Buyer's Remorse or Still Overthinking?

<p>Hi all,<br>

I recently bought the Nikon 24-70 lens. I entered research analysis mental gridlock when choosing it, so I knew it was weighty.<br>

Now that I have it, I'm wondering if it's really the best choice for an older guy like me to take hiking and just general all-around usage. I'm not as strong as I used to be 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago and I'm concerned about keeping it steady.<br>

There don't seem to be many options, either primes (which would require swapping out lenses, not the most favored thing to do in the outdoors), the Tamron image stabilized one (which is lighter but still beefy) or the kit lens 24-85.<br>

I dislike variable aperture lenses, not for any rational reason, but I do. Plus, except for the primes, none have quite the quality of the 24-70.<br>

So I'd appreciate any input.<br>

Return it and wait for a new Nikon stabilized version? (which could be anytime between soon and never, and probably no lighter...and probably more expensive as well).<br>

Keep it and get a monopod? (more weight and another item to lug)<br>

Keep it and hope there's always a handy tree, rock or something to help support it?<br>

Return it and buy the Tamron? (still heavy, and not Nikon)<br>

Or just be happy that I managed to get one of the better lenses out there for all purpose use?<br>

If you can help, thanks for being my online therapist!</p>

<p>Joe</p>

 

<p>I chose to get the 24-120 f/4 VR instead; it's lighter and has more range.</p>

<p>And it's on sale now at BH Photo for less than $1000.</p>

<p>Joseph, for the very reasons you mention (age and mountains), I have made the trade-off between the pixel-peeping glass and the lens that comes with me into the back country.</p>

<p>I get much more computer-based satisfaction from the 2.8 and faster glass. But in the field, I prefer to carry lighter more general-purpose (read variable f/stop) lenses. I take pleasure in the act of photography, so the better tool is always more satisfying to use, but if the lens is not on my belt in one of the few pouches I carry, it is unlikely to be used much, no matter how fine it is.</p>

<p>On the other hand, at your point in life if you can afford the best, why not buy and use it!</p>

<p>(OK -- not much help, but your note resonated!)</p>

<p>I had to look it up to see the weight, and ya that's a little beefy. Maybe a Gitzo hiking stick/monopod would work for you? I believe if I remember right REI had one too.I am a hiker as well and I much prefer 2 small primes and a body. Never had a problem with changing lenses unless there was high wind and dust. I often carry a 2lb tripod and use it as a hiking stick which has come in handy more times then not, especially when going downhill and thru rocks or sand, a predominate feature out in AZ.<br>

Overall a 5.2 inch extension from flange isn't too bad. You just need something to compare it to that's bigger like the 80-200 F2.8. Then you'll think it's light.</p>

<p>I'm a Canon photog, but I face the same issues. Getting older seems a cruel joke these days, and I can't carry/do half of the things I could when I was 20. I carry f/4 optics, rather than the f/2.8, because they're so much smaller and lighter. I don't generally shoot with large apertures anyway. For those times that I do need a large aperture lens, I use a fast prime -- faster than an f/2.8 zoom. I figure if I'm shooting with a sufficiently large aperture, I don't need to be very fussy about exact focal length and foreground/background compositional relationships (perspective), so a zoom is less useful then anyway. The bulk of my kit (not including secondary, semi-redundant, and specialty lenses) consists of:</p>

<ul>

<li>12-24 Sigma</li>

<li>17-40/4</li>

<li>24-105/4 IS (image stabilized)</li>

<li>70-200/4 IS</li>

<li>100/2.0</li>

</ul>

<p>... and when I'm out on foot, I only take two of these lenses MAX! The 24-105/4 (sounds like the same niche filled by Nikon's 24-120) is my most used and useful lens.</p>

<p>FAIW, the image stabilization is worth its weight in gold, so to speak. It performs well and makes carrying a tripod considerably less important.</p>

<p>I'll also mention that sometimes it's not what you carry, but how you carry it. I love my Lowepro Toploader 75 holster bag. It's an easy way to carry a small DSLR kit around -- one lens on the camera, and one pocketed deep in the bottom, with a polarizer and a few small items in pockets/pouches.</p>

<p>I'm 61 and refuse to carry heavy gear, so I understand. Actually, I didn't like carrying it when I was younger either. Fast glass is generally bigger and heavy, so there's always that trade off. Nikon made a tiny 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D that is very good for a plastic zoom, and it does have an aspherical element in it, but it's variable aperture. The 28-105 is a nice lens too.</p>

