The internet and PayPal are your friends! Good luck!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I made such a move, I'd let my wallet dictate the order of lens acquisition. AFAIK you get the mid-range as a kit zoom with a significant discount?<br>

That being said, the money no object approach would be: "Where does DX suck worst?" and buying those lenses obviously first. <br>

Semi payload conscious you should wonder how you could integrate your DX stuff best into a big kit. - It should remain "good enough" for something and grabbing the camera on your other shoulder is much faster than changing lenses. <br>

Without having read up the differences between 14-24 and 17 -35 recommended by Leslie above, I would seriously ponder 17-35 and no 24-70. I have 14mm Sigma back from film days 15 & 21mm on FF and a 12-24mm on APS C. - I rarely deploy the insanely ultrawides at all. The odd 15mm selfie happens though. - But does such count as "photography"? And who has the strength to be comfortable doing them with a heavy SLR? - 17mm on FF should feel wide enough for shooting something or somebody else. <br>

14-24mm might work on your current DX body too (although buying FX wides for DX is a far from bright idea / desperate move.) - Buy it now, replenish wealth and get a D820 kit once you can afford it? But double check: Is a trinity of zooms really your goal and likely to get taken out? - As told: I here like the 21mm FOV. but with my Fujis I see no big need to buy anything wider than the 16mm kit zoom. The gap between that 24mm FOV and what I am occasionally desiring just isn't big enough. - If you have lazy moments in terms of payload; "Shelf-queen alert!" should flash in the back of your head.<br>

"Do I need continuous zoom range coverage?" is an almost religious question, but: In the old days folks went out with 35 & 85mm. - So why not risk a gap between 35 and 70mm to be filled with a 50mm, if the need arises? (Yes, that means a lot of lens changes.) Or can't DX do that job since the pictures are boring enough to be printed smaller than the others?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To the OP: If your go-to lens for DX is the 17-55, then your choice for the D810 would be a 24-70, either f/2.8 or f/4 version. The performance is good, if not stellar, but there are few lenses in the Nikon lineup that can make full use of the 36 MP sensor, sans AA filter.</p>

<p>Depending on your tastes and style, the second lens is probably a 70-200. I find my 17-35/2.8 gets less use than the 70-200, but I seldom need extremely wide angles. Wide angle lenses in landscapes are best used to exaggerate objects in the foreground, not to "get everything" in one frame.</p>

<p>My D3 is a working camera, and only incidentally used for street and travel. I had little use for primes. However I have come to appreciate fast, compact, relatively unobtrusive lenses for casual use. A fast 35 mm, occasionally 50 mm work well. For ultimate sharpness and closeups, a macro lens is nice to have. AF and IS are not essential in a macro lens, but useful when used for normal photography. My favorite is an ancient 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor. For bugs and flowers, I use a 105/2.8 AF-D.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>So I'd suggest looking at a 180mm f/2.8 AF Nikkor prime.</blockquote>

<p>I would check that carefully. The 180 f/2.8 is a legendary lens. Which I gather is considered to be almost as good as the legendary 80-200 AF-D. Which I found awful (to be fair, more than most did). I've never used a 180mm prime, but most recent reports I've heard are "decent, but not up to the quality of the latest zooms". It's also got a bit more LoCA than the zoom. I hesitated for a long time on the 70-200 (having gone through a 135mm f/2, a 200mm f/2, a 150mm macro and a couple of 80-200s first), but I'd only go with the 180 prime if I was absolutely never going to get the 70-200 and wanted to save the money and weight. And I'd still think about a 70-200 f/4 as a viable option first. Plus you don't get quite the reach and you don't get a VR f/2.8 zoom that covers the portrait range from 70-135mm thrown in for free. All the other lenses give you something the 70-200 can't (usually a stop of aperture); the 180 prime doesn't manage that.</p>

 

<blockquote>AFAIK you get the mid-range as a kit zoom with a significant discount?</blockquote>

 

