Long Term Travel w/Nikon D850: Lens Recommendations (long post)

[Gareth Bourne]

I am rather enamored of the Canon 16-35/2.8 III and 24-70/2.8 II and am wondering if the 5D IV would be enough for me. Those lenses are cheaper and/or lighter than their Nikon counterparts, and by all accounts, sharper.

That's funny. In Canon forums you think Nikon lenses are sharper.

Your sharpest Canon 5D IV shot (the higher rez the better)

Very curious to see shots you feel came out particularly sharp. Less interested in content than detail. In full disclosure, I shoot Nikon, but have a secret lust for the 16-35/2.8 III and 24-70/2.8 II. I never feel Canon shots come out looking as sharp as Nikon shots, but I know that must be in...

www.dpreview.com

 

[jshen808]

You are pretty quick to dismiss the 17-35mm 2.8 based on one comment. . . I recommend reading Thom Hogan's 17-35mm review for a different perspective. Here is what Hogan has to say about the lens' performance:

"Sharpness is strong throughout the range, with f/5.6 being the point of maximum sharpness on my sample. But even at f/2.8 in the corners this lens is an excellent performer. Frankly, at 18mm and f/2.8 this zoom beats the pants off the 18mm f/2.8D Nikkor in the corners. That's right, a zoom lens is better than a prime lens!"

If I was contemplating getting the 17-35, I would make certain that it stands up to the demands of high-res sensors. Thom tested his lens with digital gear but he only briefly mentions the crop factor on DX Nikons.

Like I mentioned in my previous comment, it's an expensive lens that may be difficult to justify buying unless you plan on using it often. The 18-35mm G is certainly a contender as long as you can live with the slower variable aperture. Cheaper and smaller are always nice features in a travel lens.

Thom Hogan publishes lists of his recommended lenses for different cameras. He doesn't recommend the 17-35 at all. He's just put a list for the D850 on his blog. In the comments on Nikon Rumours he said he's going to reevaluate the 18-35.

 

[Gareth Bourne]

You are pretty quick to dismiss the 17-35mm 2.8 based on one comment. . . I recommend reading Thom Hogan's 17-35mm review for a different perspective. Here is what Hogan has to say about the lens' performance:

"Sharpness is strong throughout the range, with f/5.6 being the point of maximum sharpness on my sample. But even at f/2.8 in the corners this lens is an excellent performer. Frankly, at 18mm and f/2.8 this zoom beats the pants off the 18mm f/2.8D Nikkor in the corners. That's right, a zoom lens is better than a prime lens!"

If I was contemplating getting the 17-35, I would make certain that it stands up to the demands of high-res sensors. Thom tested his lens with digital gear but he only briefly mentions the crop factor on DX Nikons.

Like I mentioned in my previous comment, it's an expensive lens that may be difficult to justify buying unless you plan on using it often. The 18-35mm G is certainly a contender as long as you can live with the slower variable aperture. Cheaper and smaller are always nice features in a travel lens.

Thom Hogan publishes lists of his recommended lenses for different cameras. He doesn't recommend the 17-35 at all. He's just put a list for the D850 on his blog. In the comments on Nikon Rumours he said he's going to reevaluate the 18-35.

 

[jshen808]

You are pretty quick to dismiss the 17-35mm 2.8 based on one comment. . . I recommend reading Thom Hogan's 17-35mm review for a different perspective. Here is what Hogan has to say about the lens' performance:

"Sharpness is strong throughout the range, with f/5.6 being the point of maximum sharpness on my sample. But even at f/2.8 in the corners this lens is an excellent performer. Frankly, at 18mm and f/2.8 this zoom beats the pants off the 18mm f/2.8D Nikkor in the corners. That's right, a zoom lens is better than a prime lens!"

If I was contemplating getting the 17-35, I would make certain that it stands up to the demands of high-res sensors. Thom tested his lens with digital gear but he only briefly mentions the crop factor on DX Nikons.

