What am I missing with FX + DX combo

[rossb]

<p>I live on the opposite end of the spectrum and would just carry a Nikon FM2n and a 50mm lens. That leaves plenty of room in my Domke F6 for water and something to eat. Oh and as always an extra roll of film. I cannot even remember the last time I shot more then36 pictures in a day but sometimes you start out at the end of a roll so you want to have something to put in the camera. </p>

[sandeep_kumar10]

Hi - thanks for your suggestions. I went to the local camera store and picked up Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens, canceled my

Amazon order of 24-120 f4. Will take this lens on D750, and 28mm on D500. If I need wide angle at some point (which I

use for less than10% of my shots), I will have to swap lenses, otherwise I will be fine with D500 giving around 42mm

equivalent from my 28mm f1.8 and 70-200mm zoom. Everything else would stay at home. Total weight including the bag

is 5.5 Kg.

 

My logic was that I would get 70-200 2.8 at some point anyway for covering my kids school functions (dim lighting in the

auditorium) and sports events at her school, so why spend on another lens. Weight is a factor for sure, but this lens is

worth it in my view. Thanks again for all your advice, very useful. I suspect some of you will disagree with the choice I

made, but I just couldn't resist this lens. Now waiting for the vacation to start on July 1.

[CvhKaar]

<p>Sandeep, do not forget Pol. filters for the lenses ( or at least one of them) with all that glass in NYC sometimes they com in handyv , as will a proper ND filter when the sun is showing it self, since there will be a lot of high contrast situations then ...</p>

[sandeep_kumar10]

Yes, have a CP already but not an ND. Any suggestions? Thx

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly... as Shun says, I don't see the focus breathing on the 70-200 as a major problem. If I want macro performance, I'll use my Sigma 150mm macro anyway. Yes, there's some technology that could be added, but I doubt it would make a huge difference to an already good lens. If you want to protect one with the fluorine coat, stick a Hoya Fusion filter on the front. I don't do enough video for it to be significant, but I don't think of a 70-200 as an obvious video lens - but then I don't think of Nikon DSLRs as obvious video cameras either. (Evidence suggests that neither do Nikon!) While I'm sure there'll be an update eventually, I kind of expect Nikon to prioritise other things. The 200-400 f/4, the 135 f/2 and 105 f/2, maybe the 200mm f/4 macro (or if we're lucky a new 70-180 macro). Maybe the tilt shifts. You never know, they might even make some of the DX lenses that Thom Hogan keeps complaining about, athough possibly another endless set of variations on 18-xxx zooms is more likely. I'd not go near the 70-200 mk1 on my FX DSLRs, but then I value corners. I'm sure you'll be happy with the mk2. It's not tack sharp at f/2.8, but it's not bad, and it's pretty impressive by f/4.<br />

<br />

With a D750 (or in my case D810), I don't tend to worry too much about dynamic range - the sensor is so good at minimum ISO that you can usually do better in software than the blunt instrument of an ND grad. I've just ordered myself a variable aperture (flat) ND filter, though - which I hope I won't regret compared to buying separate filters. That's more a milky water thing in my case, though.<br />

<br />

I'd take more wide angles of some sort, but that's me, and I always carry too much. Enjoy your trip!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't see the focus breathing on the 70-200 as a major problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that all depends. if you use the 70-200VRII as an event lens and shoot from the lip of the stage, it's noticeable enough to become annoying. if you're not using the lens like this, it's less of an issue, just something to keep in mind.<br>

<br>

i understand the psychology of having the 70-200. it's a bread and butter lens, no question, and as good for portraits as events. but it's super heavy as a travel lens, plus a bit ostentatious. if you're only taking that and a 28, i suppose it could work. better IQ than the 24-120/4, but perhaps less versatile as a dual-format lens. though when ive shot FX/DX combos, i tend to put the 70-200 on the DX body for extra reach. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I own a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. Mostly only use it for weddings. I quit bringing it on personal trips about five years ago. It's not versatile enough, too big & bulky, and makes no sense now that the excellent Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR is available. If I quit shooting weddings/portraits the 70-200mm f2.8 would be sold the next day.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would not pick the 70-200/2.8 as a first choice for traveling (I have used it many times on travels but it does add weight) but it is a very versatile general purpose lens and would be very good choice for this:</p>

<p><em>for covering my kids school functions (dim lighting in the auditorium) and sports events at her school,</em><br>

<em> <br /></em>and if the weight is not an issue during your trip then you can do multiple functions with one lens which makes it a pragmatic choice. The 70-200/4 VR is excellent (it's light enough to walk around with without discomfort, yet gives nothing away image quality wise) but the aperture is not quite large enough for best results in many indoor photography situations (some of which you mention above).</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>For family vacation, carrying two bodies is overkill.</p>

[sandeep_kumar10]

Folks - just a quick update. I ended up selling the Nikon 28mm f/1.8 and bought a used Nikon 24mm f/1.4. In the middle

of my vacation and I have used only the 24mm f/1.4G (awesome lens by the way, but you already know that !!)and 85mm

f/1.4Gon the two bodies. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G is sitting in my carry on.

 

Two bodies combination is working out well - the real bonus is that my wife is also clicking pictures now. With 24-127mm

fx equivalent coverage I don't see carrying the 70-200 for vacation again.