searching for a good normal-zoom or travel lens

ohrdio

I love my Nikon Camera body, functionality and ergonomics, However, it is really difficult to find the right travel zoom to fit with my equipment. I have tried a few and not yet found the right one.

There is the kit lens that came with my Nikon D600 – 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G: good glass but no aperture ring, very slow minimum aperture and cheap plastic mechanics with plastic sticky-ness in the zoom ring and a pretty uninspiring manual focus ring. I really prefer to have an aperture ring.

Before that I had the AF Nikkor 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6D – very useful focal length, aperture ring, but again very slow minimum aperture, limiting for depth of field, and cheap plastic mechanics with really awful plastic sticky-ness in the zoom ring and a limited manual focus ring.
Has anybody else experienced this sticky-ness?

So I tried the old Tokina AT-X 28-70mm f2.8 – nice lens mechanically, mostly metal, very well dampened zoom ring, very useful minimum aperture of 2.8, but very soft at the tele end to the degree of looking quite foggy, and somehow a bit limited zoom range 28-70mm.

The lens that I am looking forward to is a Fuji that will probably be released towards the end of this year: XF 16-55mm f2.8 – I assume like all Fuji lenses well built, mostly metal, acceptable aperture and well dampened aperture ring, optically superb and around $1000. That means a change of Systems and formats. However, as I have already experienced the Fuji x100s and am very happy with it, the change looks like a real possibility. I don’t think that I will find a similar lens for under $2000 or better, $1000 in the Nikon range (I’ve checked out the Nikkor 24-120mm for $1500 which has the same plastic issues as the other 2 Nikons). I am also not willing to go to huge and heavy Sigma lenses – good optics and good mechanics, but hard to carry around – or similar Tamron lenses.

So at the moment it goes back to prime lenses, more specifically my manual focus Voigtlaender 40mm f2 which I can use in FX and DX settings giving me 40 and 60mm. The lens is small, light, optically outstanding, mechanically just beautiful, the way you want a lens to feel, just not the ‘travel-zoom’ that I was looking for.

Any suggestions or advice?

ciao, ohrdio

Photobug

Consider one of the 18-200mm lens by Nikon, Tamron, or Sigma. They are great travel lens. Although I don't own one of them, I have several Nikon and Canon friends that use them and love the "universal" :all-in-one" lens.

ohrdio

Thank you. I was hoping for a FX solution though.

tcole1983

Hmm after reading I am not sure what you want really. Nikon makes pro zooms which it sounds like you want. But F4 and F2.8 pro lenses are heavy...not way around that. If you want a quality all around zoom get the Nikon 24-70 F2.8...I just saw it refurbished for ~$1350. If you are willing to spend the money there are good options out there..however you are comparing a couple hundred dollar lens to wanting thousand plus dollar quality. Optically the current Nikon's are all pretty good. Build quality depends on $$$.

If you want a super zoom for the FX there are a couple options or get the 70-200...however you are going to find issues with any of the super zooms if you don't care for the others you mentioned. They are ok, but not great...they aren't pro lenses. If you want quality pro lenses from 14-200 there are three F2.8 lenses for that...14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. All are heavy, but all are built great and high quality....will only put you back around $6000. If you want the 18-300...$1000, but will probably be quality about the 24-85.

Still not sure what you are looking for though. Other camera brands are going to be just the same as Nikon. There aren't really any Canon lenses that don't have a Nikon equivalent. And Fuji...well they are there, but I don't really consider them a competitor when it comes to dSLRs. If you want mirror less or whatever maybe, but that is a different story.

Lastly there isn't much way around it, but nice lenses cost money. So you can try old options and third party options and some are pretty good, but since I first got my 105 F2.8 I haven't looked back at compromising what I really wanted for lenses by skimping and getting that other lens that is kind of comparable. It won't make you happy and it sounds like you are already finding that out.

ohrdio

Thank you, tcole.
I do have a few lenses that I really appreciate like the 17-35mm f2.8, 85mm f1.8 or 135mm f2. They are all D-type lenses, well built with nice damping on the zoom or focus controls. They also have aperture rings, which I prefer to use. I have yet to find a mechanically nice G-type lens under $2000 that can match the feel of the old D lenses.
I guess I am frustrated about the "stick" of the newer plastic zoom lenses that would be nice otherwise.
I must say that the built of the old Tokina lens is much better than the new Nikkors, but of course it lacks optically.

PB_PM

Any suggestions or advice?