<p>Darn Joseph, I have been hoping for over a year to see if they were going to redesign (hopefully lighter) the 24-70 or at least lower the price. And now that they announced the $200.00 rebate I figured it was divine inspiration to BUY NOW!<br>

<br />But now you got me wondering. I am looking at the 24-70 to replace my old D70 kit lens (18-70). Main use would be for family beach portraits, events (including low light music venues) as well as my main walk-around lens. I have a 70-200 and it gets heavy quick some times. I don't do much hiking, except during road trips every year or so. I did notice during a desert hike last November, that my back pack was getting a little heavy, since I had the 70-200 and a D300 body in the bag, while I had another D300 & kit lens hanging off one shoulder and tripod in the other hand.<br>

I will also be 61 in a couple of months and my body is letting me know:)<br>

Since most of my shooting varies from a few hundred yards-to a mile, I wonder if my predicament is not as difficult as yours? As I mentioned on another thread, if I order the 24-70, a new model will probably come out in by summer:) I have also thought about getting a monopod, but for me it seems like it would be more for support when covering a once in awhile soccer game or a day long concert event. I do a lot of night shooting/long exposures, so I am more dependent on the tripod.<br>

Now the big question. How do you like the results from the 24-70? <br />What lens did it replace and are you seeing a big difference in the images?</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies!<br>

Sarah, that is the exact bag I had my eye on, looks like a decent way to carry the camera and a lens and still use a day pack for water and such. Yeah, everything else will be f4 and no regrets.<br>

Charles, that is exactly the advice Thom Hogan had on his website. And something to think about.<br>

Warren, having made compromises for so long, I really yearn to use the best, but if it's sitting at home because I'm having trouble lugging it around, it doesn't matter how good it is, as you pointed out.<br>

Wayne, I'm looking at monopods. I'm a good hiker, but it never hurts to have that (balancing) stick.<br>

Steve, ditto on the age, 62 next month. I used to carry 60-70 lb. backpacks around, but that ship has sailed.<br>

Thanks again, I'll post again when I choose.</p>

<p>You did not say what camera it is on. The camera makes lots of difference.<br>

I am 63, considered it for a D7000 as I hope to "FX" soon.<br>

I decided on a 18-200mm VR as a better choice for now, only 19oz (versus 32oz).<br>

I think I made the right decision.<br>

2 pounds is not a walk around lens, IMHO, it is a "<strong>get it out of the trunk for a wedding</strong>" lens.<br>

I would loose interest in carrying it soon.<br>

A monopod is just more to carry.<br>

Heck, I took the extra credit cards out of my wallet.</p>

<p>Joseph, you'll love the Toploader! If you scale down sufficiently, you can fit just about everything you need in it. Sometimes I leave my purse at home and just load the Toploader with bare essential wallet stuff. It's very comfortable to carry too. I wear mine bandelero style.</p>

<p>John, it's a D600, little bit more weight. You are likely right about using the 2 pounder.<br>

Sarah, I ordered one right after I posted! Thanks.</p>

<p>I used to carry 2-3 Nikon F2s, at least one with a motor, a 283 or two, 20/3.5, 28/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and an 80-200/4.5, plus filters etc., a Leitz Table Tripod and 20-40 rolls of film. In NYC I attended a lecture by Ernst Haas where he was asked about what he'd carried on his last assignment, and it was 2 bodies and three lenses, leaving 2 lenses and the 2nd body in his rucksack, wrapped in his underwear (!). I never looked back.</p>

<p>Now I carry very little. Sometimes one lightweight DSLR, a light (sometimes kit) zoom and a fast 50 or 24mm. Works for me. Other times a decent quality P&S.</p>

<p>Joseph, have you tried the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8? You can pick up a previous version screwdriver AF one (which I think is actually better than the motorized one on a decent camera like yours) for under $300. I use it on my D800 and it's actually really good. It's not quite as wide as the 24-70 options, and it's sort of ugly, but it doesn't weigh much - should balance well on the smaller D600 body - and I find the image rendition very pleasing and it doesn't require much stop down to become very sharp and contrasty. It's usable at f/2.8 and at about f/3.5 it's as good as I ever needed a lens to be.</p>

