travel and landscape lens

<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>

<p>Helder,<br>

Are you using DX or FX bodies?</p>

 

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

<p>lose the monster tripod and get something a bit more travel friendly (like a 2xxx series Gitzo or equiv).<br>

70-200/4 or 24-120/4 would serve you well and not hugely expensive or heavy. really a matter of how you 'see' and like to shoot. My hunch would be 24-120</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>5.5 lb? I thought you where talking heavy..:-) After looking at your work I really have to ask what you think are the problems with the gear you have...If its just that you are tired of changing lenses I would look at the new 24-70 from Nikon or if you want something little smaller and lighter the Sigma 24-70 is also very nice.</p>

<p>And by the way you do very nice work.</p>

<p>I walk around all day with either my DF or D750 and 24-120 f4 on a wrist strap. That is my in town daytime setup if I am not carrying a bag. In the country, I set up the same way but with 28-300. If I have the bag, one camera has the 18-35 in the daytime, a fast 50 as evening comes on. I can do everything but distant wildlife. I rarely use a tripod and except for a Leica tabletop model, never travel with one. Though I am no spring chicken, and prefer not to carry the bag all day, the camera with either zoom lens mounted never bothers me.</p>

<p>My suggestion:<br /> Nikon 20mm f1.8G<br /> Nikon 24-120mm f4<br /> Nikon 70-200mm f4<br /> (maybe) Nikon 35mm f1.8G<br /> travel tripod<br /> **********<br /> Sell all current lenses. Keep current tripod but add a lighter one for travel. I tend to shoot a lot of architecture too, along with landscapes. MY favorite lens is definitely the 24mm PC-E, but I don't know how willing you are to learn how to use it. It is spectacular for architecture though. You are right about having to constantly change lenses when on a trip. I have 20/24mm PC-E/35/50/85 & 80-400mm AFS I brought to Yellowstone and Pennsylvania last year. Changing lenses was a pain in the ass, and I did miss a few shots. The Nikon f4 zooms are light and excellent. I bring a Benro 269 Travel Angel tripod on trips with my AcraTech head. It is light and folds down into a medium suitcase. It's not as stable as my Gitzo 1325, but it does the job if I'm careful. I have "L" plates on all my cameras.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>The 24mm PC-E keeps lines straight<br>

and buildings aren't falling over backwards.</p><div></div>

<p>A geared head, like manfrotto 410, is absolutely fantastic for anything that requires careful composition like architecture.</p>

<p>I agree with Kent that you might want to look into getting tilt-shift lenses. They are expensive though and single focal length of course. Samyang has a 24mm tilt shift that is more budget friendly so that might be an option too.</p>

<p>Other than that it looks like you could get a midrange and telephoto zoom and just sell of the other lenses. Since you don't do sports you don't need fast autofocus so you have plenty of options, both new and used.</p>

<p>With a wide angle zoom (14-24), a midrange zoom (24-70) and a telephotozoom (70-200) you have everything from 14-200mm covered and with good image quality as well. For landscape, travel etc you don't need f2.8 so as mentioned above, have a look at f4 and slower lenses like that.</p>

<p>I don't know how much you use the 14-24 lens as it is can go rather wide. I would consider selling it and getting something like the Tokina 17-35 f4. That would be a more valuable focal length and save you a lot of lens swapping. Personally I think you could then drop the midrange zoom and go for the telephoto. So 17-35mm f4 and 70-200 f4. Keep the 50mm if you worry about the gap between lenses and/or want a fast lens for low light.</p>

 

I use a 24-70 on my D700. Not a featherweight but what a lens. I believe it is perfect for travel photography.

