D700 and best lens for travel

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Chris, here is the lens I would recommend you might consider as a travel lens for your FX D 700. I own it and used it extensively on all of my film cameras with great success with slide film: Nikon AF 28-70 f 3.5-4.5. It has a small profile (takes 52mm filters) and does not weight that much. Its sharpest f stop was around f 8 as I recall.<br>

You might be able to pick up one used for under $100.<br>

Bjorn Rorslett rates it at: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a><br>

Joe Smith</p>

[george_peng1]

<p>I second the 28-105/3.5-4.5. Obviously if you're forking over for the D700, the pro level zooms are probably more appropriate, although the primes might be good choices as well. The 28-105 is a good travel lens for full frame, albeit discontinued. It's probably telling that it prices the same used today as it did when I bought it new like 8 years ago.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p> You already can go up to 300 with the 70-300 Nikkor you said you bought but why not go for a One Lens Only for travelling / reportage / walkaround, and then I would go with the Tamron 28-300mm 1 : 3,5- 6.3 ( VC ). It offers the most compactness with the widest range, even up to 400mm if you use the D700's dx option, and 28 mm on the wide end should be enough unless you really and intentionally want to go for lots of wide-angle shots. <br>

<a href="http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_vc.asp">http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/28300_vc.asp</a></p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>There was a thread several weeks ago entitled "travel light," which I think is an interesting read that you should check it out before deciding what you need to bring. At one point of my life, before the digital age, I followed Bob Krist's suggestion to carry two zooms each mounted to a SLR. I usually had the 80-400mm VR lens mounted on the F100 and a 18-35mm mounted on a FM2N. While my friends who only carried a P&S could use the space and energy to carry a big bottle of water, a softdrink, a guide book, a binocular, etc, I was sweating hiking with all the weight. I could not remember how many times I actually used the 80-400mm, but I carried it b/c I worried that I might miss the shot of my life (which btw never happened). I later replaced the F100 with a N80 to reduce weight. To carry two SLRs made some sense in the film days b/c each of them could be loaded with a different film, usually one that was ISO100 while the other ISO 400, and the latter goes with the tele zoom. </p>

<p>I have finally realized that it is OK to miss a few shots during travel b/c I am not a pro that needs to make every shot counts. Furthermore a pro level set up frequently draws way too much attention, making it difficult to be discreet and sometimes even attracting hostility. Of course one also has to worry about theft and accidents. As we are now being charged for the checked luggage, the size of the camera does make a big difference in the cost of traveling. I thus suggest the OP to carefully think about what is truly essential for you to carry and use the saved the room for carrying a book, food, drink, etc, and enjoy the scene without worrying too much about photography. </p>

<p>I too like wide angle photography which I think is the best for PJ style of photography to document people and surroundings. For that I recommend the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens. It is very sharp in the center and much much lighter than the pro wide angle zoom. 18mm is really wide enough considering its low cost and light weight. I would then carry a 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 for low ISO shot. Since D700 has spectacular low light performance, it seems a 50mm f1.8 would work just fine. You can then throw in a 85mm f1.8 for portrait. Finally a D700 is still much too big for my taste for any trip that requires flying ...</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I would agree that the 24-70 is a great lens on the D700. I use a Sigma 24-60 2.8 on mine and find the range to be very useful. Coming from a DX as well it was surpising to see how wide a 24mm really is, it's perfect on the FX body. I also own the 50mm 1.4D and it is one of my favorite lenses. The 50mm is extremely useful range on the FX sensor.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>The 28-70 f/2.8 is just as sharp as the newer lens. My copy is great. 4mm is minimal to me, especially if I have another wide lens that overlaps those 4mm.</p>

[idl]

<p>Hello Chris, this old goat has done it for more than 40 years. Go for the 17-35/2,8 as I have done on the D700 as well as 50mm/1,8 or 1,4 and the one you already have, the 70 - 300mm VR I take it. A little rucksack and it isn't that heavy anymore. Good luck and happy photography to you.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>I bought the 70-300 Nikkor with the body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>VR, or non-VR version?</p>

