Discussion in 'Nikon' started by kevin_beretta, May 14, 2021.
Time to go MILC, preferably Fuji.
If only they'd stop p*ssing about with X-trans and their previous other uselessly 'different' sensor geometry.
I wouldn't mind if it was genuinely innovative, but it's just yet another variation on the too-many-green-sensored Bayer patterning. Might as well just swap over the black and white squares on a chessboard and call it a new game. Yawn.
The Tamron 35-150mm is dope. A much-undervalued lens. Sharp at all focal lengths and apertures. Light, despite the fast apertures and extended range. A really nice travel lens when paired with something like the tiny and sharp Nikkor 20mm f/3.5.
Just the usual outgassing from another of PN's notable pedantic blowhards. Ever shot any Fuji-X products? Doubtful.
I have 24-85 VR and 24-120 F.4. VR. The 24-120 VR is sharper and more versatile. The VR function is essential since I assume most if not all of your shots will be handheld ( no tripod). I The Nikon 28-300 is more versatile but not as sharp as the 24-120 f 4.0. I would bring the 24-85 as backup if the 24-120 fails. I also would take a longer VR lens (70-300) for wildlife, but on a teahouse trek, I suspect there will be little or none. Take enough batteries and charger for when there is electricity. Rain showers happen in the mountains so you want some water protection. I have water resistant shoulder bag, and a plastic Optech USA camera/lens cover . I also use an Optech camera stabilizer to keep the camera from swinging as I hike, but am ready whenever. I discovered recently "Hood Hat" which is a neoprene cover which goes over the lens and lens hood. I attached a short string to the hood hat and the other end of the string to a high quality thick rubber band that goes around the base of the lens. I can flip the hood hat off the lens w/hood, shoot, and then quickly pull it back on., keeping lens clean and protected with hood in place.
If I an doing primarily street, I like my 20/2.8
if I am doing general city, and some landscape, the 16-35/4
if shooting people on the street-like at festivals (Mardi Gras), and landscape, the 24-70
So it would depend on where you're traveling
If I could only take one lens it would be either the 16-35 or the 24-70, and if pushed, the 16-35
For me, 24-200 S lens. Thinking of getting rid of all the other in-betweens to make life simpler because I don't need them any more.
Just because Fuji doesn't have its own thread, there's no need to wander in here with your Fuji propaganda and insults!
FWIW, the very first digital camera I owned was a Fuji, and I would never use one of their products again based on that experience.
Cranky or what? Definitely clueless, though. Have seldom seen anyone quite so prone to cook exceptions into rules here. Sad.
I have never used a Fuji camera except those tiny disposables on the guest tables at some wedding receptions. Hwvr, I loved Fuji Velvia and Provia film in the ancient days. Anyhow, though one may have had a negative experience with one particular camera, it defies common sense to declare that every one of their cameras is bad. In fact, I heard some pretty good things. Here is a random YouTube review.
Loved the early Fuji Pros.
Oh, wait they were Nikon bodies with Fuji 'bits' inside.
Moved on now..
The best travel lens is the one you have!
Where did I say that?
I just prefer not to support a company that once blatantly lied about the specification of a product with further custom.
And how do your cranky personal insults add anything useful to this thread or help the OP?
Talking to yourself again, Joe?
The one lens I keep forgetting even exists is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4.
Well, I stopped resisting the urge when I realized that my F-mount Sigma 24-105/4 hasn't been used in some time - in addition to its heft and 82mm-filter size, I had soured on the lens a bit because of its tendency to eat camera batteries (the IS system needs power to hold the IS lens system in place - and it doesn't turn off when the camera goes in stand-by mode but takes an additional 1 minute (see thread here: An FYI about OS in some current Sigma lenses).
So I decided to part with the Sigma 24-105 and get the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 VC instead - a EX copy arrived from keh yesterday. First impressions: physically longer than the Sigma 24-105, but about 100g lighter, 77mm filter. AF isn't fast but appears adequate; not entirely silent either. The OSD AF drive comes with one drawback - the focus ring turns during focus operation - which certainly caught me by surprise. Together with that comes the inability to directly override the AF to manually focus - you need to turn AF off on the lens before doing that. Quite outdated behavior for a lens released in 2019. Luckily, I hardly ever feel the need to manually focus this kind of lens anyway - but the turning focus ring will take some getting used to. Couldn't detect any back- or front-focusing issues (some tendency was reported on the interwebs). Like the Sigma 24-105 (or the Nikon 24-120), the lens extends quite a bit when zooming out from 35mm (where it's shortest).
35mm is not very wide at the short end - so I most likely will carry either the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, the Nikon 16-35/4 VR or the Nikon 20/1.8 alongside the 35-150. 35mm to 150mm is quite an unusual focal length range for a "midrange" zoom - it will remain to be seen if it's a good choice for a walk-around lens. When walking with only one lens, the Sigma 24-105 might have been the more versatile choice - but that no longer applied when used in combination with the first and second lens mentioned above (in particular the 2nd, which I considered to be useful only in the 16-28mm range). I never felt I had a good longer-focal length lens to accompany the Sigma 24-105. A 70-200 (either f/2.8 or f/4) has quite a substantial overlap - and with the 35-150, I expect to leave the 70-200 home most of the time.
What intrigued me was the quite even performance over the entire focal length range (see for example the lenstip.com review on the lens). A 4.3x zoom certainly will entail some optical compromises - there's some vignetting and some sharpness fall-off in the corners at wide apertures, but generally the lens seems to perform at a fairly high level.
Yes, the lack of instant AF override, and the related fact that the focus ring is coupled to the gear train in AF mode, seem to be cost-cutting measures taken to meet the economical $799 price point.
I know to keep my fingers away from the focus ring when not focusing manually, which is something I never feel the need to do with this accurate-focusing lens. I love the wide-open sharpness at all focal lengths, which is something I can't say about the Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.
Separate names with a comma.