Travel lens kit for D610

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by jeff_rivera|5, Mar 5, 2017.

  1. I know ultimately I'll have to decide on my own but thought I'd solicit opinions. When traveling primarily for non photography/leisure reasons what lenses would you take? I have a 24mm f2.8 AIS, a 50mm f1.4 AIS, a 35-70 f2.8 AFD, and a 75-300 AFD. I can fit all this plus some filters, a mini tripod, and an extra battery into a Timbuk2 small messenger bag. But, it weighs a ton and with the 75-300 in the bag, the balance is thrown off a bit and it just barely fits standing up.

    I'm thinking of dropping it from my everyday carry/light travel kit and only bringing it when I'm reasonably sure I'm going to be shooting birds or anything else that I need the reach for. Of course the downside is what if I miss (insert X cool bird or car or plane or whatever) a photo? I am leaning toward leaving it behind most of the time. The other option it so leave the 50mm behind, but you still have the ungainliness and size of the tele-zoom.

    Thoughts? My photos fall into the general travel/landscape/people mode with the zoom getting the bulk of the work.
  2. The newer 70-300 VR is a tad smaller and lighter. The 70-200/4 VR is even longer and weighs the same as the 75-300. There are some older 70-300 lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter than the 75-300, I am not sure they hold up on a 24MP sensor though. I owned the 75-300 but threw it out when it didn't perform well even on the 6MP D70, so I am a bit surprised to see someone using it on a D610.<br><br>You may want to consider replacing everything with just the 24-120/4 VR (assuming that the zoom that gets the bulk of the work is the 35-70 and not the 75-300) or the much lighter 24-85 VR. To cover your tele needs, there is one lens that combines light weight and compactness - the AF-S 300/4E PF VR, but it doesn't come cheap.<br><br>I hesitate to mention the 28-300, but it might be an option depending on your demands on optical quality (there are a lot of photographers that use it).<br><br>Personally, at the very least, I pack the 16-35/4 VR and the 70-200/4 VR as a minimum FX travel kit, possibly augmented by a fast 35mm FX prime. Or I add a DX body with the 18-140 and possibly the 35/1.8; this DX kit by itself would be the absolute minimum I'd bring on a trip where photography is not the main purpose.
  3. I got the 24-120 f/4 with a view to having it as a travel zoom. I'm a little disappointed with how big it actually is - it saves no significant size compared with my Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, and gives up a stop and some sharpness (in, admittedly, return for some extra reach). It's by no means a bad lens, but it's not the tiny "leave it on the camera superzoom" that my 28-200 provided on my D700; unfortunately the 28-200's optical limitations show up on a higher pixel count body.<br />
    <br />
    Since you're after "small" and might be carrying the tele zoom anyway, perhaps the 24-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR might be worth a look? It's probably not quite as good as the 24-120 (except at 85mm), but it's half the cost and much smaller. I've not personally tried it, since I've resigned myself to not being constrained by weight (which explains my figure).<br />
    <br />
    Or go with the 24-70 Tamron (or Sigma's new equivalent), of course. It's not that small, but it's also fast enough to blur the background under duress. I might use my 24-120 more if I were less inclined to carry my 70-200 about.
  4. I have the same feeling as Andrew about the 24-120/4... it is smaller than pro Nikons but still somewhat heavy and big to carry.
    In fact, I find almost all the current DSLR stuff to be bulky and heavy. You can use a compact zoom like the 24-85 and still find it a little big.
    Personally, I don`t need a telezoom for travel/people/landscape photography.
  5. Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to stick with my current setup and may or may not bring the 50mm on non-primarily photo related trips. As to the quality of the 75-300 zoom, at f8 it's quite good for my purposes. And for the price I paid I can afford that much more travel.

  6. If to me it is non photography trip. It would be a versatile 35mm prime, or maybe a 50mm. Even when I go abroad for the usual travelling, ie no wildlife etc ... just city and towns what most people generally do. WA zoom and that one prime. the WA allows me to do the landscapes and cityscapes and buildings. Am looking at mirrorless though because for myself I don't really use the dSLR or full frame benefits.
  7. I would cover the range with a 18-200mm or 18-300mm.
  8. Unfortunately, a travel kit involves compromises to keep the weight and bulk down.<br>
    I shoot a DX Nikon, so I am not familiar with the current full frame lenses, and my lens selection reflect that. <br><br>

    Of your lenses, I would carry 3 lenses; 24, 35-70 AF, 75-300 AF. The problem is the 75-300. To me, it is rather bulky and heavy for a travel lens, and I would not like to take it traveling. I might even leave it behind. <br><br>

    Given an option for another lens, I would replace the 75-300 AF with either the 70-210/f4 AF or the even smaller/lighter E 75-150/f3.5 manual focus zoom.<br><br>

    Given an option to completely reconfigure, I would take one of the following: <br>
    • 2 lens kit: 28-85 AF, 70-210/f4 AF. I might even use the manual focus E 75-150/f3.5 as the long zoom, instead of the 70-210 AF.
    • 2 lens kit: 24 AIS, 35-105 AI (manual focus). I do not know if there is a full frame AF equivalent of the old 35-105. As you can see my preference is to go wide rather than long, for the 2nd lens.
    • 1 lens kit; 35-105 AI. I do not know if there is a full frame AF equivalent of the old 35-105.
  9. For a trip where photography is nice to have but not a requirement put a 24 or 28 f/whatever you want and something like the 85/2 or 2.8 in a bag with a single body and a battery charger. If you find there is something you miss having you can add it next time but it won't be long before you have a bag that perfectly meets your needs.

    Rick H.
  10. My solution was to buy a Nikon D5300, a very compact & capable camera. I put a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS lens on it. If I need a longer lens I can pull those out of my D800E bag when on a trip.

    Kent in SD

Share This Page