<p>you have two directions here: simplify with 24-120/4, or add tele capability with 70-200/4. i think a case could be made for either one, but they do different things and serve different purposes. the 70-200 has better optics, but the 24-120 would all but eliminate lens changes. either way, you could forego the primes, and just work with the zoom + the 14-24, eschewing the middle range altogether. the choice may depend on how much you're attached to those primes, as there are newer/sharper options in the 24/28/35/50 range.</p>

<p>Consider the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 SP VC. The VC is amazingly steady and will allow you to ditch the tripod in most cases. It's also a little less weighty and bulky than Nikon's monster 24-70. Not to mention a lot less pricey.</p>

<p>IQ is probably not quite as good into the corners as the Nikkor, but it's not bad either. The Tamron's central sharpness/contrast would be hard to beat.</p>

<p>I think you first need to convince yourself to get rid of some quality in trade of confort and shooting opportunities.<br /> After all, if you reduce the size of your images to be printed or viewed at "normal" sizes, many "non-top" or "non-pro" zooms are just perfect.<br /> This way, a 24-85VR could be a very nice lightweight option. I use a 24-120/4 which I like but it`s still a bit on the heavy side to my taste.<br /> On the other side, if you look for straight lines or corner performance in the architectural (or even in your landscape) photos, the 24-85 could not be the right performer. The 24-120/4 seem to be a little better up to 50mm, but it also show low corner performance in the longer end. I think nothing beat a fixed focal length lens like a 28/1.8AFS.<br /> Anyway, I think a small (24-85) or reasonable compact (24-120) zoom may be not perfect, but are the most versatile, comfortable and usable options.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other side, if you look for straight lines or corner performance in the architectural (or even in your landscape) photos, the 24-85 could not be the right performer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think all zooms in the 24-xxx range, including the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-120 f4, has lots of barrel / moustache distortion at 24mm. </p>

 

<p>Right. Sometimes it`s not distortion but corner performance, where the 24-85VR fall behind the 24-120/4. IMO, for many other tasks (like portraiture or travel photography), the 24-85 is a very interesting lens.</p>

<p>l’m like you. I like to travel, I like landscapes, I do some hiking too and I’m always looking for better ways to carry my gear and enjoy my trip.<br /> <br /> The truth is, a dslr is probably not the best travel camera. It’s simply ‘too everything’. The trips I enjoyed most were with one or two small lenses (20mm, 24mm, 35mm afd come to mind) and perhaps a slow tele zoom (70-300mm or 70-200mm f4). Anything else is ‘getting in the way’.<br /> <br /> Neither your 14-24, 24-70, 24-120 are good travel lenses. You’re paying big for the f2.8 aperture that you’re unlikely to use outdoors, while the 24-120 is a mediocre and overpriced lens. Both 24-70 and 24-120 have more distortion than a 24mm prime.</p>

<p>You say you don't like changing lenses. Another truth is: good travel & landscape photos take time. Time to scout a location, time to find a vantage point, time to place a polarizer... You should adjust your expectations. Changing lenses isn't that bad if the lenses you carry are radically different (for instance 24mm and 70-300mm). It only gets tedious when you have to decide between similar lenses or when you're carrying too much. So simplify your equipment and make sure you differentiate enough.</p>

<p>My suggestion:<br /> 1. Either a 24-85mm VR if you don’t want to change lenses.</p>

<p>2. Or :<br /> - a small 35mm and be done with it<br>

-> Might as well carry a Fuji X with fixed lens.</p>

<p>3. Or the following package:<br /> - a lightweight wide angle (20mm or 24mm)<br /> - a lightweight tele zoom (70-200 f4 VR or 70-300mm VR)<br /><br /></p>

<p>In any case, get a polarizer for each and every lens.</p>

<p>No, get one polarizer for the largest lens and a set of adapter rings for the rest! But beware, a polarizer can make water and foliage look exceedingly dull if used in overcast light.</p>

<p>BTW, after looking at DXO's comparison tests, I think I might take back my statement above about Tamron's version being slightly inferior to Nikon's 24-70 VR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No, get one polarizer for the largest lens and a set of adapter rings for the rest!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If he doesn't like lens changes, he certainly won't like swapping filters!</p>

<p>What I mean about adjusting expectations is exactly this: either accept the extra work needed for creating wonderful images, or look for something different than a dslr. A dslr is basically a modular lens system. If you don't want that, you got the wrong camera.</p>

<p>Like someone else said: you're trading quality vs comfort.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-120 is a mediocre and overpriced lens. Both 24-70 and 24-120 have more distortion than a 24mm prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At least in the US, the way to buy the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR is as a kit lens with the D810 or D750. The cost for those kits are typically $600 more than body only. In that case the 24-120mm/f4 is an excellent deal. There may also be opportunities to get it from the used market when people unload the lens from new kits.</p>

