Tele zoom for mountain hiking

[mon_goose]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I'll be travelling to Switzerland for a few days and am looking for a tele zoom for day hikes. I'll be hiking <em>without</em> gear (luggage stays at the hotel).</p>

<p>I currently have the excellent 80-200m f2.8 and will be carrying a d700 with 24mm prime. I wonder if that tele isn't too much for 8 hour walks.</p>

<p>I'm loath to pay much for a lens I'll be using just for a few days. The 70-300 VR being way too expensive, my other options are limited to either the <strong>Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 D or Nikon 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Which is the better lens, which is the better pair?</p>

<ul>

<li>24mm + 35-135mm<br />or</li>

<li>24mm + 80-200mm</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks</p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>I am no Nikon user. Neither familiar with optical quality nor focus breathing of the lenses you mentioned I'd pick the 35-135 as an "all you really need" lens on FX. - For my taste there'd be too much of a gap between 24 & 80mm.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>To me, for this purpose, the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D is the better choice. It's less than half the weight of the 35-135, and it provides a much less compromised optical performance. If you have a 50mm prime, you could add it to the 24 and 80-200 and still be ahead or even in weight, and far ahead in quality, compared to the 24/35-135 combination.</p>

<p>The only concern with the 80-200 is if you tend to be rough on equipment.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The majority of mountain scenes I've encountered would be covered nicely with a mid-range zoom, say 24-70, or prime lenses in that range. I have hiked the Appalachians, Rockies and Cascades with an 80-200/2.8 in my pack, but rarely used it, even when the mountains were not obscured by trees and foliage. There is a large gap betwen 24 mm and 70 mm which you leave uncovered.</p>

<p>Besides applicability, there are two things working against the 80-200/2.8 - it's 3 pound weight, and the need to use a tripod, adding another 6 pounds or so.</p>

<p>If the excellent 24-70/2.8, or the f/4 version is beyond your means, you might consider an inexpensive variable-aperture zoom in this range. I've seen a lot of good pictures using a 28-105, 24-120 or even an 18-200/3.5-5.6. At least consider tossing a 50 mm into your bag.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The kind of activity for which a lens as the 24-120VR or 24-85VR make truckloads of sense. If limited only to the two pairings you made, I'd go for the 35-135.<br>

But I'd also consider something like the Nikon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G, an older Tamron 28-300, or optically a nice step up the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. None of them brilliant lenses, but they're not expensive, you can sell them at the price you bought them and they nicely cover the range you're most likely to need.<br>

If you want a realy light-weight tele, the 70-300 f/4-5.6G is really light, optically not impressive but up to 240mm at f/8 or f/11, good enough. Cheap as can be. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Although I schlepped around 70-210 for 2 months while in Europe....I could just as easily use 80-200/2.8. But, if I did this over I'd use set of primes 24, 50, and 135 or 105 as an option. Most likely would take Tammy 90/2.8, since it's a great all around lens, a portrait lens and a macro.</p>

<p>Anyway, you're not necessarily locked into the choices....you can rent optics that fits your vision, if it's not for an extended period of time. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[mon_goose]

<blockquote>

<p>The kind of activity for which a lens as the 24-120VR or 24-85VR make truckloads of sense. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>These lenses are loaded with distortion beyond the means of auto-correction. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd use set of primes </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it's either 24mm + 50mm or 24mm + 80-200mm. A third lens doesn't fit in my bag, no matter how small it is.</p>

 

[Palouse]

<blockquote>

<p>These lenses are loaded with distortion beyond the means of auto-correction</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree--the 24-120 does great and can be very easily corrected in DxO Pro and others. Yes, there is distortion, but in landscapes it will not be readily seen. Nikon's own in-camera lens correction is also very good. Make suer you have the latest firmware.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>What does distortion matter in subjects which have no straight lines? Even imperfect correction in post will be sufficient, if needed at all. Sharpness in the corners is another matter, which is the <em>raison d'etre</em> for using rangefinder and mirrorless EVF cameras.</p>

[mon_goose]

<p>Distortion - or the lack thereof - is everything to wide angle.</p>

<p>Correcting distortion means less corner sharpness, means losing wide angle, means less overall crispness etc.<br>

I agree that a small level of distortion is acceptable, but the lenses you mention distort heavily towards the wide end. So much that I consider them 28-XX zooms rather than 24-XX. </p>

<p>You always notice a distorted image, no matter the subject. If you don't, well, I guess you haven't had the pleasure of experiencing a distortion free lens.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

And the 24 f/2.8 has little distortion? Mine doesn't, and isn't far behind on my 24-120VR.

Decent modern raw editors will fix the distortion automatically, anyway. I'm not saying those zooms are perfect, they're not, but the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 is not much better, so claiming you experienced a distortion-free setup is a bit hyperbole.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>the lenses you mention distort heavily towards the wide end. So much that I consider them 28-XX zooms rather than 24-XX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you actually ever use any of them? I have, and I have the 24 f/2.8 too, on a D700. So I actually have been able to compare. And your hyperbolic sentiment against the 2 zooms mentioned has no merit whatsoever.<br /> Corner sharpness of the 24 f/2.8 at wider apertures is pretty poor, not better than the zooms. Vignetting is noticeable, and not much better than the 24-120VR (which isn't great in this respect).The distortion of the prime is wave-shaped and not easier to correct.<br /> Of course, you can choose whatever lens you like, but dismissing well-meant advice with unsubstantiated claims isn't going to help anyone much.</p>

[mon_goose]

<blockquote>

<p>And the 24 f/2.8 has little distortion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, very little. Almost as little as the 24mm f/1.4 afs.<br /> That's half or less than the zooms you suggest.</p>

<p>Just for reference:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/551-nikkorafd2428ff?start=1<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1<br /> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/770-nikkorafd2485ff?start=1</p>

<p>Anyway, let's get back on topic. I was asking about a tele zoom, not about wide angle.</p>

<p>I've heard galen rowell did well with just a 24mm and a 80-200mm.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>If I were on such a hiking/travel trip, I would take these two lenses with me that I own and use on FX cameras. No heavy/large f2.8 zooms for me. <br>

AF-S NIKKOR<br />24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR<br>

AF-S NIKKOR<br />70-200mm f/4G ED VR<br>

<br>

Joe</p>