<p>You can get a D810 bundled with a 24-120 f/4 (which is okay, but only small compared with the Nikkor 24-70s and it's a bit optically compromised). It's really too big and heavy to be a "street sweeper" kit zoom like the variable aperture 24-120 or the 28-200 (which I used to leave on my D700 as a body cap) - but neither of those have the optics to pair with a D810. I've not seen a bundle with the 24-70, although I haven't looked very hard. Given how preposterously expensive the new 24-70 is, I suspect any discount would still cost you more than just buying the Tamron 24-70 separately - and the Tamron will be much more convenient and (except possibly at 70mm) probably give you better image quality. Not that either Nikkor 24-70 is awful, they just came under the "this is a lot of money for what it is" category for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Can't go wrong with the 24-70 2.8. I have the previous generation and it's on my camera most of the time. I would also look at the 50mm 1.4, it's a terrific prime and would be on my other camera most of the time. Unless you need the 70-200 VRII, I'd make it my second or third lens. It's just too long for a primary lens. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm going to agree to disagree, Michael. I've hired an original 24-70 and it's very big and heavy (for what it is), expensive, lacks VR, and has sombrero field curvature. The new one is even bigger, heavier and pricier. Plus the "boring" focal length - like, I suspect, Tristan, mine tends to bounce between the 24 and 70mm ends most of the time. I'm not saying either Nikkor 24-70 is a bad lens, just that it's not perfect and that the Tamron (which is also imperfect) is competitive - the main reason I see to have the mk1 Nikkor 24-70 is to have owned it before the Tamron came out! The mid range zooms are up against a number of relatively affordable lenses that are two stops faster, which doesn't help.<br />

<br />

As for the 50mm f/1.4... the Nikkor AF-D is plain soft at wider apertures away from the centre; the AF-S is somewhat better, but doesn't have much over the f/1.8 and has some LoCA. The discontinued(?) f/1.4 Sigma HSM 50mm is decent over the DX frame but has weak FX corners; the Sigma 50mm Art is exceptional (at f/2 it keeps an Otus honest though it loses out slightly at f/1.4), but it's quite big and pricey and I struggle to lock autofocus except in live view despite using the USB dock. For a D810 I would (and have) take the Sigma option if it's available to you and can stand the bulk; if you don't usually like 50mm (as I didn't) then the f/1.8 AF-S is respectable for the money (and beats out the AF-D by a margin). I don't find 70mm to be much longer than 50mm when it comes to using the 70-200 for walk-around purposes, but then I don't typically go street shooting or shoot groups.<br />

<br />

But we all shoot differently and have our own preferences - and I'm under no delusion that I've any photographic talent or right to tell anyone else they're wrong. Just providing a justification for my contrasting views.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you are into landscapes, I would start with either the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR or the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. I have the latter, and it is an affordable, mostly plastic lens. It is light weight and optically very good. I also have the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S and 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, but those lenses stay home most of the time. IMO you don't need f2.8 for landscape and I prefer not to carry the weight associated with f2.8.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Back in my newspaper days I used the 17-55 Nikkor quite a lot and thought it was one of the best lenses Nikon made although it is a bit pricey. These days I carry a Tamron 28-75/2.8 along with 80-200/4 and 300/4.5 mf Nikkors everywhere I go. All of my glass now works on any Nikon body I am using, digital or film. I refer to the Tamron as my money lens as it is so useful. I prefer the older Nikkors as I like mf better and they deliver outstanding quality. You may prefer newer glass that's faster and has AF but I've spent many years learning and using the older stuff and can find no real problem with it.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 180/2.8D is better than the 80-200/2.8D N optically, but the autofocus of the zoom (N = New in this instance, the two-ring lens with tripod collar) is newer and slightly better. The 180 gives high contrast, clean images by f/3.5, while at f/2.8 there is some LoCA. I always loved this lens for its compactness and crisp images, but when I got the D800 I sold it because the focusing was off. I figured it was time to let it go but later I realized that pretty much all my lenses had to be fine tuned (except 70-200/2.8 II) with my sample of the D800 so it was an unfortunate and hasty mistake. With the D3X the 180 gave excellent results and the focusing was fine as well. I have substituted the 70-200/4 as my compact telephoto but it produces more muted results in my view, whereas the 180 images had a fresh and crisp look. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the 70-200/4; it is an excellent lens in itself. If Nikon had kept the 180 autofocus technologically updated, I would definitely still be using it, but now they seem to be obsessed with ultrawide aperture primes (105/1.4, etc.). I nowadays recommend the 70-200/4 as a landscape tele zoom and also use it for general portraiture, but the primes have their own advantages. For landscape tele work I find zooming very convenient and useful as in many cases you cannot replicate compositions by moving to a different position. In the case of either of the current 70-200mm zooms from Nikon, you do get very high image quality, even if there is no special character like with some primes.</p>

