Which would you get?

<p>I currently own a Nikon D600 along with 28 f1.8 / 50 f1.8 / 85 f1.8. I am happy with primes. <br>

Before deciding on this camera, I had toyed with the idea of the Fuji XPro1 because I liked its size and portability, as well as picture quality. But I was waiting for a model refresh, which never came, so I decided to go with Nikon.<br>

However, there are times when I don't feel like dragging out a bag of gear, so I was thinking of getting a Fuji X100S as a back-up/travel camera.<br>

So my question is simply this:<br>

If given the choice between a Fuji X100S plus a Nikkor 105 f2.8 Micro lens - OR OR OR - one of the Nikkor trinity lenses, which would you choose?<br>

The 14-28 f.2.8 is an interesting lens, but have read that it can be difficult to use correctly.<br>

The 24-70 f2.8 seems nice.<br>

The 70-200 f2.8 seems nice, too - but seems overkill for my needs.<br>

I do street photography, travel and portrait stuff, too. Just don't envision my need for anything in the 200mm range.</p>

<p>Tough choice! :-)<br>

I don't have a FF DSLR, but for years and years I shot Nikon F and 35mm. You have a great prime set, maybe could add the 105mm f/2.8 VR macro. I love travel photography as well, with my D300. Though it's not supposed to be a "DX-suited" focal length range, my most used lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8. I have the 12-24mm Tokina, and it is good for travel"scapes", but for most purposes I find it to be too wide. On your D600, for travel and street, the 24-70mm would be ideal. That would be my suggestion.<br>

It is not light however, and I too yearn for something lighter. I decided, in the end, that if I am going to be some place really worth photographing, I am going to do it with the best equipment I have for that purpose. If I am really not that serious, then I'll go with the smaller camera. I went with the Panasonic Lumix LX-5, and it is a compromise I can live with. Your X100S with the Nikkor 105 doesn't seem like a match for your stated travel/street parts, maybe just for portrait?<br>

I'd still suggest the 24-70.</p>

 

<p>the 24-70 and 70-200 are way too big and heavy for street photography. i'd get the x100s, which is probably the best street cam out there.</p>

<p>street - X100S<br>

Nice set of primes - add the 24/1.4 if you feel the need to go wider.<br>

Consider the Sigma 150/2.8 OS instead of the Nikkor 105/2.8 VR - more working distance for macro and not as close to the 85 you already own.</p>

<p>Hi Janet. I also own a D600. I love having a FF body. I mostly do street, fine art, and occasional portraits. I own the 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.8, as well as the 24-85 kit lens. I mostly use the 50 and 24-85 for street work. I find the kit lens is light, well balanced on the D600, and offers me a great range for street work. It's not a fast lens, but it is sharp and does have VR which helps. I don't find the camera looks overly big with either the kit lens or the 50mm. I do also own the pro 24-70 f2.8 which I've only been using for occasional portrait work. It's a great lens, but in my opinion, it's much too heavy as a walk-around lens for street work. It also looks quite intimidating with the lens hood on. I'm seriously thinking of selling it, and getting the 28mm f/1.8 prime to complete that set of primes. I may also consider a mirror-less camera for street work, just to be a bit more discreet, but for now, I'm happy with my D600. My advice is don't bother with the pro 24-70 f2.8 unless you are shooting weddings or low light work with no flash. Based on the kind of photography you do, you don't need it.</p>

<p>If size and portability are a concern - the 105 f/2.8VR is already quite a bit larger than the primes you have so far, let alone the f/2.8 zooms. For street-like work, I already find my 24-120 f/4VR too large, the 24-70 is considerably larger and heavier. And I'm assuming you want the 105VR for macrowork - otherwise, it's too close to the 85 f/1.8 to seriously add something to your existing kit, possibly.<br>

