Talk me out of buying a new lens.....

<p>I have the 24-70 f/2.8, but keep thinking that I should have a light weight option for when people come & visit or I travel. I got the 70-300VR for that reason & I'm planning on selling the 18-200VR - might be selling it as a package deal to one of my husband's assistants with the D200.<br>

So - the walk about - light weight set up would be the 24-70 f/2.8 & the 70-300VR - - not all that light weight in all actuality...<br>

So I've been thinking about either getting a 24-85 f/2.8-4, a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D or maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (or Tokina 28-70 f/2.8) which would be a lighter setup than the 24-70 f/2.8<br>

I keep pondering this, though logic tells me I have the 24-70 f/2.8 & don't need the light weight set up.<br>

Help.......<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>I think you want to mention you are talking about your D700...<br>

<br /> I didn't think my 28-105mm was great, but i was using it on F100 and then scanning the photos, so that effected quality... and it was a long time ago. It survived about 6 years before the rubbber pealed off the plastic at the place you zoom with.<br>

24-85 sounds good to me, there was some negative talk about it, i think on the lower end and perhaps vignetting, but there is issue with 24-70mm and vignetting at 24mm wide open.<br>

Since you are talking about a lens in Addition to your 24-70mm, probably 28-105mm would do better, less cost, and "quality" becomes 1 of the factors, convevience being another...... and you have 2 weeks to decide with B&H or Adorama return policy...... [then you can come back and offer advice for future people :-) ]<br>

I would rather get a Nikon option in your case than Tamron or Tokina to duplicate a lens basically. You do lose something in any case, so probably you don't really need a lens, because you are still the same photographer and want to get the same shots with or without people... plus the 24-70mm can do f/2.8 portraits...... hmmmm, i think you would be losing that option if you got something instead, so you want to keep the 24-70mm and take it all the time, that's what i think. Now if you were talking about Hiking, and often, that's a different story, but sounds like your walking around is in the city with coffee-shop stops in between... or benches.</p>

<p>Well you certainly seem to be trying to make your <em>wallet</em> lighter, anyway!<br /><br />Maybe the solution is a more comfortable, easier way to carry your existing, super-duper 24-70/2.8, so that its mass isn't quite so unpleasant? I know you don't want to walk around with a Think Tank holster rig on, but there are <em>so</em> many ways (Crumpler comes to mind) to distribute that weight in a bag/rig that isn't quite so PJ-looking. Is the 18-200's relatively slower long end the part that's driving you crazy about it? Because it sure is hard to beat for a walk-around.<br /><br />EDIT: Ah, I see. We're talking about the D700. Never mind the 18-200!</p>

<p>The 24-70 lens is not very heavy. I wish I had not sold the 18-200 since I have kept the D300 and that lens is a pretty good walk-around lens plus good for starting grandkids in photography. I took lots of good pictures with that 18-200 and while it does have its obvious shortcomings it is still a good lens for what it was designed for.</p>

<p>Yes I should mention both the D300 & the D700 - - which one I'll use for walking around..... depends upon my mood. Whenever I know I'll need low light the D700 will be the way to go. Got to love the low light option on the D700. :-)<br>

OK - so really just stay with what I've got & save the money...... I know, but since that accident with the 24-70 last late Spring I'm always in fear with that lens.....<br>

Matt - if my husband's assistant buys my D200 - - then I'll probably sell it as a package deal. I have a very good copy - sharp I feel - 18-200VR. But since I got the 70-300VR I just feel the 18-200VR - which I use so very little as it is - has no use at all. Too much money to not use.......<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>Could _never_ let my 18-200VR go, I use it so much more than any other lens. The 70-300 VR is used so seldom that I almost wish Id never bought it. Like on a 3 day trip to Monument Valley out of almost 500 pictures used it for seven of them. Of course that seven would not exist without it, as I drove through the valley in our Van it was no burden to have it along.<br>

There are no campgrounds in the Valley, but if you offer to pay those who live there to stay overnight, some are willing. Conditions getting down into the Valley and out, make it worthwhile to spend the night to get the sunsets/sunrises.</p>

 

<p>Calling a lens 'heavy' is really relative. The 24-70 weighs about 2 lbs. The 24-85 f/2.8-4 weighs almost half that. Obviously if you cut back on the weight, you give up something.</p>