 

[wpahnelas]

<p>i'd take the 70-300 VR anywhere, but i'm not so sure about the 24-70/2.8 (which i have). i, too, would probably opt for the 28-70/3.5-4.5, just because it won't slow me down. that and either a 35/2 or a 50, MF or AF. you can fit those in a small bag, and be very versatile and mobile.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Consider what you want to do with the photos. Do you need the utmost image quality?</p>

<p>The 24-70 f/2.8 G is an excellent lens, but it's expensive, heavy, and conspicuously large. The 24-85 F/2.8-4 is about half the size and weight and considerably less expensive. I've test the two lenses side by side. The 24-70 is sharper, but not by a huge margin. If I recall correctly, the 24-85 f/2.8-4 has a macro setting, which could be a nice bonus.<br>

<br />Is 24 mm wide enough? There are circumstances where you might want to go a little wider. No matter what lens you have in your bag, even the 14-24, at some point you'll reach its widest focal length and think, "Gee, if only I could go a little wider." When that happens consider stitching a panorama or recomposing.</p>

<p> </p>

[monika_epsefass]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2071900">Dan South</a> : If I recall correctly, the 24-85 f/2.8-4 has a macro setting, which could be a nice bonus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed, it has that. Nevertheless, this functionality does not even come close to a real macro. I've tested it, and it's OK if you have no other option. Nevertheless, it does not offer the magnification ratio of the real thing.<br>

(But it IS a very good lens. And you're right about the sharpness: it's what I've remarked earlier)</p>

[chris_duim]

<p>Thank you guys for putting in your recommendations. I've seen some lens suggestions that I have not read of before, which is really nice because some stuff do come from people who have been shooting photos for decades now.<br>

Yes the 80-300 mm is VR and it works very well. From what I see of the plans for the vacation, this will probably stay in the suitcase (or even left behind given the weight of the camera and the other lens).<br>

I will probably give the Tamron 28-300 a try and see how it performs. I have a friend who has that. If it doesn't work out I might end up with the Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 and the 50 mm f/1.8 prime. I think this is more reasonable and gives me all the time I need to enjoy the sights with the wife and kids and snap some good (hopefully) photos of the vacation.</p>

[antti_katajainen]

<p>If you already have that 70-300, I would recommend 24-70 for your second lens. Even it is heavy and little "clunky", it is one of the best lens ever made. Also it is expencive but still worth of every penny. It is my favourite lens and gives ecellent results.</p>

[dan_mccarty1]

<p>I have a D700 and the following lenses I have bought over the last two decades with Nikon:<br>

24/F2.8<br>

50/F1.4 My newest lens bought a few years ago for low light photos.<br>

105/F2.8<br>

180/F2.8<br>

35-70/F2.8</p>

<p>I take all of them on trips. But it does not mean I carry all of them when I am out with the camera. If I have a good idea on what photos I will be taking on a given day I might take the 24 or the 50 on the camera and no other lenses. Or I might carry all of them. I just guess and go.</p>

<p>At least once or twice I was in a hurry and put on the 24mm when I meant to put on the 50mm. That "mistake" just made me do things a bit different and in the end, it all worked out. :)</p>

<p>If I am going light the camera bag is a holster bag that just protects the camera and one lens. The camera strap is what I carry. I have three camera bags I normally carry. Huge, medium, and tiny. Tiny being the holser bag by SunDog. The medium bag can carry all the lenses, flash and a camera. The huge one can carry all my camera gear, plus accessories, video camera and a lab top. That bag is huge and heavy. It only is used to get from point A to B. I take the other two bags to venture forth to take photos.</p>

<p>My two cents is to buy the lens(es) that maximizes your ability to get the photos you want. You can't just buy one anyway. :) The D700 does take excellent low light photos. Its amazing what it can do. I would sit down and figure out what photos you expect to take and figure out which lens(es) would work best. Then buy those first. I have been lusting after the 300/F4 lens for years but I still don't have it because of the cost and my lack of time to really use the lens.</p>

<p>Later,<br>

Dan</p>