The X100s looks about completely right to me (I'd love one, but the price is more than I want to spend at this moment). There is something about a 35mm angle of view that is completely right, I think. Yet, I'd be torn between adding bits and pieces to round off the D600 versus adding a different camera alltogether. The D600 is not that huge a camera, and discrete enough for a lot of street work. Adding a 24-85VR for convenience and possibly something like a 35 f/1.4 or the 24 f/1.4 (but that might be because I dislike 28mm and prefer 24/35 instead).... Not the easiest choice out there.</p>

<p>But out of the 2 choices presented, I'd get the Fuji. Already skipped the 24-70 because it is too heavy and too large.</p>

<p>Janet:</p>

<p>You already have the three lenses I would recommend to a person who had just purchased a D600 (actually, I recommend just the 28mm and 85mm). The 105mm macro isn't necessary (unless you're dying to shoot macro); the 85mm is already a great portrait lens. Also, try not to succumb to the thinking that every shooter worth his/her salt needs a 24-70mm/70-200mm combo. Although great for PJ/event work, the 24-70mm is too short for my tastes (I use the 24-120mm f/4.0 VR for flash-fired event work), and although I do own a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR, it's among my least-used lenses. I think you'll be more rewarded by opting for the Fuji X100S--it will provide you with a different shooting experience.</p>

<p>Dieter said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Consider the Sigma 150/2.8 OS instead of the Nikkor 105/2.8 VR - more working distance for macro and not as close to the 85 you already own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS (and, I don't shoot macro!). It's one of the sharpest lenses I own, and it's now my first choice as a portrait lens (mainly for its compression). A gorgeous, high-performing piece of glass for only $1,099. And, yes, a different enough focal-length from your 85mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nice set of primes - add the 24/1.4 if you feel the need to go wider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although I own the 24mm f/1.4G, I think this lens is just too pricey--perhaps, save a ton of money, and get an AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D (screw-drive) instead. But, if you want to go wider, go <em>really</em> wide. The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 is the widest FX lens on the planet. Yes, it's slow, so it's only really useful for daylight exteriors, but it's the funnest lens I own. It even costs a bit less than the 105mm Micro-Nikkor. I think it's a bargain at only $849.</p>

<p>I would get either the 70-200/2.8 II or the f/4 version (the latter would be great for travel). Depending on length/aperture needs you can then take the 28/50/70-200 or 28/50/85. Personally I really like the 70-200 focal range for travel. I guess it would be nice for certain kinds of portraits as well, though I tend to like shorter focal lengths for portraits with interaction. </p>

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I really like the 70-200 focal range for travel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it just goes to show, everyone's different (YMMV!). I generally only shoot wide-angles when I travel, and rarely shoot telephotos. On my next trip, I'm only taking my Sigma 12-24mm (daylight exteriors), and an AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 (night interiors).</p>

<p>I always try to avoid buying more cameras... ;) I already have too much of them! :)<br /> <br /> So if I had only primes on a D600, I think I`d buy a "true" travel lens, the smallest&lightest medium range zoom. Maybe a 24-85VR, or a not as small nor light 24-120/4.<br /> <br /> For all other quality shots, you already have a good set of primes, probably better performers than the f2.8 zooms (like the 24-70).<br /> I have just returned from photographing with the 14-24, it is a great specialty lens, it is irreplaceable for indoor architectural shots. But it`s not an everyday lens... at least for me.</p>

<p>The 70-200VRII could be an interesting acquisition (specially because you don`t have anything longer than 85), but it`s a huge lens... good for travel if you`re willing to carry the weight&size.<br /> ---<br /> I personally prefer to use DSLRs with fast pro-zooms, and a compact RF for travel... but still don`t found a reasonably priced camera in the same quality level (I cannot justify the expense on the new Leica M). Right now, I use my D700 for everything, if I want light I just take a small prime.<br /> Maybe one day I`ll end using one of this Fuji, or a NEX.</p>

