28-300 VR or current lenses for a vacation trip?

<p>I've got a D700 and a 24-85VR, the older 24-120 VrI, 70-300 VR and a few primes. I almost always have the 24-85VR or Sigma 24/f1.8 or AFS 50/1.4 on my camera. My family is planning a trip to Chicago and I'd like to go with a minimum of gear. Adorama has the 28-300 VR refurbished for $829, I'm thinking of adding this lens and taking a wide angle lens to supplement the 28-300. That would give me a two lens kit. My other option is to upgrade to the newer 24-120, take the 70-300 and a 501.4 AFS lens. What would you do?</p>

<p>I'd save my money and use what I have. The wider angles will probably get the most usage (at least that's what I've tended to use in Chicago). Have a great trip, it's a wonderful city with tons of stuff to see and do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I almost always have the 24-85VR or Sigma 24/f1.8 or AFS 50/1.4 on my camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> I think you answered your own question. Take the lenses you usually use. I personally don't see the need for a 300mm focal length in Chicago. I'm not a fan of variable aperture, super zoom lenses anyway.</p>

<p>Well if you are made of money.....</p>

<p>If you are not then why not take the 24-85 AFS VR and the 50mm F/1.4?</p>

<p>You are probably not going to shoot sports or wildlife in Chicago so you really don't need the reach of the 300's. Besides, with the sharpness of the 24-85 you can crop like crazy. </p>

<p>Adding the 24-120 new version will not give you enough to make the investment worthwhile. the 28-300 is nice but also not really going to give you much. </p>

<p>I say go with what you have.</p>

<p>I've been going to Chicago twice a year for the past 15-20 years. I mostly love to photo the downtown area. I rarely need anything longer than 85mm. The more stuff you have to carry, the less fun it is. My Chicago trips give me some of my only opportunities for "street" photography. Over the years I've figured out that the smaller and less conspicuous the camera, the better my photos seem to be. Pointing a big camera with a honking big lens at people seems to highly annoy them. A D700 with something like a 28-300mm is about the last camera I'd be using "on the street." Honestly, if you are thinking of taking photos on subway platforms etc. downtown, you will be better off with a small but quality point & shoot. On my trip there a couple of weeks ago I actually left all my Nikon gear home, including D7100 and f2.8 zooms. Nikon's best camera for this kind of shooting would either be the small V1 series or the D5300 with small lenses. That would be a much better use of 800 bucks. I only took a small Leica IIIc film camera and four very small lenses 28/35/50/90mm. I got some great shots!<br />

<p>Think small!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I'd personally find the 24-85mm just a tad short on the long end, but not by much, and it certainly would be better (and easier) to use than a super zoom.</p>

<p>I go to Chicago fairly often, and was amazed to look at the focal lengths I shot on my last trip - over half the images were made at the 24-28mm end of a 24-105mm lens.<br /> BTW, in many respects Chicago is the world-champion open-air architectural museum. The tours given by the Chicago Architecture Foundation are a must, especially don't miss the river tour ( http://www.architecture.org/tours )</p>

<p>"Over the years I've figured out that the smaller and less conspicuous the camera, the better my photos seem to be. Pointing a big camera with a honking big lens at people seems to highly annoy them. A D700 with something like a 28-300mm is about the last camera I'd be using "on the street."<br>

Good advice! And good images. Not my thread, but I'm very interested in this topic. I have a D700 with big lenses - very loud and obvious. I used to do travel/street with an FE2 and some primes. I hate to abandon the D700, but may have to move to D7100/18-140 supplemented by a few AIS primes for street/travel.<br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Last summer I took my D700 with 20-35mm f/2.8 and 28-300mm on vacation to Wisconsin. I regretted taking those heavy and bulky 77mm lenses by the time I'd walked through the airports on my way there. As Kent said, the more you have to carry the less enjoyable a day of walking around becomes. If I had it to do over, I would have just taken my 24-85mm and maybe a small prime since the majority of my shots were taken in that range.</p>

<p>I went to Chicago in October and enjoyed ourselves very much. My first advice isn't photography related, but you'll be very, very happy you did. Get a City Pass if you plan on going to the top of the Willis Building (Sears Tower). There were lines that were at least 1.5 to 2 hours long just to get to the observation deck. With the City Pass we were on the observation deck within 25 - 30 minutes from entering the building. It was well worth the money. It was also great for the other exhibits we went to.<br /> <br /> Photography-wise, I took the D700, 28-300, 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye. I also took a Canon Powershot SD950. The little camera got used a bit, but the Nikon D700 and the 28-300 got the most workout. At night, the other lenses were used. It was really, really heavy to carry the bag all over town, but that was my choice. I was happy I did most of the time. Here's some photos I ended up with: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157636916467323/<br /> <br /> When I went to New York a couple years ago I only brought my Canon Powershot and was happy I did. I had gone there previously with all my gear and that last trip I just wanted to go without worrying about carrying a lot of equipment. There were quite a few times I wished I had my Nikon, but I got over it.<br /> <br /> So, what should the OP take? I say just use what you own. I would take the 24-120, 70-300, and the 50mm. If you're willing to carry it all, then by all means, use what you own. If you don't want to carry it all, bring one lens and be done with it. Remember, you don't need to take pictures of EVERYTHING and be a breathing movie camera. Just take pictures of what you like. In the long run the photos you will cherish, though, will be the ones of you and your family. All the others are just for fun, but the family ones are the most important, so make sure you take the photos, no matter how cheesy they are, in front of the tourist attractions. Good luck and enjoy yourself!</p>

<p>Really no need to buy a new superzoom. Your 24-85 + 70-300 will fill the bill. IMO the 28-300 will not add any value to your project.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A D700 with something like a 28-300mm is about the last camera I'd be using "on the street." </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

For an alternative opinion, according to videos on the Kebly One site, Jay Maisel uses this exact lens mounted on a D3s for most of his street photography. The lens seems to work well for him. It's certainly sharp enough for a D700.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What would you do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I would take my standard kit, the body and lenses that I know and trust. <br>

<br>

If I had YOUR equipment, I would stick with the 24-85, the 70-300, and the 50 that you already own. Leave the 24-120 at home. <br>

<br>

It's tempting, but it's never a good idea to buy a new lens right before a trip. Use what you know and focus more on creativity rather than taking a chance on refurbished and unfamiliar gear.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice. I'm going to go with the 24-85VR and my favorite wide angle Nikon 20/2.8 non D and my 50/1.4 AFS. I tend to use those two lenses a lot. Not sure about the 70-300 though. I like the idea of keeping my camera bag light and not intimidating people with a long lens. I'm going on a short trip next week and I'll take my Chicago kit with me and see how it goes. If I miss the 70-300 I'll take it Chicago, if I don't I'll leave it at home.</p>

Mark, I own a 28-300. While it is not my sharpest lens, it stays on my D3s most of the time if I am shooting casually and

do not need to control depth of field. The 300mm focal length allows you to isolate your subject better. That is just my

shooting style. For much less money you could buy a used 70-300 Vr and with the 24-85 Vr still have 2 lens solution.

The 70-300 Vr is also a sharper lens over all and at the long end. But I do like the convenience of the 28-300. Canon

make a much nicer version IMHO. I think the having a f1.4 lens so you can control depth of field is very smart. Good

hunting.