<p>With regards to shorter focal lengths, I liked the 17-55/2.8 DX a lot on DX, and the original 24-70/2.8 with FX. However, both of these two zooms have field curvature at the wide end, which can make it difficult to get optimal results. This was solved in the 24-70/2.8 E. The 24-70 Tamron is a less expensive alternative, but I know someone who has both the Tamron and Nikon G 24-70, and he says the out of focus rendering is more beautiful on the Nikkor but sharpness is comparable between the two. The newer E series Nikkor has faster autofocus, less LoCA, better bokeh better build than the than the G version, and overall it is about the same quality as the 14-24 in my opinion, maybe a bit better in that the flare and ghosting resistance is excellent whereas you can get the 14-24 to ghost prolifically by shooting with the sun in the frame or just outside of it. The 20mm f/1.8 Nikkor, which I now use (after selling the 14-24 because it was only used a couple of times per year) is much more resistant to flare and ghosting than the 14-24, and I would highly recommend it otherwise but the fact that it's quite close to the 24mm of the 24-70.</p>

<p>As to whether to use an ultrawide angle zoom or a standard zoom for landscape, this is a matter of style and taste; I prefer landscape shots to present the scene realistically and in such a way that you feel as if you had been there yourself. This is best achieved with moderately wide to normal focal lengths, in my experience. I can find use for ultrawides such as the 20mm in narrow canyons, and for indoor photography of architecture, but I don't like when it is used for flat open space, as it often just doesn't look natural to my eyes. If the photos are boring, then it is a question of a boring subject, i.e. nothing of interest being in the scene, or just poor composition, but it's not the fault of the lens. Quite often I use the 45mm PC-E for landscape shots and I never have a problem that the results are boring. I could use the 24-70 and the result would look similar but I like to optimize near-to-far sharpness using tilt; it's a subtle difference in most cases. I like a landscape to be presented in a natural way without signature distortion of proportions such as is typical with ultrawide angle lenses. But skilled use of ultrawides can also result in natural results; it's just much more difficult to accomplish, and you have to find the right subject for it. Anyway, excellent as the 14-24 is, I sold it after I had determined the 20/1.8 to be better, faster, smaller, and lighter. I've shot many times as many shots with the 20/1.8 than I did in many years of ownership of the zoom. This is because I can just throw the 20 in the bag and not notice its weight. I can also use it in more situations because of the wider aperture, it is suitable for indoor available light photography at events. But for landscape again maybe a zoom is a better choice for most people than a prime because it allows easier optimization of composition and the proportion of near and far objects relative to each other. Shooting into the light source, or with the sun just outside of the frame, the 20mm prime definitely excels. For real estate and architectural interior applications I would still prefer the 14-24 as it is more flexible in tight quarters, and a bit of flare can actually lead to a light, airy feeling to the interior. Also for astrophotography the 14-24 is very highly regarded for its sharpness and lack of coma.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Jochen - B&H had only bundles with the 24-120,

which I assume is the official Nikon one (they're hardly

likely to bundle a Tamron), but I appreciate retailers like

their own bundles. That's not a bad deal given the

starting price of the Tamron.

 

On Ilkka's portability argument, it depends what your bag

is. The 14-24 isn't small, but packs into a smallish part of

my ThinkTank Airport Accelerator, like the Tamron or 24-

120. Which is absolutely not a small bag, but I can still

include my 14-24 most of the time, whereas I have to

start picking and choosing with a 70-200, 200-500, 150

macro, 300/4, 200/2, etc. My 8mm fish eye is much

smaller of course. Sigma have just announced a new

ultrawide zoom - might be worth waiting to see how that

performs, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...