<p>The more experienced I've become, the less interest I have in heavy, bulky gear. My wife & I have been expanding to world wide travel more and more the past 10 years--Scotland, Iceland, Arctic Canada, Hawaii, etc. While I have the big f2.8 zooms, I'm less and less eager to pack them and haul them around. OTOH, I find single focal lenses so VERY limiting! For the past year I've been using a vintage 1942 Leica IIIc 35mm camera with lenses 28/35/50/90mm. This all fits into a very small LowePro Slimline pack. The pack is smaller than my wife's smallest purse! I used this camera most of the time this month on our trip to Hawaii and loved it! I'm now thinking of buying a used Leica M8. I've really fallen in love with Leica stuff! I'm not trying to convince you to buy a vintage film camera, but rather to get the "bigger is always better" cliche out of your head. Really, these newer small cameras such as the X-pro have come into their own now. <br>

What I've learned over the years is that you are usually better off picking the smallest camera that will do 90% of what you want. Your shots will look just as good, and you have more fun with them! They seem to make you more spontaneous in your shooting. A small camera and lens is much less intimidating than a larger one when pointed at a stranger. There is no way I'd go to a city with a big camera and a big lens to take pictures of people on the street with my f2.8 zooms. The little Leica is SO much better for this! Another great choice is the Nikon D5200. By folding out the screen and hold the camera at your waist you completely change the dynamics. You are looking down instead of straight at your subjects. They rarely even notice you! At any rate, a small camera with a few small and wide lenses of some kind are just perfect for travel and almost everything else! An important concept I have come to understand is that really, the camera is the LEAST important thing in photography. A good photographer can make interesting images with ANYthing. On internet gear forums there is WAY too much emphasis on gear rather than the idea of how the gear is actually USED. While using big cameras and big lenses at a wedding does make sense, it makes little sense when walking down the streets of Reykjavik or Glasgow. Having the confidence in yourself that you'll take great shots no matter WHAT camera gear you have is the ultimate liberation in photography!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Farmers market, Hilo, HI<br>

Leica IIIc, Leica 35mm f3.5<br>

Ilford FP4</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p><em>OTOH, I find single focal lenses so VERY limiting! For the past year I've been using a vintage 1942 Leica IIIc 35mm camera with lenses 28/35/50/90mm [...] loved it.</em></p>

<p>Kent, do you not see any contradiction between these two sentences? What's more you wrote</p>

<p><em>I've really fallen in love with Leica stuff!</em><br>

<em>[...]</em><br>

<em>A good photographer can make interesting images with ANYthing. On internet gear forums there is WAY too much emphasis on gear</em></p>

<p>Yet you talk about Leica who make some of the most expensive equipment in the world, largely differentiated by being just as much jewellery as functional cameras and lenses.</p>

<p><em>Having the confidence in yourself that you'll take great shots no matter WHAT camera gear you have is the ultimate liberation in photography!</em></p>

<p>I agree that confidence is important, but if you have the right confidence and approach, it doesn't matter at all to the subject what the size of the camera you use is. This talk of small is in my opinion grossly misleading when it comes to street or any other kind of photography. What's important is that you're comfortable as this is relayed on the subject.</p>

<p>Ilkka--<br /> That's just it. I do see the contradiction. I am conflicted! Ultimately what I want are very small, lightweight zooms but they don't exist. Yes, the Leica gear I use was the most expensive gear in the world, but that was in the 1930s. The stuff I own was made between 1932 (Elmar 5cm lens) and 1951 (Canon 28mm f3.5 LTM). It's not at all expensive now, but it's still great stuff! Leica has a lot of historical significance and that's one of the things that attracts me to it. That plus its precision engineering! As for approaching people (strangers), they do seem a bit more wary when you are pointing a big professional looking camera at them. With my small vintage cameras, they almost ask me to take their photo!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Ken Cameron, <br /> owner of Hilo Ukelele & Guitar<br /> Leica IIIc, Elmar 3.5cm f3.5<br>

Ilford FP4</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Whenever one has so many, drastically different options in mind, it is a clear indication that none is necessary.</p>

