Torn between the Z 24-120, Z 24-200 and Z 28-400 for Europe trip this fall

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

I presume you're taking the Zf to keep the weight/size down?

I got a zfc just for these kinds of trips - and I'm settling on the 18-140 for a single lens solution.

I think the 14-30 is an excellent choice and you'll use it a lot around those tight twisty Portugese streets in old towns etc. The 40/2 will be good for lower light, so I guess it's something with a bit of reach you need.

I personally think the 24-200 would get the most used - if the weather is good then you won't need the f4 so much and if the light fails then just swap to the 40/2 and get creative!

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Probably the 24-200 is most ideal. IF you are wanting to record video then I would consider the 28-400 with it's Synchro VR...of if you think you'll want to go beyond 200mm.

I ran around Lisboa with my Z6, D7100 and bunch of lenses including the 70-200/2.8 w/ a cam backpack, was awesome.

24 120 is a better sharper lens. And at its best at least in the centre wide open and constant F4 so should work at night as well for most usual purposes. And you can always crop if you "really" need more than 120mm. The other 24 200 is a worse and softer lens. So at its long end you dont really gain a lot over the 24 120. Because its sharp as a razer at 120mm. And still F4!

As for the 28 400, then I suspect that 28 is too wide in small places or for a lot of landscape/building stuff. And too much of a large superzoom for quality. I dont have that lens though. So cant say for sure.

I would take the marvelous 24-120 f4 you already have. And crop or DX mode if you have to. You can still do crop DX or 2.2x movies at 120mm as well.

So if you are wanting image quality then 24-120 as its one of the best zooms nikon make.

If you want a superzoom, 24 200, but its weaker optically. And I tested one and returned it. Esp at the long end. For holiday snaps? Maybe. That deends on you. And how critical.

If you want a not wide enough at the short end telephoto of ??? Untested quality (I dont know!) but the corners are weaker than the 24-120. Then the 28-400 may be the one. Is it sharp at 400??? Not so much. Even at 120mm the 24-120 has better contrast and sharpness. But the f4.8 and f8 long end would be the killer for me regardless. If you only want pics in bright sunlight that may not bother you.

This may help you decide.

MarkP1903 said:

I presume you're taking the Zf to keep the weight/size down?

I got a zfc just for these kinds of trips - and I'm settling on the 18-140 for a single lens solution.

I think the 14-30 is an excellent choice and you'll use it a lot around those tight twisty Portugese streets in old towns etc. The 40/2 will be good for lower light, so I guess it's something with a bit of reach you need.

I personally think the 24-200 would get the most used - if the weather is good then you won't need the f4 so much and if the light fails then just swap to the 40/2 and get creative!

Click to expand...

I'll be taking the Zf for sure (although am also wanting to bring a backup camera just in case too, maybe a Z5 or just bring the Z8 and swap back and forth; don't plan on carrying two cameras everywhere though).

yes my plan was to travel as light as possible (with the exception of a bare body probably) and so the 24-200 might be the sweet spot (it also has VR for the really long FLs and I don't think 1.3 stops in practice, especailly on the Zf in low-light) is going to be much of a problem. The 28-400 for some reason just looks huge on a Zf (and probably even worse on a Z5).

zephxiiii said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Probably the 24-200 is most ideal. IF you are wanting to record video then I would consider the 28-400 with it's Synchro VR...of if you think you'll want to go beyond 200mm.

I ran around Lisboa with my Z6, D7100 and bunch of lenses including the 70-200/2.8 w/ a cam backpack, was awesome.

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm trying to keep the kit as small as possible (4 lenses tops, and 2 bodies -- one of which will just be a backup mostly). Not planning on doing any video though, except maybe short clips of things, but nothing extensive.

I'm wondering if anyone has compared the 28-400 to the 24-200 at the shared FL from say 135 to 200mm? I did some quick searching and found some comparisons but they weren't really side-by-side that I saw. I mean the 28-400 is compelling with the level of sharpness it can deliver at 400mm (it's not great, but it's not horrible either). but I wonder if In the middle of the range it's better than the 24-200 at the longer end (despite being slower).

--

PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

Burgerman said:

24 120 is a better sharper lens. And at its best at least in the centre wide open and constant F4 so should work at night as well for most usual purposes. And you can always crop if you "really" need more than 120mm. The other 24 200 is a worse and softer lens. So at its long end you dont really gain a lot over the 24 120. Because its sharp as a razer at 120mm. And still F4!