1) Get over the fact that lenses don't have aperture rings, because Nikon doesn't make any modern lenses that have aperture rings (aside from the few remaining "D" lenses). The aperture is controlled by the camera now days, for the most part.

2) If you really must have a lens with an aperture ring, and a metal build look for a used AF-S 28-70mm F2.8D IF-ED. They can be found for around $1000 USD. If you want something newer, the AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G it is not plastic, and the zoom ring is very smooth.

ohrdio

Thanks, I'll have a feel.

TaoTeJared

Any suggestions or advice?

You need to get over the "Plastic" feel as well. Almost all new Nikkor's are made with plastic or are metal coated with a plastic feel coating. That does not mean they are cheap or somehow inferior. They are just as durable as the metal counterparts. If they take a hit hard enough to break, the older metal Nikkor lenses would break as well. The debate on this was settled years ago.

Nikkor 24-120mm F4 is generally around $1,200 and $1,000 used and is a great lens. I use it professionally and is probably the sharpest travel-type zoom that exists. Sigma released a sigma 24-105mm f4 dg os which is new. Shorter but it comes in at $900 I believe. Other than that, you have 28-300vr.

"Travel" lenses will always have slower apertures, built a bit cheaper, and have plunge design zooms. That is just the way they are.

Tokina pro lenses are just built like tanks. I love them.

WestEndBoy

If you look at my signature you will see that I know where you are coming from. Everything in it was bought in the last year. I seriously considered the 17-35mm f2.8 until I decided that zooms were not the way I was going to go - I have the 14-24 2.8 because it is better than the 14 2.8 at 14mm. Otherwise, I am more likely to use my 20mm 2.8 unless lines must be straight.

You will also notice that I have the 85mm 1.4G and note that I will soon replace my 50mm 1.4G (what a piece fo junk, but it was only $500) with a 58mm 1.4G. As painful as "not having the aperture ring" and the "cheap plasticky feel" of the new lens is, I can get over it when presented with amazing optics.

So I guess I am saying, "If I can get over it, you can."

Msmoto

Travel zoom: Either the 24-120mm f/4 VR or the 24-70mm f/2.8. Once you learn the full ergonomics of the dD600 you may find an aperture ring is in the way and too slow.

donaldejose

35mm prime for travel? Not a bad idea, zoom with your feet like we did in the old days. When I first started shooting zooms did not exist or the ones on the market were not very good. We commonly carried 28mm (some who liked more wide angle perspective preferred the 24mm), 50mm f1.4, and 105mm macro for travel shots. A bag with a flip open top and compartments for lenses allowed for quick changes. Just put the lenses in the bag with the rear element mount up so you can twist off the cap, take the lens off the body hanging from a strap around your neck, put on the new lens, put the old one in the bag and twist the rear element cap back on the lens now in the bag. It didn't take so long to swap lenses and each lens gave a "zoom range" as we moved closer to or further away from the subject. Our prime lens "zoom range" was 28 to 105mm and we had f1.4 when we needed it and a true macro lens when we needed it. The total weight may not have been more than the 24-70mm f2.8 although I have not looked it up. Not so bad when I think of it.

Photobug

Thank you. I was hoping for a FX solution though.

Sorry about that..missed the point.

You got some good input and I would use two of the holly Trinity...24-70, and 70-200. If you really want one lens then go with the Nikkor 24-120mm F4.

ohrdio

Thanks for all your good advice.
I really like the 35mm prime suggestion, I guess I'm kind of doing that currently with my 40mm Voigtlaender.
The 24-120mm f4 zoom comes closest to what I would like to carry if I could only take one lens, if it wasn't for the jagged zoom mechanism. I don't mind that the lens is made of plastic, but I do mind that it just doesn't operate smoothly, particularly at the wide end.
One other point: the aperture ring. Of course I can operate it from the camera, but I really prefer to do it with my left hand on the lens - it works wonders for taking more deliberate and thought out pictures (I don't do fast and sport) - and what do you do with your left hand anyway? Therefore I do prefer D-type lenses over G-type. It doesn't need to be "modern", because the Nikon optics were always good!
Thanks.

heartyfisher

in that case have a look at the Nikkor 28-105 .. I have been considering getting one myself but i already have a 35-70 F2.8 so it would be a bit redundant for me. But the range of the 35 -70 is a bit limiting for a carry around lense .. I have been also looking at replacing it for that use and at getting the 24-120 f4 but my 18-140 dx in dx mode on my D610 really works great for that function. so I am using that for now.

donaldejose

If you want a zoom with an aperture ring check out the old 28-85 f3.5-4.5. It is sharp.