<p><em>"what I want are very small, lightweight zooms but they don't exist"</em></p>

<p>It depends on what camera system you are using. I recently acquired out of the necessity for a lightweight body an Olympus OMD-EM5 body which is extremely light in weight and small in size. As are the lenses. And the best part of all is that with a simple adapter, you can use Nikon lenses, even G lenses, with manual aperture control and of course manual focus (which is actually quite easy on the OMD as the electronic viewfinder zooms in in when manually focusing.</p>

<p>The OP might want to consider looking into the OMD body as an alternative to the Fuji.</p>

<p>Janet, since you already own the 28mm, you can already tell whether it is wide enough for your tastes, or you wish to go wider. Even if you wish to go wider, how much wider would you want to go, and how often compared to the rest of your needs? This will tell you what super-wide range, if any, you would need. A super-wide is certainly an useful tool to have, and when you can apply it, generates images with high impact. But, for travel and street sometimes you might want to take in a scene, and sometimes you want to narrow in on a particular interest. I say this as a 24-70 user on the D300, which on the wide end gives the FOV equivalent to a 36mm on your D600.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 f/2.8, I find it just too large and cumbersome for street and travel, I almost never take it along for travel anymore. The 24-70 f/2.8, though larger than other choices, and certainly humongous compared to the X100S option, is absolutely suited for travel, and quite maneuverable for street, and I never have found it to intimidate anybody, even with the hood, which is a necessity on a wide with a large aperture. The 70-200, with a hood, looks like a WMD though.</p>

<p>If small is your overall priority, then go with X100S. Otherwise, 24-70 :-), if you can get past the size. It is a sharp, contrasty, fast (both AF and aperture-wise) lens that will produce wonderful results on a D600. OTOH, if your 24 and 50 primes fill most of your travel needs and you are looking to fill the super-wide range that is now missing, that would be justification for getting a super-wide.</p>

<p>Janet, I have the D 600 too and the 24-70mm f 2.8 which is too heavy and bulky for most types of street and travel photography. I added the new AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED that I use when I need a portable wide angle lens. I like its results with my D 600. If you need more focal length, the 70-200mm f 4.0 is an excellent choice. I have the 70-200mm f 2.8 VR II which is heavy and bulky but otherwise an excellent lens. A friend of mine has the 70-200mm f 4.0 and its image quality is excellent and would be my choice for travel and street use. Joe Smith</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-70 f/2.8, though larger than other choices, and certainly humongous compared to the X100S option, is absolutely suited for travel, and quite maneuverable for street, and I never have found it to intimidate anybody, even with the hood, which is a necessity on a wide with a large aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you've got to be kidding. people move out of the way when you train that bazooka on them. the 24-70 is a great lens, but unobtrusive it is not. the whole point of street is to be stealthy and blend in w/ your surroundings while you take candid shots. that's simply not possible with an artillery cannon like the 24-70, which announces its presence forcefully, is noticeable to passers-by (and would-be thieves), and will scare small children quite easily.</p>

<p>i'm going to reiterate my recommendation of the x100s as "the" travel/street cam. what kent said about a camera with 90% of what you need applies here, and the only thing you dont get with the fuji is interchangeable lenses. it would also give the OP a prime range she doesn't have--35mm--which is perfect for what she wants to do. with the fuji, the freedom is in its limitation; with a fixed 35mm, you've never tempted by too many lens options,so you can just shoot.</p>

<p>the other option i like would be to get the new sigma 35/1.4 for the d600, but that set-up isnt anywhere near as compact as the x100s. if you're willing to forgo AF, the Voigtlander 40/2 pancake would make the d600 more of a compact street shooter, and fit the gap between 28 and 50 nicely, but you'd have to be ok with zone focusing.</p>