As for the 28 400, then I suspect that 28 is too wide in small places or for a lot of landscape/building stuff. And too much of a large superzoom for quality. I dont have that lens though. So cant say for sure.

I would take the marvelous 24-120 f4 you already have. And crop or DX mode if you have to. You can still do crop DX or 2.2x movies at 120mm as well.

So if you are wanting image quality then 24-120 as its one of the best zooms nikon make.

If you want a superzoom, 24 200, but its weaker optically. And I tested one and returned it. Esp at the long end. For holiday snaps? Maybe. That deends on you. And how critical.

If you want a not wide enough at the short end telephoto of ??? Untested quality (I dont know!) but the corners are weaker than the 24-120. Then the 28-400 may be the one. Is it sharp at 400??? Not so much. Even at 120mm the 24-120 has better contrast and sharpness. But the f4.8 and f8 long end would be the killer for me regardless. If you only want pics in bright sunlight that may not bother you.

This may help you decide.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-28-400mm-f-4-8-vr

Click to expand...

Thanks. I would mainly consider the 28-400 for detailed shots (so things that might require say 200mm or more, although many of the places/subjects I plan to photograph probably don't necessarily need that long of a focal length -- I was thinking some of the castles it might be nice to be able to zoon in tight on detail, scupltures, etc). (I had the 24-200 so I know it isn't as good as the 24-120, but trying to balance things out as 200mm would probably be fine).

Since I'm shooting with the Zf (24MP) I'd like to avoid cropping if possible (heavy cropping that is, as i technically could use DX crop mode to get to 180mm but that also means 9-10MP images.

Still thinking this through. I guess another option is to either use my Z8 -- which may very well end up being my "backup" camera for the trip and using crop mode on it with the 24-120 and not having to bother with renting anything). The only thing is the Z8 is not exactly a light camera to carry around all day long. I mean a Z7 II would be probably the sweet spot (but I don't have one anymore unfortunately). Then I could use DX crop mode and not worry too much about it.

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

sirhawkeye64 said:

MarkP1903 said:

I presume you're taking the Zf to keep the weight/size down?

I got a zfc just for these kinds of trips - and I'm settling on the 18-140 for a single lens solution.

I think the 14-30 is an excellent choice and you'll use it a lot around those tight twisty Portugese streets in old towns etc. The 40/2 will be good for lower light, so I guess it's something with a bit of reach you need.

I personally think the 24-200 would get the most used - if the weather is good then you won't need the f4 so much and if the light fails then just swap to the 40/2 and get creative!

Click to expand...

I'll be taking the Zf for sure (although am also wanting to bring a backup camera just in case too, maybe a Z5 or just bring the Z8 and swap back and forth; don't plan on carrying two cameras everywhere though).

yes my plan was to travel as light as possible (with the exception of a bare body probably) and so the 24-200 might be the sweet spot (it also has VR for the really long FLs and I don't think 1.3 stops in practice, especailly on the Zf in low-light) is going to be much of a problem. The 28-400 for some reason just looks huge on a Zf (and probably even worse on a Z5).

Click to expand...

The 28-400 does look great, but I'd agree that it looks pretty big - specially for a carry about lens. 24-200 probably will be the sweet spot for the balance between reach/quality and having kit that won't get in the way when you are trying to enjoy a holiday!

MarkP1903 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

MarkP1903 said:

I presume you're taking the Zf to keep the weight/size down?

I got a zfc just for these kinds of trips - and I'm settling on the 18-140 for a single lens solution.

I think the 14-30 is an excellent choice and you'll use it a lot around those tight twisty Portugese streets in old towns etc. The 40/2 will be good for lower light, so I guess it's something with a bit of reach you need.

I personally think the 24-200 would get the most used - if the weather is good then you won't need the f4 so much and if the light fails then just swap to the 40/2 and get creative!

Click to expand...

I'll be taking the Zf for sure (although am also wanting to bring a backup camera just in case too, maybe a Z5 or just bring the Z8 and swap back and forth; don't plan on carrying two cameras everywhere though).

yes my plan was to travel as light as possible (with the exception of a bare body probably) and so the 24-200 might be the sweet spot (it also has VR for the really long FLs and I don't think 1.3 stops in practice, especailly on the Zf in low-light) is going to be much of a problem. The 28-400 for some reason just looks huge on a Zf (and probably even worse on a Z5).

