No special access - just heading out when others are back home or waiting for the brief moments when crowds clear out of the frame.
Thank you for your kind words!
Thanks. Yeah I've sort of ruled out the 28-400 as I don't think I'll need much beyond 200mm, however up to 200mm I would like to be prepared. I think at this point, I'm not going to buy anything, but rather I'll just rent a 24-200 (found it would be $100 for the time I need it, which is far cheaper than buying one for $800 at this point). My hope is that maybe in the future, TAmron will release their 28-300 for the Z with VC maybe, as I've heard some good things about the Sony version, although it may or may not necessarily be any better than the 24-200.Maybe I can add a slightly other perspective. When traveling to a strange country you will often find many many opportunities to take interesting and memorable photographs. So many, that if you have a reasonable range, like with your 14-30 and 24-120, you will (mostly) not miss the larger focal lengths. Because you already take 100’s of photographs.Map your photographic opportunities versus your focal lengths.
So unless you specifically expect interesting things for you in the 200-400mm range that would be my advice.
Personally, last summer I went on holiday to the baltic states (I am a Dutchman) and brought my 17-28, 24-120 and AF-S 70-300 with me. The latter one I barely used, only some birds in a nature reserve. The 24-120 was enough to also capture more interesting architectural details in the cities. Sure, I would have liked a bit more length for that purpose, but it was enough. I really loved this lens. Using a lens which you love is perhaps also a consideration. All in all, I would say that more then 90% of my photographs were taken with the 24-120.
Later I bought the 24-200 additionally, and for me it felt like not much added value compared with the 24-120, and I could not get warm for this lens, other then a one lens have always with you sort of solution. When the 28-400 came out I immediately sold the 24-200 and the older 70-300, and bought the 28-400. I still have to think if I going to use it as my one lens hiking solution in the mountains, for the moment I enjoy it for birding. I am not sure if i would add it as a 3 lens solution for future use: 17-28, 24-120, 28-400, but that could be a possibility. I would love the 100-400 but find it expensive and heavy, and I am not sure how often I would use it.
my 2 cents.
I would agree with the long end (Although the 24-120 seems to maintain most of its sharpness even out to 120mm (in fact I'd say it's weakest point is not 120 but rather 24mm which is usually the opposite on most zooms like these).Full disclosure, out of the 3 lenses you mention, I only own the 24-200.
I have to say that the 24-200 was my choice as it seems the best compromise to me. I've NOT been disappointed in ANY of the photos I have taken with it. I'm sure the same can be said for the 24-120, but any lens at 400mm is going to suffer from atmospheric issues if you are shooting in a populated area unless temperatures are cold.
Congratulations on your upcoming trip! I'm envious, but happy for you
Agree with this wholeheartedly. Wide is better than long in the tight streets of old Europe, and frankly in general. Getting close to a subject enough for perspective effects to kick in offers interest that a midrange FL doesn't. Zooming all the way out is for wildlife and if you can't get close enough for a proper picture to begin with.
This seems a good compromise.
Why not pick up a used 24-200? You’d get one for 5-600 dollars so you’re not risking too much