<p>the other options--OM-D w/ 12/2, xpro1 with 35/1.4, coolpix A, Ricoh GR-- either raise the price substantially and/or dont add any functionality to what you already have -- the coolpix and ricoh have a fixed 28mm (which you already have), the xpro with a 35 is only a mite tinier than a d600 with a 50/1.8, the OM-D's m4/3 sensor cant match the IQ of either fuji X or nikon FF. you can also stick a 12-35/2.8 on an OM-D, but then you're looking at upwards of two grand for a body+lens combo which competes directly with the d600, rather than complements it, as a compact APS-C w/ fixed-focal would do, and you'd likely find that 24mm equivalent is a little too wide for stand-alone use. (Fuji has announced a 23/1.4, which would give you a 35mm equiv., but it's not out yet.)</p>

<p>as far as a 70-200/4, it would be a better travel lens than the 70-200/2.8, but IMO not really necessary. you certainly can't fit it into a purse, and you can easily get by w/out a telephoto option-- i'd probably rather have a wide angle for travel, but there arent any compact w/a zoom options for FX-- and for the amount you're likely to use it, a 70-300 VR might make more sense, at less than 1/2 the cost, with an extra 100mm reach. a 70-200 or 70-300 doesnt make your d600 kit any more compact, however.</p>

 

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you've got to be kidding. people move out of the way when you train that bazooka on them. the 24-70 is a great lens, but unobtrusive it is not. the whole point of street is to be stealthy and blend in w/ your surroundings while you take candid shots. that's simply not possible with an artillery cannon like the 24-70, which announces its presence forcefully, is noticeable to passers-by (and would-be thieves), and will scare small children quite easily.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We can certainly agree to disagree, but I am not kidding :-). The 70-200 is a bazooka in my book, but not the 24-70. I have to admit I haven't much tried to photograph would be thieves, and given my particular view of life, I would much rather work on getting them caught than be photographed (kidding, though). If you have the style of the NY photographer, whose name escapes me at the moment, who simply gets in your face suddenly and takes a quick shot, no the 24-70 wouldn't be very suited to that, and neither would the D600. I have taken plenty of candid street, and certainly travel, photographs with the D300/24-70 combo where it absolutely did not matter that I was there. I admit that something of a scale of a phone camera might make a difference in obtrusiveness, but anything at eye-level is a dead giveaway that you are a photographer. At that point, it is your demeanor that counts most, and the size of the equipment, within means, is less important. I have to tell you that I have taken many shots of children during travel, and not once have I had somebody be scared. Where people object to photography, they object to being photographed, equipment is not the issue. In those cases, frankly, I'd rather not violate their wishes and take surreptitious photographs.</p>

<p>My main point is that, the "gotchas" for the 24-70 size you mention are at best a small minority of cases in my experience. To avoid those you might as well go to a smaller camera like the X100S and avoid the Nikon, and I had already mentioned that earlier.</p>

 

<p>I'd get the 70-200/4VR to compliment you kit.</p>

<p>The X100s can't really focus track a moving subject in a useful manner (continous AF is with center spot only and the process isn't particularly fluid), and the image quality isn't as good as that of a D600. The size of the camera is largely irrelevant as the presence of the photographer is what people react to, and not the size of the camera, or that is at least my experience. If a photographer is uncomfortable with a camera that is too small for their hands, or that has a clunky user interface, that's just as obviously out of place as a too big camera on the hands of a photographer who isn't comfortable with it. I don't see how replicating the functionality of the D600+28/1.8 in another camera which is slightly smaller and significantly less capable in many respects will help the OP, unless they really intend to carry a camera in their purse.</p>

<p>Personally I find a telezoom the most important tool in my bag as it allows the photographer to control what is in the shot, and what is not. A wide angle largely includes what is there and gives the user very little control of the content of the background. What's more, with a 23mm lens the photographer will have to be almost right next to the (people) subjects which can sometimes be a safety issue. Great for indoor photography of interaction between people, if that's the aim, but I prefer a lot of the time a bit longer focal length when working outdoors because of the control over the background. I don't think a street or travel photographer should make an effort to conceal themselves or their activity from the subjects (doing so will be quite obvious anyway and may seem suspicious to the subjects). Just go and do the shots that you need and be open about being a photographer. You don't have to engage the subjects if you don't want to, but I think making an effort to take shots in secret is a bad idea. Your mileage may vary of course; there are as many approaches as there are photographers.</p>

