I recently sold my D810 and replaced it with a D850.
My wife and I are having our first child so I’m looking to put together a lighter weight wider coverage setup.
Currently I tend to travel with an older 35-70 2.8D, 20 2.8D, 50 1.4 G or 50 1.8D and 70-300 VR sometimes the 20 and 50 get dropped in favour of the 24 1.4. Both are on either on the front of either the D8XX or my D4 which all fits into a small Lowe Pro sling bag with a travel tripod and a couple of flashes, cam ranger, filters, batteries stuff.
This unfortunately leads to a LOT of lens changing which is probably not going to fly with a kiddo. The 35-70 is a little short as I really like the 24 end. The 70-300 also tends to lack reach sometimes and is a little soft out long.
I’m hoping to get this down to something more reasonable and was wondering about people’s opinions on the 24-85 VR combined with the new Sigma 100-400 as a two lens solution with an option to carry the 20 for wife and a fast 50 for the darker situations? Or would I be better off with the 24-120 f4 Nikon or go to an all Sigma all the time 24-105?
Or do I really just say screw it and go 28-300 get a 300 pf and a teleconverter for the long end and keep the 20 for the wide?
The struggle is real! Anyone have thoughts?
I have an assortment of different lenses, but when I'm traveling I almost always only take my 24-120. I enjoy photography more when I don't have much gear to think about. But I typically don't use long lenses, so I'm generally content with the zoom range of the 24-120. Your mileage may vary. When I think I might need it, I have an old 50mm 1.8 that gets chucked in the bottom of my bag... and usually ends up staying there.
I enjoy astro type photography and if I think there will be opportunities I bring my 20mm 1.8, but even so I've been surprised at how well the 24-120 performs on the night sky. The corners are pretty garbage (tonnes of vignetting), but all things considered it's not terrible overall in my experience.
My advice would be look at the 24-85 VR and 24-70 f4. Unless it is a safari, I never go longer than 200 on holiday.
And I like the directions of your thoughts..( for a more baby friendly kit.. with the D850)
Sorry, I am not more help :-)
I can only give you more issues/problems to consider LOL..
1) The D850 has more megapixels.. and although the 24-85 and the other kits are nice travel lenses you may be seeing more of their weaknesses if you tend to Pixel Peep...
2) Your current 35-70 will also show its edge weaknesses more. (I have one of them .. really nice lens) so will some of your other D lenses.. (if you pixel peep :-) )
maybe just go with the 24 1.4 :-) and digital zoom
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
28-300 all the way and a Samyang 14mm on the other body ..job done
Find that I shoot 75% with the Nikon 24mm to 70mm F/2.8.
On my (24MP) cameras, the 24-85 is plenty sharp when stopped down to f5.6 to f8. On the other hand, my 70-200 f4 is sharp enough to draw blood, even wide open.
I'm iffy on the short zoom, but the 70-200 sounds like it would work well for your stated purposes.
Ive heard similar issues in the mid for the 24-120 but lots of people swear by the lens but its a contender.
Back in my DX days I never wanted more at the 18 end, but ever since I got the 24 1.4 it has been nearly glued to the front of my camera. I have done a lot of reading at it seems that many people fall in love with a focal length. Lots of people swear by 35 for example, it doesn't do it for me. 20 is too wide. I dunno I love me that 24 but it is ONLY 4 mm on the short end. I mean how much of a difference does 4.... gah I know its huge.
Anyway... thanks for your input. And again beautiful pictures. The 28-300 sings in your hands!
Ha... Im low on the pecking order in this house. Im sure it goes my loving wife, yet to be born child, dad. Its not all bad though. I do have a D850 after all!
I appreciate yet another vote for the 28-300. I have a 14 kicking around. Its too wider for my day to day, but it is a very versatile lens and I can see why you would suggest it!
Thanks for taking the time out to suggest something!
I have a couple other ways to 400 floating around and if I KNOW I needed to get that long, I would bring the big guns. Thus if Im bringing a bigger bag, I probably wouldn't bring the 80-400. I know that sounds dumb but in my head it balances.
What Im looking for is a way to replace the 70-300. Something longer would be great for those moments when I don't expect it but want it, but if its not a direct replacement (ie fits in my bag) its probably not going to work in this workflow.
Thanks for taking the time out. I agree the 24-70 is a fantastic everything everyday lens!
This is something more to think about for sure.
Thanks very much. The new Sigma glass is AMAZING no doubt. I have never had 3rd party lenses and while I wonder less about primes, I wonder if the zoom direction would drive me nuts. If I decided to go the 24-XXX route in either Sigma or Nikon it will be a very hard choice to make.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Absoultely agree. Do you have any suggestions on a travel kit for two lenses that covers between 24mm on the short end and 300+ on the long?
I think I laid out my requirements for a lighter set up, that is more kid and family friendly (meaning kid and family type photos) that requires less lens changes.
Can you give me some examples of what you do bring when you go to shoot these "different things" what you bring and the methodology as to why you chose to go that route?
Thanks for this. The vote for the 24-85 on a higher MP body is great news. Interesting that this is the second time the 70-200 f4 has come out! I would probably keep the 20 2.8 in the bag to save space over the 20 1.8. A buddy of mine has that 20 1.8 and its a beautiful lens.
Thanks for letting me know about your set up!
Regarding the 28-300, I will just say this: If you look at the best IQ zooms out there, they all have a small zoom range. My current go-to lens is the 24-35 f2 Sigma. That lens is superb, but has a very small zoom range. You have to weigh up what is most important to you - image quality or convenience. I am not trying to change your mind about the 28-300, just saying you have to be aware of its limitations.
I sold my 24-120 f4 VR to get the 24-35 and am very pleased I did so. I bought the 24-120 for weddings as the D750 and 24-120 seemed perfect for that but the mid-range shot's IQ was just so 'MEH' that I really came to dislike it.
If I go on a photographic break with friends, all my gear goes with me but if I go on holiday with my wife, a crop body with the 16-80 is usually all I take.
You are of course correct, the smaller the zoom range, the better the lens. Lens making, like lens choosing is all about the compromises. Lenses could almost always be made better, but they need to get bigger and heavier, more expensive coatings, higher tolerances and at some point the costs associated with all of this makes it unsellable or more likely not profitable. Which means they just don't get made (unfortunately).
I would very very much like to get my paws on a 24-35, that thing looks sick. But courses for horses. Thats not for this acquisition.
You can have parallel acquisition strategies though right? Don't tell my wife!
Thanks again for your insight. It is very valuable.