D700 and best lens for travel

<p>Hi, I'm new to this forum and would like help from pros. I just migrated to FX (D700) from DX but admit I am not a pro. I bought the 70-300 Nikkor with the body. I am not quite sure what other lens I need to add in as much as I will be traveling with my family to a holiday trip this coming winter (Niagara Falls, Orlando, NY New Years Eve countdown, etc.). I remember using mostly wide end of the D60 + Nikkor 18-200 mm Nikkor during our holiday trip last year to get the family and as much of the view as I can. Got the full frame to handle anticipated low light photos. Having trouble deciding on all Nikkor 14-24 mm f/2.8 (people look weird inside the frame), 17-35 mm f/2.8 (does it distort as much as the ultrawide 14-24) versus the 24-70 mm f/2.8 as I need some wide shots but hopefully not distorted too much. Read that some do not advise a middle zoom (24-70) and instead get a 14-24/17-35 with a nifty fifty (50 mm f/1.4G). Or could I settle for the 24-70 mm (is the wide end respectable for the trip together with some reach into midrange). COuld you guys help me out? Many thanks.</p>

<p>Chris - I just traveled the West Coast with the 24-70mm on the D700. I loved it & most of the time I was thrilled, but there were times I wished for wider. Past that - 24-70 comes with a steep price tag. But it is a fantastic lens.<br>

Lil :)</p>

<p>Chris,<br>

On the D60 the field of view of your 18-200 mm lens is roughly equivalent to the FOV of a 27-300 mm on a DX camera.<br>

If I were you, I would first get the 28-70/2.8. A mid-range zoom is typically much more useful than a super wide as a walk-around, travel lens.<br>

If you really, really want to go very wide, get the 17-35/2.8. From what I now the 14-24 is a superb lens, but the zoom range is IMHO too wide and additionally you can't use filters.</p>

<p>Roberto</p>

 

<p>I use the 20-35 f/2.8 on my D700 daily. Granted I'm using it for newspaper work, but it works fantastic. Sharp, small and fairly inexpensive.</p>

<p>The 35-70 f/2.8 is a good compliment too.</p>

<p>

<p>I use both 14-24 and 24-70 with my D700 frequently, they are a perfect combo. It makes little sense to have both 14-24 and 17-35, you will not have any reach for farther subjects/portraits etc. You should pick either 14-24 or 17-35 depending on your preference for filters or not plus the 24-70. I tested the 24-70 @ 50mm versus the older 50 f/1.8D and it was sharper at all apertures, it doubles as a prime for me as well, so I am not using the 50 anymore. I did not like the new 50 f/1.4G as the focus speed is too slow for my liking and for such price IMO. </p>

</p>

<p>As a wide zoom I find the 17-35 to have the best focal range. This and a 50AFS seems to me the perfect combo for almost everything.<br /> Are you not bothered about size and weight? I usually walk/travel with my camera and find the bulk of this pro zooms to be very annoying.</p>

<p>The 24-70/2.8 is a to-die-for choice, and I believe it brings out the best in the D700.<br>

Nevertheless, I have noticed that, more often than not, I am extremely happy with my 50/1.4 which is always on, it seems. Versatile, universal, perfect. For landscapes, I usually take panoramic shots with this lens, too, which I later assemble.<br>

My best travel lens would be either the above-mentioned 24-70, or a 50 in combo with a good wide angle lens or zoom.<br>

And José, I too, travel a lot, and sometimes it annoys me to schlepp 7.5 kg of equipment, but it's worth every gram. ;-)</p>

<p>Oops... I meant 24-70/2.8 in my post above. My apologies.<br>

Roberto</p>

<p>No one mentions it, but the older 28-70 f/2.8 is just as good at the 24-70, but loads less cost-wise.</p>

<p>I got mine for $1K nearly brand new. It's fast, sharp, contrast-y and build, in my opinion, better than the newer lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks guys. You have all been very helpful.<br>