Click to expand...

The 28-400 does look great, but I'd agree that it looks pretty big - specially for a carry about lens. 24-200 probably will be the sweet spot for the balance between reach/quality and having kit that won't get in the way when you are trying to enjoy a holiday!

Click to expand...

I'm thinking even if I did use a 28-400 or 24-200 I might still bring the 24-120 anyway (it's not that big and at least that way I have the option to use it for some things. Obviously it would have a lot of redundancy with the 24-200 or 28-400 but that may not be a bad thing too -- it too could be a backup lens; not saying I'd carry all of them around with me each day (as some things I can see where I may not need a long -- 200mm -- telephoto lens, but there are some places where it might be helpful).

--
PLEASE NOTE: I usually unsubscribe from forums and comments after a period of time, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. Feel free to PM me if you have a questions or need clarification about a comment I made.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Being the Devil's advocate, why not think about it a different way. Rather than having available every possible focal length to suit every possible situation, why not take one or two, maybe three really good lenses and work with them to get the best you can. The 14-30 is awesome but the 20 f1.8 is better. The 20 and a 35 f1.8 and if you really think you need longer the 70-200 f2.8.

sirhawkeye64 said:

MarkP1903 said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

MarkP1903 said:

I presume you're taking the Zf to keep the weight/size down?

I got a zfc just for these kinds of trips - and I'm settling on the 18-140 for a single lens solution.

I think the 14-30 is an excellent choice and you'll use it a lot around those tight twisty Portugese streets in old towns etc. The 40/2 will be good for lower light, so I guess it's something with a bit of reach you need.

I personally think the 24-200 would get the most used - if the weather is good then you won't need the f4 so much and if the light fails then just swap to the 40/2 and get creative!

Click to expand...

I'll be taking the Zf for sure (although am also wanting to bring a backup camera just in case too, maybe a Z5 or just bring the Z8 and swap back and forth; don't plan on carrying two cameras everywhere though).

yes my plan was to travel as light as possible (with the exception of a bare body probably) and so the 24-200 might be the sweet spot (it also has VR for the really long FLs and I don't think 1.3 stops in practice, especailly on the Zf in low-light) is going to be much of a problem. The 28-400 for some reason just looks huge on a Zf (and probably even worse on a Z5).

Click to expand...

The 28-400 does look great, but I'd agree that it looks pretty big - specially for a carry about lens. 24-200 probably will be the sweet spot for the balance between reach/quality and having kit that won't get in the way when you are trying to enjoy a holiday!

Click to expand...

I'm thinking even if I did use a 28-400 or 24-200 I might still bring the 24-120 anyway (it's not that big and at least that way I have the option to use it for some things. Obviously it would have a lot of redundancy over a 24-200 or 28-400 but that may not be a bad thing either being a special trip...)

Click to expand...

For travel, I think there's a big difference between what you take on the trip (in check-in or carry on) and what you actually take with you day to day when out and about actually enjoying your trip.

There's no problem with having options so depending on where you are going on a specific day you can select the most appropraite body/lens combo!

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Being the Devil's advocate, why not think about it a different way. Rather than having available every possible focal length to suit every possible situation, why not take one or two, maybe three really good lenses and work with them to get the best you can. The 14-30 is awesome but the 20 f1.8 is better. The 20 and a 35 f1.8 and if you really think you need longer the 70-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. I don't need every FL but I'm also trying to minimize fussing with gear. I mean having just the two 14-30 and 24-? would probably cover me, and I'd probably only use the 14-30 for some stuff. I can see where you're coming from with the suggestion but I'm concerned it may lead to me spending a lot of time switching lenses, and having to carry a bag (with one travel zoom, if I ditch the 14-30 for the day, I could really just walk around with just the camera and no bag.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I traveled extensively throughout Europe last year with a Panasonic mirrorless system. I had both a 24-120 equivalent and a 100-300. I very, very rarely used the 100-300. So I would bring the 24-120. The test results I have seen from the 24-200 and 28-400 are not encouraging.