<p>Lil, I still have the 24-85. I am sure I would enjoy it again with an FX body but on the D300, the range just doesn't work well for me. The good things about the lens....... lightweight, great range on an FX body, and a neat 1:2 macro on the long end. For a daytime lens, it works just fine.</p>

<p>But of course, there are compromises. It is not AF-S so other than working in good light, it may hunt or take a little longer to focus. The build is noticably weaker and it doesn't have the benefit of the newer glass of the 24-70. While I haven't compared the two head-to-head, I wouldn't expect the 24-85 to be as sharp at the corners/edges.</p>

<p>If it were me and I had the 24-70, I would probably pass on the 24-85 as well as the others you are thinking about. If you absolutely insist on going lighter with a walkaround kit, think about using something like the Tamron 17-50 on your D300. It is less expensive than your other choices, lighter body and lighter lens, will weigh about 1.5 lbs less than the 24-70/D700 combo. So lightweight, it might not even feel like you still have a camera in your hands. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have more lenses than I know what to do with, so asking ME to talk you out of buying another lens would be like asking me to talk you out of an attack of appendicitis.</p>

<p>lil, the 28-75 is just the ticket. it's very light and very sharp. the low cost means you wont have the same concerns of protective safety as with the 24-70, and it might be hard to go back to a variable aperture lens like the 24-85 after using the 24-70.</p>

<p>Why did you buy the 24-70 in the first place? And why would the reasoning change when you travel? Duplicating focal lengths will only have you agonize over which one to take and then curse your choice when it turned out to be the wrong one. There is no such thing as free lunch...<br>

With my D70, 18-70, and 70-210 I had a nice lightweight travel set, but it also duplicated a lot of other focal lengths I own - so I sold the entire combo. Especially when I travel, I want the best equipment with me as I usually can't easily go back to redo a shot - and it is much harder to imagine the exact shooting situations I might encounter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>though logic tells me I have the 24-70 f/2.8 & don't need the light weight set up</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Case closed... Unless you have money burning a hole in your pocket...</p>

<p>Lil, if you want to go light get a couple of primes. I am still toying with the idea of a 24-70mm f2.8 but since I have primes it just doesn't seem worth it for me. I did pick up a 28-105mm for kick around use with my D700 but I have not really used it enough to tell if I will keep it.</p>

<p>Wait until Nikon sees the light and finally introduces a pro grade slow normal zoom, e.g. 24-105/4 or similar. Otherwise you will just you'll just end up buying two lenses... (no, I can't honestly say that 24-70/2.8 is the only lens needed, it's big, heavy and 70 mm is ridiculous, 90 would be far better)</p>

<p>As a walking combo, the weight of my lens and camera are bearable with either 24-70/2.8 and D40x or D700 and 45/2.8. So far the 24-70/2.8 and D700 are too bulky and heavy as a walk around tool.</p>

<p>I always use the D700 with the 24-70 as a walk-around lens...in fact that combination is always my preferred selection for vast majority of use unless I know I am going for macro / closeup or I want to go wide (14-24 on D700) or if I want to shoot telephoto then I will go with the D300 and 70-200 or 300 etc. I personally think the weight issue with the D700 and the 24-70 to be a non-issue. Really only the 70-200 or larger lenses get a little heavy and then it is mostly bulky size rather than weight. If weight is really that big a deal why not just get a top-quality point and shoot cam and go with that? If image quality is important then it is obvious that probability of getting your better shots may be with the higher-end equipment. Depends on what your priorities really are. A 30mm prime on a DX or a 50mm on a FX are really nice for a walkaround and are definitely not excessively heavy. I love my 85 1.4 on my D700 for a walkaround as well.</p>

<p>do the logic! :-) </p>

<p>when you sell the D200/18-200mm combo, get a nice-fitting bag (like matt suggested) for your trio of D700/24-70mm/70-300mm plus a nice dinner out with your husband. it's still more fun having a 24mm..........................or you can always bring your D300, especially if you missed that workout in the gym.</p>

<p>I won't buy the Nikon 24-70, it's too big and heavy for me as I shoot most all of my photos hand held. It's a lens that should be used with a tripod. Why not keep the D300 and the Nikon 18-200mm as your compact carry-around camera? I know the 18-200mm isn't really that compact, but it has the kind of range that makes you not need another lens. I used my D300 with the Nikon 16-85mm and felt pretty happy with that as a one-lens solution for travel.</p>

