Nikon Zoom vs Nikon Zoom

haroldp

Well this brings me to my ultimate questions.

If you were to buy the Cadillac of Travel Zoom Lenses what would you buy? (considering I have a 24mm and 50mm prime)

If you were to buy the most cost effective Travel Zoom Lens what would you buy?

(I am sure this questions has been asked over and over again....)

In what length range ?

Gwolf64

Well this brings me to my ultimate questions.

If you were to buy the Cadillac of Travel Zoom Lenses what would you buy? (considering I have a 24mm and 50mm prime)

If you were to buy the most cost effective Travel Zoom Lens what would you buy?

(I am sure this questions has been asked over and over again....)

In what length range ?

I would say 80min to 400max

WestEndBoy

For me, I would bring the 17-35 2.8 (the 14-24 2.8 does not accept standard filters), a 70-200 2.8, a 2x tc and the 50 if money was no object. If I was on a strict budget, I would have the 28-300, but then I would be shooting a DX camera, not an FX.

PB_PM

Well this brings me to my ultimate questions.

If you were to buy the Cadillac of Travel Zoom Lenses what would you buy? (considering I have a 24mm and 50mm prime)

If you were to buy the most cost effective Travel Zoom Lens what would you buy?

(I am sure this questions has been asked over and over again....)

Super-zoom point and shoot. Ok, I say that in jest, but that's what you get when you get a "travel zoom." Assuming there really is such a thing. The ultimate travel zoom is the AF-S 28-300mm VR Nikkor, but just like any other zoom of that type there are compromises. The question is, do the compromises of that type of lens bother you enough to trade it for the range offered?

Photobug

It is a professional grade lens with solid build an IQ, but an older one. However, there is a reason it has survived for more than 15 years in Nikon's lineup. This lens is good value. The IQ is almost as good as the 70-200 but the autofocus is a little slower. Also, it has no VR if that is important to you and will only take the older teleconverters, so it cannot auto-focus with a teleconverter.

+1.....Totally agree with jshickele. I had that lens for six years and moved up to the 70-200 F2.8. The 80-200 is as solid as a rock. Great lens. Just realize the AF is good but not fast.

WestEndBoy

For a while my travel option was going to be a 17-35 2.8, a 80-200 2.8 and a 50 1.4. However, I have fell in love with primes so much I have decided that my long-term strategy will be adding a 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 58 1.4 and a DF after the bugs are worked out. I can then either have a 24 and 58 on each camera (indoors and architecture for the 24) or the 35 and 85 for outdoors. Or something like that will be my travel kit.

spraynpray

Travel Zoom? In 80-400?

What a bizarre question.

sevencrossing

Gwolf64
I would say 80min to 400max

only one Nikon lens in this range

The new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Nikkor f4.5-5.6G ED VR

I have one and it is amazing

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/624/well-finally-we-get-an-updated-80-400#Item_344


NB The old Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR is no Cadillac, more of Model T, great in its day but has now been superseded

Msmoto

@Gwolf64

The question of the "Cadillac Zoom" must be qualified by what the subject is. If you want to get out long, the 200-400mm f/4 or the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6. Of course the other question is what body are you shooting? Crop sensor suggests maybe the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII with one of the TC's….although some folks do not like the use of a teleconverter.

sevencrossing

Msmoto

Of course the other question is what body are you shooting? .

Gwolf64

I shoot travel, landscapes, architecture on the D600.

WestEndBoy

He shoots a d600.

Gwolf64

Travel Zoom? In 80-400?

What a bizarre question.

My statement of "80mm minimum and 400mm max". Are my preferred constraints, any zoom in between these two focal lengths will work....

Gwolf64

Gwolf64
I would say 80min to 400max

only one Nikon lens in this range

The new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Nikkor f4.5-5.6G ED VR

I have one and it is amazing

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/624/well-finally-we-get-an-updated-80-400#Item_344


NB The old Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR is no Cadillac, more of Model T, great in its day but has now been superseded

I wish I had that kind of budget!!! ha

spraynpray

That would be like me taking only my 70-300VR on holiday. I would have come back with 3, maybe 4 pictures instead of the 100+ from my 16-85 (24-120VR FX equivalent).