Fabian Joya said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I traveled extensively throughout Europe last year with a Panasonic mirrorless system. I had both a 24-120 equivalent and a 100-300. I very, very rarely used the 100-300. So I would bring the 24-120. The test results I have seen from the 24-200 and 28-400 are not encouraging.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Yeah I had the 24-200 before the 24-120 and while it's not as sharp after about 100mm, the flip side is that it's better than nothing. But I do plan to bring the 24-120 even if i do get or rent a 24-200 or 28-400. The latter two would only be for FLs beyond 120mm (although a 70-300 might be a better choice but would mean having to carry a second lens to get to 300mm). Beyond 200mm I probably don't really need though.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Being the Devil's advocate, why not think about it a different way. Rather than having available every possible focal length to suit every possible situation, why not take one or two, maybe three really good lenses and work with them to get the best you can. The 14-30 is awesome but the 20 f1.8 is better. The 20 and a 35 f1.8 and if you really think you need longer the 70-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. I don't need every FL but I'm also trying to minimize fussing with gear. I mean having just the two 14-30 and 24-? would probably cover me, and I'd probably only use the 14-30 for some stuff. I can see where you're coming from with the suggestion but I'm concerned it may lead to me spending a lot of time switching lenses, and having to carry a bag (with one travel zoom, if I ditch the 14-30 for the day, I could really just walk around with just the camera and no bag.

Click to expand...

I understand. It's always so hard to decide. But, do you really want to take some nice photos or just travel snapshots. The super zooms are good for snapshots but so is an iPhone. I know, they are better than a phone but you get the point.

Most people don't buy a lens for just one trip. Will the 24-200 be useful to you in the long run? I had purchased my 24-200 a year before the 24-120mm/f4 S became available. If I already had the 24-120, most likely I wouldn't have bought the 24-200.

If you don't already have a longer tele, the 28-400 may be more useful. But the main advantage for that kind of lens is convenience. I always feel that a higher-quality 70-300 that if f5.6 with VR would be a more useful, smaller lens, but Nikon hasn't made one for the Z mount yet.

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Being the Devil's advocate, why not think about it a different way. Rather than having available every possible focal length to suit every possible situation, why not take one or two, maybe three really good lenses and work with them to get the best you can. The 14-30 is awesome but the 20 f1.8 is better. The 20 and a 35 f1.8 and if you really think you need longer the 70-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. I don't need every FL but I'm also trying to minimize fussing with gear. I mean having just the two 14-30 and 24-? would probably cover me, and I'd probably only use the 14-30 for some stuff. I can see where you're coming from with the suggestion but I'm concerned it may lead to me spending a lot of time switching lenses, and having to carry a bag (with one travel zoom, if I ditch the 14-30 for the day, I could really just walk around with just the camera and no bag.

Click to expand...

I understand. It's always so hard to decide. But, do you really want to take some nice photos or just travel snapshots. The super zooms are good for snapshots but so is an iPhone. I know, they are better than a phone but you get the point.

Click to expand...

My plan is to work with the best glass I have or can rent (for a reasonable amount as I pretty much will need it for 10-14 days). I think for the wide to medium telephoto zoom range, the 24-120 will do fine (most of it will probably be architecture anyway and I think that lens is suitable for that). I may try to find a 35mm (maybe the Viltrox unless the Nikon 35 goes on sale), or I'll swap out the 40 f/2 for my 50 1.8 which I might do since it's not that much bigger/heavier, just a bit longer so it sticks out a bit more.

But the long end (120mm to 200 or 300mm) is the question. Maybe a good compromise here would be a rented 70-200 f/4 adapted lens (F-mount version). This would overlap plenty with my 24-120 so I woulidn't necessarily have to change lenses all the time.

So possibly those four (14-30, 24-120, 70-200 and a 50mm) may be enough and should cover all possibilities while not becoming too much of a nussiance.

The other thing is I plan to mostly use a sling bag, which can probably only hold 2 lenses plus the body with a smaller lens on it (so my Zf + 24-120 attached, and the 50 and 14-30, or the 70-200 and 14-30 with the Zf and 24-120 in my hand.

Luckily I have a few months to consider the options, I was just gong to start getting some ideas in case I needed to buy anything.

sirhawkeye64 said:

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Rodenmg said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

Taking a trip this fall for a week to Portugal (if you've followed any of my other posts).... but can't decide on which "travel zoom" to bring... the Z 24-120 (which I own), the Z 24-200 (which I don't own, but thought about buying again for various reasons), and the Z 28-400 (which I don't own, and would only rent if I chose this route).

