All-around lens for Nikon FX

Nikon 24-70mm. Solid, dependable and great all around!

The un-PC answer for this forum is the 28-300 range for an all in one travel lens. The two choices are Nikon and Tamron. The newer Tamron is significantly lighter and both have their issues inherent to this zoom range. Before purists gag take a breath and count to ten: most of us are just shooting for ourselves and, judged by many of the images posted on these forums, the technical capabilities of the gear far outstrips the aesthetic talents of the photographers, including moi.

What I have realized on my travels is that I do not miss a focal length wider than 24 mm and rarely use much longer than 100. So to carry along other or bigger lenses when on tours or in crowded venues seems a pointless way to generate neck and back pain--FX gear is big enough as it is. I have made several extended trips with just the 24-85mm "kit" Nikon and only occasionally missed having a longer focal length. If you know you are going somewhere you will want the bigger guns you just have to strap on that heavy backpack.

I see many people lugging, literally struggling with massive amounts of high end gear for what will never be more than personal snapshots in the usual tourist venues. Although I have had camera/lens envy more than once I am always glad I am not saddled down like that and can enjoy the moment and get images that satisfy my needs with what I have.

As much as I love FX image quality, and I do, the size and weight of m43 has called to me.

I was semi-gifted the new Tamron 28-300, it was almost free, an offer in my bargain hunting cheapness I could not refuse. For a variety of reasons I have not had the time to use it as much as I would have liked. What I have seen has impressed me in terms of sharpness and contrast in a lens as lightweight, compared to the generally elephantine proportions of FX gear, as it is, but it seems to devolve to f6.3 early in the zoom range. I'm not telling you to go out and but one but you might want to look at it. What if if works for you? Or the Nikon?

In truth raw images filtered through a raw lens correction algorithm (baked into m43 raw files and can not be removed), manipulated umpteen ways in Photoshop and viewed on monitors than can only display a fraction of the megapixels and color gamut of the sensor--what does absolute lens quality even mean anymore? I hardly worry about it for my amateurish pursuits.

bmoag said:

In truth raw images filtered through a raw lens correction algorithm (baked into m43 raw files and can not be removed), manipulated umpteen ways in Photoshop and viewed on monitors than can only display a fraction of the megapixels and color gamut of the sensor--what does absolute lens quality even mean anymore? I hardly worry about it for my amateurish pursuits.

Click to expand...

I need to reach your level of enlightenment.

To the OP - how much reach do you need? If you don't need more the 24-120 is really very capable and as an added bonus, f4 throughout.

I think the 24-120/4 is probably the lens you want. You could look at the old 24-85/2.8-4. It's available for about $300 used. That said, I'd go for a 35/1.4 if I only wanted to travel with one lens, but I would never travel with one lens.

Nikon made a quite light-weight 28-200G variable-aperture lens, late in the film era. I have no personal experience with this one, but do have its 28-80G contemporary, which is OK.

I must BTTT'ed a 2012 thread on the Nikkor 28-300G, started by InTheMist, in the Nikon FX SLR section of these forums. I did not quite convince myself to buy a 28-300G, but it certainly covers the "all-around" part. It is notably heavier than the above-mentioned 28-200G.

I love my Nikkor 24-70/2.8G. 70mm is not always long enough, which is why I added a Nikkor 70-200/2.8G VR. If I want to travel with just one DSLR lens, and think that 70mm might be too short, I can bring the 70-200/2.8G VR on the camera, and complement it with a Nikon A camera, a very good compact DX camera, with an excellent 28mm-equivalent 18.5mm prime lens, mistakenly marketed as a Coolpix. Usually, however, 24-70mm is my go-to solution for one lens for the day..

elleana said:

To the OP - how much reach do you need? If you don't need more the 24-120 is really very capable and as an added bonus, f4 throughout.

Click to expand...

I'm literally just trying to identify my options before I start narrowing down the field. The Tamron and Nikon 28-300 seem like decent starting points. The goal here is to determine if I can satisfy any need with a single lens while traveling. The big-picture answer seems to be not if, but how much $$$ to spend. Interior photos seem to warrant at least 28mm, and I appreciated having 18mm available on my last trip (carried my D7000 and the 18-135 lens).