DaveOl

I have the Nikon 28-105mm lens also and I really like it. Since I am shooting a D 300s now though, I bought a Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8. It is too bad that so many lens manufacturers have decided to remove the aperture ring. Zeiss still makes well built lenses that are really good and have the aperture rings, but I don't believe they make any zooms. Then there are the old Leica R lenses that do have the aperture ring also. There should be an adapter to mount it on your Nikon. I don't think the R lenses are as expensive as the newer M lenses either.
Someone made the comment that it was too slow to use the aperture ring on the D lens. With the D lenses you can use either the ring or the wheel on the camera body, which to me is much more convenient. Try using a G lens with an extension tube for macro photography. I think Kenko is the the only mfr that will do that. I think Nikon shot themselves in the foot by removing the ring just to save a few bucks.

HipShot

My work (piano tech) takes me to different sites daily.

I try to carry a camera and one lens with me for unanticipated photo opportunities.

Usually, a Nikon 28-300mm lens.

Not the best lens, but very versatile.

proudgeek

I find that if I can ONLY take one lens (and wildlife isn't prominently involved), I'll take my 24-70 (on a D800).

Only a couple of drawbacks with it:
Not always wide enough for interiors (so I sneak a 17-35 in as well)
Limited for portraiture, but not terrible
I don't love the extending zoom. I know it's sealed but I have a little superstition about dust

Vipmediastar_JZ

35mm prime for travel? Not a bad idea, zoom with your feet like we did in the old days. When I first started shooting zooms did not exist or the ones on the market were not very good. We commonly carried 28mm (some who liked more wide angle perspective preferred the 24mm), 50mm f1.4, and 105mm macro for travel shots. A bag with a flip open top and compartments for lenses allowed for quick changes. Just put the lenses in the bag with the rear element mount up so you can twist off the cap, take the lens off the body hanging from a strap around your neck, put on the new lens, put the old one in the bag and twist the rear element cap back on the lens now in the bag. It didn't take so long to swap lenses and each lens gave a "zoom range" as we moved closer to or further away from the subject. Our prime lens "zoom range" was 28 to 105mm and we had f1.4 when we needed it and a true macro lens when we needed it. The total weight may not have been more than the 24-70mm f2.8 although I have not looked it up. Not so bad when I think of it.

Thats what I do for street. 35 50 and 85 in my bag and only pack a zoom when I have a project in mind.

I would recommend a 50mm or the 24-70 with a another lens as backup like your 40mm.
I don't find any of the pro zooms to be heavy any more and you can get good coverage with one of them on your travels.
However you are safer to get a lens like the 24-70 because yo have wide normal and just shy of a tele end.

donaldejose

Very nice album!

[Deleted User]

I do the same as Pitchblack, only with the D600 and the 50mm f/1.8 (amazing lens). As it gets darker, I put the Yongnuo YN-622N-TX on the camera for AF speed (it has a red dots AF light) and everything is in reach for me.

Bought the Nikon 1 (very cheap) for fun and with the 18.8mm (50mm equiv) f/1.8, the IQ after a little Lightroom is good for travel photo's. So I 'am looking now at the 32mm f/1.2 to travel as light as possible. ISO 400 is max for the Nikon 1, sometimes 800. My Sony NEX-7, with terrible noise (like the D200) is also limited to that ISO for me, only more expensive.

Postman

@PitchBlack

That album is a great advert for the Sigma 35/1.4.

I want even more now.

Prior to viewing that album I was going to suggest the 24-120/4.

Msmoto

@PitchBlack

Yes, I was commenting to some folks the other day that if I had one lens and body I would have a D4 and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens. It is my "normal" lens and just is so stunningly sharp. As I am picking up a D800E tomorrow, this lens may be stuck on it as my "walk around".

henrik1963

I used to worry about missing shots when going on hollydays. So my travelkit was: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 105 macro - all 2.8. On top of that: SB900, tripod, TC2III just in case :-)

24-70 F2.8 will take care of most of my needs. Or a 35 and a 85.

I am fine with plastic G lenses

Msmoto

In 1970 I went to Europe with two Nikon F bodies, a 24mm f/2.8 on one and an 85mm f/1.8 on the other. Shot 270 shots with the 24mm, about five with the 85mm…..

henrik1963

Nikon FA + a 50 1.8 was my travel kit for 5 month in 1988. We need less than we think - but we want more than we need :-)