I'll be taking my Z 14-30 and Z 40 f/2 with me as well (trying to keep the kit as light as possible as most of the shooting will be mostly travel and architecture photography. I'm just concerned that 120mm may be too short but also want to avoid having to change lenses (as a 70-300 was an option but would require a lens change).

I somewhat think the 24-200 might be enough as I have rarely found I needed 300mm or more in those instances (and when I went to Banff two years ago I mostly used the 24-200 below about 100mm but most of that was also landscape photography...) My Europe trip will probably be a bit different as I want to be able to capture small detail but am not sure if carrying around the 28-400 is necessary either.

I also considered adapting a 28-300 but that requires the FTZ (which I no longer have) and would be large and probably heavier than a 28-400 (and probably not as sharp at the longer FLs).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Being the Devil's advocate, why not think about it a different way. Rather than having available every possible focal length to suit every possible situation, why not take one or two, maybe three really good lenses and work with them to get the best you can. The 14-30 is awesome but the 20 f1.8 is better. The 20 and a 35 f1.8 and if you really think you need longer the 70-200 f2.8.

Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion. I don't need every FL but I'm also trying to minimize fussing with gear. I mean having just the two 14-30 and 24-? would probably cover me, and I'd probably only use the 14-30 for some stuff. I can see where you're coming from with the suggestion but I'm concerned it may lead to me spending a lot of time switching lenses, and having to carry a bag (with one travel zoom, if I ditch the 14-30 for the day, I could really just walk around with just the camera and no bag.

Click to expand...

I understand. It's always so hard to decide. But, do you really want to take some nice photos or just travel snapshots. The super zooms are good for snapshots but so is an iPhone. I know, they are better than a phone but you get the point.

Click to expand...

My plan is to work with the best glass I have or can rent (for a reasonable amount as I pretty much will need it for 10-14 days). I think for the wide to medium telephoto zoom range, the 24-120 will do fine (most of it will probably be architecture anyway and I think that lens is suitable for that). I may try to find a 35mm (maybe the Viltrox unless the Nikon 35 goes on sale), or I'll swap out the 40 f/2 for my 50 1.8 which I might do since it's not that much bigger/heavier, just a bit longer so it sticks out a bit more.

But the long end (120mm to 200 or 300mm) is the question. Maybe a good compromise here would be a rented 70-200 f/4 adapted lens (F-mount version). This would overlap plenty with my 24-120 so I woulidn't necessarily have to change lenses all the time.

So possibly those four (14-30, 24-120, 70-200 and a 50mm) may be enough and should cover all possibilities while not becoming too much of a nussiance.

The other thing is I plan to mostly use a sling bag, which can probably only hold 2 lenses plus the body with a smaller lens on it (so my Zf + 24-120 attached, and the 50 and 14-30, or the 70-200 and 14-30 with the Zf and 24-120 in my hand.

Luckily I have a few months to consider the options, I was just gong to start getting some ideas in case I needed to buy anything.

Click to expand...

with what you got, you are pretty well covered:

14-30 f/4 on Zf and 24-120 f/4 on Z8. The DX crop, ~20Mpix, gets you to near 200mm equivalent, with pixel sharpness. And since you have it already, for peace of mind, for night street photography, have the faster 40 f/2 in the hotel. No lens swapping during the city walk.

Do you really plan to go to zoo's? Want first class glass for this case too? Then get the Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S and keep it in the hotel safe, except for the zoo days. If you want first class glass also for zoo or similar animal photography and other long lens images, then you might get this lens. The zoo trip might be just with one camera and this lens. It is costly, but costs much less than another trip to Europe. The versatility of this lens combined with little overlap with the 24-120 makes it of lasting value for further trips in the future.

What do you intend to photograph in Portugal?

Unless small birds etc, 400mm is likely to be longer than you need.

Most of my travel is in Europe and the longest focal length I have been using the last years has been 120. I have the 24-200 but that has not had any use since I got the z24-120f4, a by far better lens.
When I travel, being a photo enthusiast I want the best IQ I can get, so would take the z14-30, z24-120 and your 50 a1.8s. If you take your z8, you can easily crop the z24-120 to close to 200 anyway.