I'd recommend taking a look at the Sigma 24-105 f/4. I've used it for probably 75-80% of my photos this year, and have been really pleased with the IQ and the versatility for my needs. The two Flickr albums below have lots of examples from this lens - but you'll have to look at the EXIF to be sure, as I had other lenses along on both of these trips:

Napa and San Francisco

Canada

I don't know that I'll ever find what I consider to be the perfect one-lens solution for travel, but this one is close. On my Canada trip this year I did have a pretty full set of lenses with me, including some of my best primes, but the Sigma zoom and my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 (with and without a 1.4 TC) were used for probably 90% of my shots. On the SF/ Napa trip my only other lens was a 35 mm f/2D, which was barely used, so that was almost a one-lens trip. I see myself relying heavily on the Sigma as the mainstay of my travel kit, and will have no trouble using it as my only lens when that seems necessary.


Ray
My Flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rritchie/

I went with the Sigma 24-105 and its a real keeper i would say its only downside is weight but it does feel like a quality product and it certainly is a very nice piece of kit imo

James809 said:

When traveling with my D750, I'd like to have a single lens to cover many focal points. Aside from the Nikon 24-120 f/4, what are some options of similar (or greater) focal range? Something akin to the ancient but beautiful DX 18-135 in FX would be lovely, but I don't know if such a unicorn exists. Doesn't have to be Nikkor, either.

And before someone suggests it, the point is to travel with a single lens, not multiple primes.

Click to expand...

You need to decide how much weight/bulk you want to deal with as well as focal range. The lightest general purpose FX lens is the 24-85G, which is pretty comparable to the 24-120 over the common range. It is small, light, and inexpensive. If a heavier lens is OK, consider the 24-105 (sigma) or 24-120 Nikon. I personally would stay away from the Nikon 8-300 as I prefer a 24 wide angle, not 28, especially when traveling. The 300mm sounds great, but really is not all that sharp, and might be seldom used. Also pretty heavy. Tamron also has a 28-300 too , and it is quite a bit lighter than the nikon version - but I have no idea how it compares optically.

I carry a 24-84G and a 70-200 f4 when traveling (along with a TC1.4). 24mm-280mm range. The 70-200 is pretty light and compact - easy to throw into a small daypack (which I generally carry anyway.

Coasting said:

I went with the Sigma 24-105 and its a real keeper i would say its only downside is weight but it does feel like a quality product and it certainly is a very nice piece of kit imo

Click to expand...

This does look like a very desirable lens to have ... until I checked the price (about USD 900). I quite like my Nikkor 28-105 AFD for general purpose on DX or FX. It sells for between one sixth and a quarter, second hand.

However, I do not travel with a single lens.

Funny enough, I have just been testing a 24-120 on a Nikon D810 after having it calibrated at Nikon. The calibration has made a huge difference. Hell I even like the bokeh !

breivogel said:

James809 said:

When traveling with my D750, I'd like to have a single lens to cover many focal points. Aside from the Nikon 24-120 f/4, what are some options of similar (or greater) focal range? Something akin to the ancient but beautiful DX 18-135 in FX would be lovely, but I don't know if such a unicorn exists. Doesn't have to be Nikkor, either.

And before someone suggests it, the point is to travel with a single lens, not multiple primes.

Click to expand...

You need to decide how much weight/bulk you want to deal with as well as focal range.

Click to expand...

I'm open on focal range; what I've decided so far is bulk. One lens.

breivogel said:

The lightest general purpose FX lens is the 24-85G, which is pretty comparable to the 24-120 over the common range. It is small, light, and inexpensive. If a heavier lens is OK, consider the 24-105 (sigma) or 24-120 Nikon. I personally would stay away from the Nikon 8-300 as I prefer a 24 wide angle, not 28, especially when traveling. The 300mm sounds great, but really is not all that sharp, and might be seldom used. Also pretty heavy. Tamron also has a 28-300 too , and it is quite a bit lighter than the nikon version - but I have no idea how it compares optically.

Click to expand...

One of my assumptions is that, barring extreme circumstances, traveling with a single decent FX lens is lighter than 2 or more FX lenses. Again, trying to identify my options before I start eliminating them. Even a slightly-heavier FX is probably lighter than carrying a 28-70 and an 80-200.

I'm of a similar mind in 24 vs 28, and 18 would be great.