That's what I meant by bizarre.

TaoTeJared

Saying "Travel" means a million different things to different people. So does landscapes & architecture. My favorite landscapes and architecture shots I have taken are with long telephotos - most like ultra wides though. It really depends on your style and where you travel too. Urban for me is cities that are under 400k people, landscapes are cornfields with a tree in them, and architecture is rarely taller than 6 stories and I can easily have room to shoot from 100 yards away for most. That is far different than when I lived and traveled to very large cities in my past.

From a trip to the British Virgin Islands this last Christmas I finely bought a 24-120vr f4 and I'm really glad I did. I even use it for a lot of my work now as well. It is a great lens, with enough reach, ability to get some good bokeh, and is a good size for most travel stuff. I took a 70-200 with a 1.7x TC as well. Only used it one day from a boat as I needed the reach. The thing about "travel" lenses is that you need wide to short tele (24-100mm) most of the time in any urban environment. The 70-200 is just too big IMO. If I had another $1,200 for a travel lens, or didn't need the extra quality for work, I would have gotten the 28-300vr. That would be the ultimate travel lens - covers everything.

Personally I believe going cheap on Lenses is a fools errand and will cost you more in the long run. I have the old 24-120vr f/3.5-5.6 and the IQ doesn't even come close to the new consumer lenses. It's not horrid, but not great either and you can really tell the lack of resolving power on the 24mp+ sensors. Even at f8 it falls real short. What does that equate in real-world? If I crop 50% the image is fuzzy - there is just no crispness to it. It looked much better on my D300. I'm afraid the old lenses that you have been asking would be the same and really wasting the reason you got a D600.

tcole1983

I was going to mention what TTJ is saying. You spend lots of money on a body and want to buy cheap lenses...why? I have a cheap body and expensive lenses and I totally feel that is a much better way to go. Do yourself a favor and buy a decent lens...you don't realize it makes that much of a difference until you do it. I had the 18-200, sure it was one lens and had a large range, but then I got my 105 F2.8 and I was like wow so this is what a real lens is like. And from there my 17-55 and 300 F4...I sure spent a lot on lenses and still shoot my D5000, but I would take it over a D600 with old outdated lenses...just saying.

At least get something like the 24-120 F4.

WestEndBoy

70-210mm f/4-5.6 vs 28-105 f3.5-4.5
I shoot travel, landscapes, architecture on the D600.
I currently don't have a zoom. One of these might be my first.
I am leaning toward the 210mm.

What would you pick and why?

I currently own 24mm 2.8D and 50mm 1.8

Let's go back to your original post.

I agree with TCole1983 and TaoTeJared that you are better to spend money on glass rather than the camera. You probably would have been better to get a D7000. However, you have what you have, so no use crying over spilt milk.

You already have 24mm and 50mm, so there is no point in duplicating those focal lengths. And anything less than 70mm, you are duplicating the 50mm, which is a good lens assuming that it is the 1.8G. Heck, even the 1.8D is pretty good. Yes you are travelling, but nobody says that you need zooms for travelling. These lenses are not heavy, they will fit in your pocket. You can use the 24mm for architecture and other wide angle and the 50mm for regular stuff. You are not compromising anything. If you look closely at the signature in my thread, that is what I do and I have an unlimited budget (I try to keep myself at $200 per month, but actually spend about $500 per month). I have no desire to get a zoom in this range. My 50mm 1.4G has better IQ at 50mm than the 24-70mm 2.8 and yours will be almost as good. My 28-200 is a piece of junk that I bought years ago with my F80. It is essentially a conversation piece/paperweight and I show it in my signature to tell people where I came from.

Bottom line, unless you buy the 24-70mm 2.8 for $2,000, you will have noticeably inferior image quality than your 50mm, so don't do it.

Unless you have lots of money, then go ahead and duplicate. But it sounds like you don't, so......