<p>Barrel distortion comes with the territory for a 24-nn zoom. In the old days when we used slide film, it was a more important issue. Today, it is not difficult to correct in post processing. Additionally, unless you photograph architecture, some distortion is a non-issue and rarely noticeable. (One exception is that when you have the horizon near the edge of the frame.) I would just correct it when necessary.</p>

<p>i wouldn't necessarily call the 24-120/4 "mediocre," although it is somewhat pricey. simply put, there's nothing else in Nikon's FX lens line which does what it does, unless you're talking about a lens with even more optical compromises, like the 28-300. (the 24-120 vs. sigma 24-105/4 is a different conversation.) if you're approaching this lens from a pure optical quality standpoint, no, it's not as sharp or distortion-free as a 24mm prime, but its a 5x zoom. getting the most out of it is really up to the photographer. i was a bit surprised to see <a href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/05/01/review-nikon-afs-24-120-vr/">this</a> positive review of the lens from Ming Thein, who can be a bit of an image quality snob. But in his review, Ming assesses usability from a practicality standpoint, as well as his intended uses. since he works with high-quality primes and multiple bodies, sometimes he needs tele reach or just a wide zoom range for urban landscape work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>MT writes: I think it’s probably obvious what you’d use this lens for: a go-everywhere, do-anything optic you don’t have to think too much about when using; something that allows for a little bit of looseness when running and gunning thanks to VR. It pairs very well with the 16 and 24MP cameras – <a title="Photoessay-review: A rainy evening, and summary thoughts on the Nikon D4" href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/06/07/photoessay-rainy-evening-nikon-d4-thoughts/" target="_blank">D4</a>, D4s, <a title="So…I bought a Nikon D750. Here’s why" href="http://blog.mingthein.com/2014/10/17/soi-bought-a-nikon-d750/" target="_blank">D750</a> – you could probably add a 50/1.8G or 85/1.8G and be very happy for a long time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, from the standpoint of a travel lens, it ticks the right boxes. a landscape lens might be a bit more specialized and less general-purpose, but this post was about a lens which works for both applications and allows for overall lighter travel due to versatility.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Neither your 14-24, 24-70, 24-120 are good travel lenses. You’re paying big for the f2.8 aperture that you’re unlikely to use outdoors,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, the 14-24's biggest issue is that it doesn't take filters. this takes away some of the potential uses for it, i.e. shooting wide open in bright light with an ND grad. But, it's a lens the OP already has, and it perhaps doesn't make total sense to ask him to discard it entirely based on one person's opinion. as stated before, i could see combining the 14-24 with a 24-120 or 70-200/4 as a two-zoom kit. the 24-70? i think it could be a good travel lens IF you are going with a one-lens solution. Otherwise, too big, too heavy, somewhat overkill for T/L. But big, heavy full frame lenses are a conundrum of that format. if you want smaller/lighter std. zoom with constant 2.8, you're looking at mirrorless systems or maybe APS-C DSLR. Which is a different discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another truth is: good travel & landscape photos take time. Time to scout a location, time to find a vantage point, time to place a polarizer...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes and no. some of the best travel photos are grab shots which require street photography skills. you take too long to set them up and the opportunity is lost. this is an argument for the 24-120 btw. and even if we adopt a more measured approach, there's no mandate that you can't use a 5x zoom. if you are traveling in dusty,muddy, or wet environments, not having to switch lenses is a plus. I do like the idea of a fixed-lens compact as a travel buddy, 28mm or 35mm can work for a lot of situations as well as selfies/candids where a big honking zoom kills the mood due to obtrusiveness. But ideally, i'd have that as a second body with an ILC with lenses which cover wide angle and telephoto. Another option i feel compelled to mention for travel and landscape is the do-it-all fixed-lens compact, i.e. a Canon G1X. if you dont have a particular need for fast AF, it could work surprisingly well while keeping your bag light. IMO, Nikon should really offer something equivalent, with an APS-C sensor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A dslr is basically a modular lens system. If you don't want that, you got the wrong camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here we go, speaking in absolutes again. I disagree somewhat, as there are times when one might want modular capabilities, and others where that's less important. i dont think it can be said there's only one way to shoot a DSLR, and it also a truism that there are modular options which aren't DSLRs.</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>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>