Hanno van Tartu said:

Coasting said:

I went with the Sigma 24-105 and its a real keeper i would say its only downside is weight but it does feel like a quality product and it certainly is a very nice piece of kit imo

Click to expand...

This does look like a very desirable lens to have ... until I checked the price (about USD 900). I quite like my Nikkor 28-105 AFD for general purpose on DX or FX. It sells for between one sixth and a quarter, second hand.

However, I do not travel with a single lens.

Click to expand...

I've been eyeing the old 28-105mm as well, and wondering how it compares to the newer AF-S 24-120mm f/4, at half the weight and a fraction of the cost.

I don't think you can beat the 24-120/4 - it's a great mix of optics quality, focal range and price ($500 for a refurb).

Westmill said:

Funny enough, I have just been testing a 24-120 on a Nikon D810 after having it calibrated at Nikon. The calibration has made a huge difference. Hell I even like the bokeh !

Click to expand...

Did you try and calibrate the lens yourself before you sent it to Nikon?

also, did you send in your other lenses, or just this one, and how long did it take?

nice photos!

thanks

The lens had a slight decentering issue. Nikon said it needed a new part ( they always do ) so it was gone for over 2 months. It was soft down the right side at 120mm. A standard calibration should cost around £70 and around 9-10 days. As the lens was sent to Nikon and by all account Nikon had to wait for the part... it took over two months and £277 !

I do not have all lenses calibrated, but it often pays to do so. It ensures you are getting the very best out of any given lens. I had my 24-70 calibrated and that was well worth it. There was a big difference. I do notice that none of the lenses Ive had calibrated need fine tuning, as they did before the calibration.

Some lenses just perform superbly from the off and you just know they are right. The 24-70 is an expensive lens, and its a zoom of course, so I would have any lens like this calibrated.

You can also have the camera calibrated, as it is often the camera rather than the lens that is out. I have a D750 and a D4s both of which are sound, but I did have my D810 calibrated at the same time as I took the 24-70 in.

I have two copies of the 24-120.... and both are now as good as they get. I did have a third but that was a real bad copy and I just sent it back.

James809 said:

breivogel said:

James809 said:

When traveling with my D750, I'd like to have a single lens to cover many focal points. Aside from the Nikon 24-120 f/4, what are some options of similar (or greater) focal range? Something akin to the ancient but beautiful DX 18-135 in FX would be lovely, but I don't know if such a unicorn exists. Doesn't have to be Nikkor, either.

And before someone suggests it, the point is to travel with a single lens, not multiple primes.

Click to expand...

You need to decide how much weight/bulk you want to deal with as well as focal range.

Click to expand...

I'm open on focal range; what I've decided so far is bulk. One lens.

James809 said:

The lightest general purpose FX lens is the 24-85G, which is pretty comparable to the 24-120 over the common range. It is small, light, and inexpensive. If a heavier lens is OK, consider the 24-105 (sigma) or 24-120 Nikon. I personally would stay away from the Nikon 8-300 as I prefer a 24 wide angle, not 28, especially when traveling. The 300mm sounds great, but really is not all that sharp, and might be seldom used. Also pretty heavy. Tamron also has a 28-300 too , and it is quite a bit lighter than the nikon version - but I have no idea how it compares optically.

Click to expand...

One of my assumptions is that, barring extreme circumstances, traveling with a single decent FX lens is lighter than 2 or more FX lenses. Again, trying to identify my options before I start eliminating them. Even a slightly-heavier FX is probably lighter than carrying a 28-70 and an 80-200.

I'm of a similar mind in 24 vs 28, and 18 would be great.

Click to expand...

Any FX lens that covers 18mm range will not go beyond 50mm I believe.

UGPRO said:

UGFujiKon said:

I'm of a similar mind in 24 vs 28, and 18 would be great.

Click to expand...

Any FX lens that covers 18mm range will not go beyond 50mm I believe.

Click to expand...

Now that is something I hadn't even considered. Thanks!

Running into the danger of repeating myself in every thread of similar topics: Get a fifty and be happy. My $100 50mm/1.8D is glued to my D800. While shooting I often wish for more flexibility, but I'm happy with the resulting images. Zooming slows me down, wider than 50mm doesn't look good to my eyes, and if it's too far away either walk closer or shoot something else.