Where does that leave you?

The lenses that you are looking at are pretty dated. You are probably only paying $100 for each. Since the 28-105 is duplicating your focal length, then your only real choice is the 70-210.

However, to TCole1983's and TaoTejared's comments, putting these lenses on a D600 is like putting bike tires on a Porsche. Can't you at least find a used 80-200 2.8, the one still in production? Or buy the current 105 Macro Prime?

FreezeAction

Depending on the type of architecture and who it is for I'd have to give strong consideration to a pc control manual lens if the work was a paying proposition. Having used old school view cameras with total perspective control there is now way to produce and edited image in PS that has that kink of quality. Transformation tools degrade quality. Old time hard line architectural photographers still use a lot of 4x5 film and keep there good name. I know one who shoots for around $1400 a day... If architecture is a minor part of the jobs and don't pay well then I'd still use the Nikon 14-24 for tight spots trying to avoid as much distortion as possible. A three lens stable covers from 14mm to 200mm and with converters to 400mm. Getting the most out of a good sensor does take the newer glass. None are perfect. I personally look at the distortion factor on lenses for the ability to make very good stitched panoramas. CA is a factor to consider. And after all the research you can do along with rent and try one can only hope they don't get a lousy copy of a know good lens.

PB_PM

Wow, how did we get from $100-200 lenses to $1400-2000 PC lenses? I kind of get the impression the OP is looking for a nice all purpose lens to use when the primes don't fit the bill, not the holy trinity.

FreezeAction

Just trying to be honest and let him/her decide. This is a landscape lens and architectural lens I want to rent. The review here makes sense. http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/wide-angle/rokinon-24mm-f3.5-tilt-shift-for-nikon

And is is better stopped down for deep dept of field for landscapes. Crescent wrenches are cheap until you need a bolt drilled and tapped out with an easy out. Value is in the eyes of the beholder. In the end it is the ROI speed that is the tale of the tape. No one knows for someone else. It doesn't make sense to put lenses on bodies that don't resolve the pixels on an upper end camera just because they are cheap. If really cheap is what is wanted so be it. I'd rather get it right the first time and not pay twice. I've learned a few lessons the hard way.

Golf007sd

@PB_PM +1

Blame it on me...

FreezeAction

@PB_PM +1

Blame it on me...

No way. I didn't follow in a blind fog.

spraynpray

SNIP

From a trip to the British Virgin Islands this last Christmas I finely bought a 24-120vr f4 and I'm really glad I did. I even use it for a lot of my work now as well. If I had another $1,200 for a travel lens, or didn't need the extra quality for work, I would have gotten the 28-300vr. That would be the ultimate travel lens - covers everything.

SNIP

That's exactly what I'm saying. Starting at 80 is the problem. I agree with your lens choices for FX - they align with mine.

If it is mainly a photography trip, all lenses go along but if it is a trip where the photography is a grab, go for more like the newer 24-120 VR and travel light.

sevencrossing

Gwolf64 :Well this brings me to my ultimate questions. If you were to buy the Cadillac of Travel Zoom Lenses -


haroldp

In what length range ?


Gwolf64

I would say 80min to 400max

sevencrossing

The new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Nikkor f4.5-5.6G ED VR

Gwolf64

I wish I had that kind of budget!!! ha

Wolf we are tying to help ;can you explain what you mean by "Cadillac"
If you mean "the best" the The new Nikon 80-400mm AF-S Nikkor f4.5-5.6G ED VR is the answer
If you mean cheap and cheerful there are lots of threads on this subject
you will have to forget Nikon and look at third party lenses including Sigma

Msmoto

@sevencrossing exactly.

Maybe what all the questions on "What lens should I buy?" need to have the following:
1) The exact subject
2)The camera body
3) Current lenses
4) Shooting conditions
5) Budget constraints
6) Photographer's experience

For the OP maybe the early version of the 80-400mm would be good. A used one in 8+ or better condition can probably be purchased for about $800-900. I have one and the results are very good.