<p>Don't buy a new lens. There, I talked you out of it.</p>

<p>Have you considered some fast primes? I have a 16mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 which are very compact and light. My Sigma 105mm 2.8 is also a light weight. You will most likely get sharper glass and the ability to shoot in lower light with the primes.</p>

<p>The 28-105 D lens is pretty nice. It makes a nice out and about set up. The 1:2 macro feature is very nice also. </p>

<p>Primes and sneakers are a good alternative. When I know what focal length I will need for a shoot, I always use the best primes I can get, or process lenses (on large format). They are often also cost effective, because of the popular preoccupation with zooms.</p>

<p><strong>Hi Robert</strong> ,<br>

my 18-200VR only got to spend time on the D300 while my friend visited from Sweden for 6 days & when I went with my daughter to Disneyland in January. Past that I used it when I tested it when it arrived - that's it in about 1.5 years....<br>

<strong>Thanks Bruce</strong> - -<br>

guess I was hoping for a lighter weight setup for either camera..... either the D300 or the D700.....<br>

LOL LOL LOL <strong>Thanks Vincent</strong> -<br>

guess I know that that means. ;-)<br>

<strong>Thanks Eric</strong> -<br>

one vote for the Tamron... :-)<br>

<strong>Thanks Dieter</strong> -<br>

you are needless to say right - I bought it for the quality :-)<br>

<strong>Thanks Carl</strong> -<br>

I went photographing with a lady today who told me that as a macro the 28-105 has been her sharpest lens ever. She paid $ 250.00 to get her copy repaired when she happened to drop it & break it. I guess she just loves that lens......<br>

<strong>Thank you Oskar</strong> -<br>

yes the 24-70 is the lens.... I guess.... ;-)<br>

<strong>Thank you Manh Le</strong> -<br>

I only have the D200, D300 & the D700. I'm not about to buy a D40x or a D90 as well......<br>

<strong>Interesting thoughts Keith</strong> -<br>

I have a 50mm f/1.8 which I keep debating if I should trade up towards a 50mm f/1.4 D (don't want the Chinese version)... Maybe I should do that & a 24mm or something.......<br>

<strong>Good thought Ramon V</strong> -<br>

I have a couple of camera bags & I always have large purses - large enough to carry at least one change of lens..... One mounted on the camera & one in the bag.... Maybe buy a new nice backpack for when I'm going places instead...... ;-)<br>

<strong>Hi Dave</strong> -<br>

it would seem we're of one mind. The 24-70 should have a lens foot as far as I'm concerned. It's too long. Well, if I end up selling just the D200 - then I may hold on to the 18-200VR for on the D300. That would work....<br>

<strong>Ah Wayne </strong> -<br>

a man of few words. ;-)<br>

<strong>Hi John</strong> -<br>

I must admit the 50mm f/1.4 D is something I've been considering - that would be an upgrade from my 50mm f/1.8<br>

<strong>Hi Ross</strong> -<br>

yes the lady I went shooting with today just loves her 28-105 D....<br>

<strong>Hi Mac Moss</strong> -<br>

I'm a zoom girl/old woman - - always have been since first I started to shoot with the. Can't teach an old woman new tricks I'm afraid..........<br>

Great feedback guys... ;-)<br>

I will ponder the 50mm f/1.4 D further as a way to go....</p>

<p>No need for a new lens Lil. I haven't used the 24-85 for a long time. It's easily replaceable by 18-200 -- or 24-70 when you want fast focus action. </p>

<p>i will never talk anyone out of buying a new lens haha....i have all i need for now in all honestly 50mm f/1.4G,, 18-200mm and a 80-200mm f/2.8D on my D90 but i still want a 35mm f/1.8. Will i use it, well probably not much but i am buying it anyways haha.<br>

i often think about swapping my18-200mm with something better as a walk around, but it is a great lense still regardless of a lot of opinions...i would ideally like the 24-70mm f/2.8 but it's not a walk around everyday lens...to me, the 50mm is that!</p>

<p>Do it; DO IT!!!! gogogogo. Firt post ever in the Nikon forum; I feel dirty. :)</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

I Love primes as a low weight option. If you must have a zoom I'm curious why you haven't considered the nikon 35-70 f2.8? The tamron sounds interesting, I love my tammy 17-50 for dx. Tell Ross I say hello.<br>

Brian <br>

Morenaphotography.com</p>