<p>fyi, http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i-havent-used-my-dslr-for-months</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The X100s can't really focus track a moving subject in a useful manner, and the image quality isn't as good as that of a D600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"good" is a subjective term. in terms of IQ, the x100s has no AA filter and uses a different color array, so there's that. You're essentially only talking about a modicum of dynamic range, shallower DoF, and hi-ISO performance as benefits of FX over APS-C. at print sizes smaller than 16x20, you're not going to be able to tell a difference. it's worth noting that AF is worse on a d600 than on a d300 and d7100, so i don't really see this point as being all that credible when examined in context. also worth noting: according to fuji, the x100s' AF speed is the fastest currently available.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The size of the camera is largely irrelevant as the presence of the photographer is what people react to, and not the size of the camera, or that is at least my experience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now this point is <em>entirely</em> subjective.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see how replicating the functionality of the D600+28/1.8 in another camera which is slightly smaller and significantly less capable in many respects will help the OP.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I dont know about 'significantly' less capable. It could be argued that, in addition to the tech features the Nikon doesn't have, the smaller size and weight of the x100s makes it more capable since it's more portable, and thus less likely to be left behind.Looking at the physics, the x100s weighs under a pound (15.7 oz), while the d600 <em>w/out lens</em> is almost <em>twice</em> as heavy (29.98 oz).</p>

<p>If you want to lug a 200/2 or 70-200/2.8 around to do candid street shots, you probably have a masochistic streak and/or a very happy chiropractor. But neither will guarantee you better shots, though they will almost certainly be more hassle.</p>

<p>If you look at the DPReview article i linked to, he says, "if image quality is your main priority, DSLRs aren't the only game in town anymore." in other words, it's not 2007 anymore. That said, it is true that a d600+28/1.8 can basically do everything an x100s can do in a larger form factor. but if that was sufficient for the OP's intended purpose, why would she have written, "there are times when I don't feel like dragging out a bag of gear, so I was thinking of getting a Fuji X100S as a back-up/travel camera"?</p>

<p>So, Ilkka, while you're certainly entitled to your views, it's safe to say they don't represent the consensus of all photographers. Only a compact, all-in-one camera is going to give you a significant weight reduction from a heavy FF DSLR and a "bag of gear." The good news is that in 2013, there are many options to choose from which dont give up much in IQ, if anything--with the x100s being the best of the bunch, currently.</p>

<p>forgot to mention a major reason why the x100s is a better street shooting cam than the d600: the virtually noiseless shutter. that alone makes it far more suited for candids, especially with non-pro models.</p>

<p>Hi Janet,<br>

If you are happy with the size and weight of your D600, the 70-200 f4 VR (Dan South's suggestion too) would complete your kit with the versatility for most things. It's a very good portrait lens too, more versatile than the 105 unless you are really into macro.<br>

For sheer convenience, I'm very happy with the 24-120 f4 VR. It's on my D800 most of the time. I don't shoot fast moving things, and with the high ISO capability of today sensors, I would prefer this cheaper lens over the 24-70. But neither would add any thing significantly more to what you already have IMHO.<br>

I love the D800 and its lenses, but I often feel awkward (psychologically speaking) carrying it around with me in social settings. These days I only take them with me on backpacking trips or for specific photo outings. I almost always have the X-E1 with me in my briefcase or a small canvas bag. Its IQ is very good, not far off the D800. I think the X100s has just as good if not better IQ, but it is a fixed lens camera which I feel too limiting for my needs.<br>

I envy you having this tough dilemma :-)</p>