I've resigned myself to the fact that weight is something I have to live with when I travel this winter, although I will certainly avoid bringing a wide zoom, mid-zoom and the tele together. I am now considering either a 17-35 mm plus 50 mm f/1.4G OR 24-70 mm f/2.8 (I've seen reviews where the 24-70 was even sharper than the prime 50 f/1.4G) as additional lens to the 70-300 mm I already have. That will hopefully keep the weight down to more manageable levels (although it still is top heavy I guess). With that said I plan on leaving one of the lenses in a safe in the hotel when we go out to visit places, with the lens I take along depending on what I foresee shooting photos of during the day, so that I manage the weight while going around and avoid attracting too much attention with the DSLR.<br>

I also read in some forum threads about the 28-85mm Nikkor although I have never seen one in the shops, nor do I have info about its performance characteristics. WOuld anyone have prior experience with this lens on an FX?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nic, your 28-70 mm f/2.8 certainly looks interesting. Could you advise me how it stacks up to the 24-70 mm in terms of sharpness? I must admit that this is the first time I have seen a recommendation for this lens.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Chris, for trips I usually like to use a 24-85AFS. It is supposed to have lots of CA issues but for family shots and other non pro stuff works great. It is light, small and sharp (and cheap, something important on that situations where conditions are not safe). The extended zoom power is also convenient, and relatively fast at f4.5.<br /> Looks like the older f2.8-4 is a better performer, I never used it.</p>

<p>24/70 or 28/70 2.8 are most useful. Then a 18 3.5 or 20 2.8 for wider if you want. I like primes mostly, but for travel I would not want to be burdened with a lot of stuff. A 35/70 2.8 is decent lens at a small fraction of the price of the other two monsters. It is what I use for non lens changing work.</p>

<p>All Nikon zooms and wide angles distort straight lines. Correct them with PTLens or Photoshop, or NX2. NX2 will fix the curves and CA automatically on the later Nikkon lenses and it does a better job than Photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If your budget is limitless and you don't mind the size or weight, then the new 24-70 f2.8. As others have said a 28-70 f2.8 if 28 mm is wide enough for you.</p>

<p>Chris - Why don't you just get a 35mm prime. Perfect for travel. My choice is an f1.4 manual. Light and great IQ.</p>

<p>Nobody ever recommends super-zooms I guess because they're not "Pro" enough, but most folks I know aren't capable of taking better pictures than the Nikon 28-200** can render, nor do they blow them up to life size where they'll see all the minor "defects".<br>

Shooting in Daytime, in travel conditions where I don't ever want to change lenses, one of these stays parked on my camera until the sun goes down.<br>

(then it's on with the 24-70 f2.8 that pretty much everyone else recommended **grins**)</p>

 

<hr />

<p>**Although not made anymore. you can find the Nikon 28-200 G used on ebay for 200 bucks all day long, or pick up the Tamron, which is also very good. </p><div></div>

<p>(Doublepost please delete)</p>

<p>I have a D700 and use my 24-70mm, f/2.8 as my "walking around" lens. Granted it is a large heavy lens, but the quality of the images are simply great. Along with it, I also use the 14-24mm, f/2.8. It makes a perfect companion lens for interiors, narrow city streets, etc. The D700 and these two lens leave me with no excuses, any bad images are strickly my doing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I usually like to use a 24-85AFS [...] Looks like the older f2.8-4 is a better performer, I never used it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have exactly that lens, and find it quite nice. It's a bit soft around the ears (not the crisp sharp you get from 24-70 2.8), but very fine as an always-on travel companion. The only problem I encounter is the tendency to vignette on wide angle.<br /> This picture has been made with the 24-85 2.8 at f3.5, and I find it quite acceptable.<br /> <img src="http://www.abload.de/img/twozb4m.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>For travel and non critical photos I use an older 28-105mm Nikkor on my D700. I picked up a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 which works well but still big. Usually if I have time I still use manual focus primes. My biggest priority for travel is weight and size, not quality.</p>