<p>If you really want to lighten your load, lose the SLRs and get something like an X-E1 with the kit lens. I've been traveling a lot lately and find myself bringing that and leaving the D800 whenever I know I'm going to have to walk any distance with my bags.</p>

<p>Thanks, Luis, some folks have unlimited endurance, it seems. I envy Mr. Haas. I do understand the urge to bring along something for every possibility, though.<br>

Andy, I have read unpleasant things about that Tamron, but have also learned to largely ignore the reviews. Maybe I'll try renting one if I can find one. However, there's no losing the (newly purchased) SLR at this point due to the probability of death via wife.</p>

 

<p>Joseph, in case you missed my question on page 1 ( I think you were typing as I posted.) As I mentioned in my first comment, I am kind of in the same boat as you but have not bought the 24-70 yet, but was planning on it. Plus I don't take real long hikes most of the time. Glad you started the thread.<br>

How do you like the results from the 24-70? <br />What lens did it replace and are you seeing a big difference in the images?</p>

<p>Well, if it is the 2.8 lens you are talking about it appears to weigh a whole 900 grams. I would think the size is more difficult than the weight. I had a spare day in Mexico City when I was there for the 1968 Olympics and went walking around downtown with a heavy NIkon F with the motor drive, a Nikkormat body and several lenses. At th end of a day I was listing to one side like a boat ready to sink.<br>

Years later I went walking around in a Tokyo suburb and carried a simple Canon with a fixed lens. My photos with the Canon were better, maybe because I didn't get all pooped out carrying all that stuff in Mexico.<br>

Are you yet another photos intimidated by the Fast Lens Crowd and is that why you carry an f2.8 zoon to shoot in broad daylight? Maybe you should try carrying a couple of small, lightweight prime lenses and see how it goes.</p>

<p>I've been working out regularly since I retired with the result that I probably can carry more now than when I was younger. So far my hands are pretty steady too, but I really would not buy a new lens now - at least in the longer ranges - without some kind of vibration-reduction/image-stabilization. Some aspects of it are a little like not moving to a house with dangerous stairs for your retirement.</p>

<p><br /> The controlled lenses also go a long way (though not the <em>same</em> way) toward handling low-light situations.<br /> You might consider Charles' suggestion.<br /> Depending on where you bought the new lens, and how recent, the vendor might be willing to consider a swap of some kind.</p>

<p>John, I did miss your question. I can't really say how good the lens is, because I got it so recently there hasn't been much of a tryout period. But I like it so far. It replaced nothing really, since I had a 12-24, a 35mm and a 50mm. So what I really wanted was a lens that covered the range.<br>

No, Wayne, I don't have any problem with an f4 lens at all. Unfortunately, most of them in the range I wanted have similar weights. 900 grams is two pounds, it may not seem like much to you, but I'm the one who'll be carrying it. When you're hiking at 6-8k feet, it matters; that's why I was looking at alternatives.<br>

JDM, I admit I lept before looking, or at least thinking, about the consequences. I was just looking for the best image quality lens in a zoom range and only after I got it did the weight of it give me pause. Adorama is very good about returns if I go that route, it's been less than 30 days, but I have to decide whether to throw away yet more cash by paying the shipping charges both ways.</p>

<p>You could always consider the shipping cost to be a sort of "preview fee". ;)</p>

<p>Warning: reading this may not help in the slightest. I'm typically a Canon user, but over the past couple of years, I've started to leave the heavy cameras and lenses in the cabinet more often in favor of a Sony NEX-5, and now the NEX-7. The results have been revealing. The quality is very good, and I'm much happier when out on a hike, or at an all-day event. I find that I enjoy the experience better because I'm not lugging around so much heavy equipment (some of which I hardly used). I've learned to be a little more resourceful, and even more creative with my new limitations, and so far I haven't been too disappointed in the results. I find that I'm thinking more about the subject and less about equipment choices. I've successfully shot airshows, sporting events, corporate gatherings, and numerous other situation where I thought I would really <em>need</em> my SLR. Of course, this approach doesn't work in every situation; and I won't be selling my SLR's just yet, but it is refreshing to carry <em>all</em> of my gear in a small sling bag, that still has room left over for my eyeglasses and Kindle.</p>

<p>Hah, preview fee....or just a rental cost.<br>

Thanks, Paul.</p>