<p>I'm a fan of the semi-pro lenses for travel. The 24-120 has a nice range and is light. Couple that with a cheapy 17-35mm any brand or the nice Nikkor 18-35mm and you are set.<br>

I travel often, and lightness is key when you are walking around all day.<br>

I use a very wide lens much more when travelling than I do on jobs at home.<br>

I think for a zoom 28mm is not wide enough for a leave it on most of the time type lens. 24mm much more useful.<br>

The newer Nikon small flash that bounces (forget the name) is great. Sb-800, 900 too big for walking around with all day IMO.</p>

<p>Although the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are great lenses, but the title subject is best lens for travel. If you have servants and a mule travelling with you then those lenses will be the best, otherwise look for something much lighter and smaller, some already recommended.<br>

I second the 28-200 G lens that is good for FX and film, but no longer available and discontinued.</p>

<p>Travel? 17-35 (or 18-35 to save weight) with a 50 1.4 and your 70-300. You want good photos and not need a pack animal? Go light.</p>

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>IMO "for travel" is not specific enough. Only you know where do you want to travel and what are you going to take photos of. I mean - one can go to Pakistan to take photos of mountains from helicopter, one can go to make photos of Pakistanian wildlife. Both could tell 'for travel' but the answer for them would be quite different.</p>

<p>Another thing is why are you traveling. There's a big difference between going somewhere to have fun and going somewhere only to take photos. If you are going on a photo trip only (remember, it depends on your subjects and preferences), you should have wide, tele and some fast prime for those low-light conditions, plus a flash, cleaning accessories and a handy bag, maybe some other stuff. In other words quality of pictures is the most important issue.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you're going on a vacation, want to have fun and take photos of places you visit, 18-200 is a way to go, plus a fast prime. But you don't want to have your hands tied by heavy equipment while having fun, trust me. You'll be worried about your camera and lenses all the time (did I just knocked my lens on that rock? what if somebody is now stealing my spare lens I left in my room? oh my, I just went from warm room and it's freezing here, there's fog on my lens, what do I do? all this = fun ruined). Spend time with your family and have fun, don't worry about gear.</p>

<p>In the second scenario I'd go with a superzoom. On FX 18 is wide enough to cover crowds counting those seconds on December the 31st, anything over 100 would give you portrait reach, and 200 is quite long that can be useful. Sure, this lens won't be fast, but as long as you don't need 1.4 out of focus look, you can dial ISO 3200 on D700 and be a happy man.</p>

<p>24-70 maybe a superb piece of glass, but on FX it's almost always not wide enough and 70 is never quite long too. I can't see myself using it as my walkaround lens, but hey, maybe it's just me.</p>

<p>Also I must confess I don't quite understand moving to FX because of low-light photography.</p>

<p>PS<br>

If you worry about lens quality download trial or buy full version of DxO. It will do magic to you photos. Vignetting, aberration, CA, all will go away with one click.</p>

<p>My suggestion is probably not what you want or expect... Get D90 + 18-105mm kit. I did. The cost is now far below some of the pro or semi-pro lenses you might be thinking or suggested above.</p>

<p>I know you just migrated from DX and understandably are excited about the camera and want to get the best of it. I know as I have gone through that path. I thougth about the choices for "travel" lenses for my D700 but couldn't decide. 24-70, 17-35, 70-300 are all great, but couldn't really imagine myself carry one or two of those with baggages, shopping bags or souvenirs or valuables (money, passport, etc.). So the conclusion I reached was to get "really light stuff" for travel. Don't get me wrong. I do walk around with or bring for short trip the D700 set with optimal lenses (24-70 and 70-300 are nice combo to bring to short trip), but for longer trip with family and bigger baggage, I go with D90 set. I would say D90 set is 97% satisfactory.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>