Like I mentioned in my previous comment, it's an expensive lens that may be difficult to justify buying unless you plan on using it often. The 18-35mm G is certainly a contender as long as you can live with the slower variable aperture. Cheaper and smaller are always nice features in a travel lens.

Thom Hogan publishes lists of his recommended lenses for different cameras. He doesn't recommend the 17-35 at all. He's just put a list for the D850 on his blog. In the comments on Nikon Rumours he said he's going to reevaluate the 18-35.

--
http://www.instagram.com/ggbourne

If these high-res sensors are so darn picky about the lenses that can be used (not to mention requiring the use of tripods to get the sharpest pics. . .) I'm going to stick with DSLRs that can use a wider range of glass available at reasonable sizes/prices. Not everyone requires a 45mp sensor. . .

(In my opinion) the D850 is not going to be picky at all regarding lenses.. (in my opinion) the sensors of the D810 & D850 are in a different league compared to "other" cameras sensors.. this is one reason why the images of the D810 is still sharp & usable even at 100% zoomed view (while "other" cameras sensors really shouldn't be viewed past 50% zoomed)..

I think Thom Hogan is particularly pernickety when it comes to lenses. For example, I think the 50mm f/1.8G is fine with a D800, and I've had no issues with the 80-400mm at 400mm. However, if you want the absolute finest quality images then it's good advice.

--
http://www.instagram.com/ggbourne

Yes, absolutely true! ..even though I'm mostly using consumer grade glass(es).. there are many here using $2,000 to $5,000+ pro lenses, and their images are superb..

You can create amazing images with any lens. What makes an image "amazing" is everything else - research, planning, timing, artistry, composition, processing, etc.

Any of the lenses, and cameras, we have now are far, far beyond what professionals were using even just a few years ago. Arguing that one lens is imperceptibly sharper than another is utterly pointless. Lens comparisons don't happen in real life, and 99.99999999% of people don't pixel peep. Unless you're blowing up the images to billboard size no one will ever notice, let alone care.

--
http://www.instagram.com/ggbourne

What you say is how I feel also ..I just try to get "the" lens(es) (mostly focal lengths) that is needed or desired.. even though I'm not too discerning about how sharp-sharp a particular lens is, but would like for the lens to work "properly", and definitely don't want to buy "junk" lenses either, lol's..

However, there will always be those who are meticulous about the sharpness or quality of their "glass".. maybe it's their "passion".. ;-)

..Cheers..

--
Cheers, John
Photography is my hobby.
http://www.pbase.com/johnshenphotography

 

[travelinbri_74]

I am rather enamored of the Canon 16-35/2.8 III and 24-70/2.8 II and am wondering if the 5D IV would be enough for me. Those lenses are cheaper and/or lighter than their Nikon counterparts, and by all accounts, sharper.

That's funny. In Canon forums you think Nikon lenses are sharper.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4190002

 

[Gareth Bourne]

I am rather enamored of the Canon 16-35/2.8 III and 24-70/2.8 II and am wondering if the 5D IV would be enough for me. Those lenses are cheaper and/or lighter than their Nikon counterparts, and by all accounts, sharper.

That's funny. In Canon forums you think Nikon lenses are sharper.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4190002

--
http://www.instagram.com/ggbourne

I am actually saying the same thing in both threads

No you're not:

I never feel Canon shots come out looking as sharp as Nikon shots

As I said, if I shot Canon, a 16-35 and 24-70 would cover 75% of my needs, but the Nikon equivalents are much larger and heavier (14-24 and 24-70 VR), and, from what I see, not even as sharp.

It's all just complete nonsense.

Sharp, sharp, sharp, Nikon, Canon, sharp, sharp, sharp, this lens, that lens, what about this, what about that...

 

[myshkin]

I am taking a 12-18 month round the world type trip in 6 months and I plan to bring the following:

D850

Zeiss 15mm 2.8

Nikon 20mm 1.8G

Nikon 16mm 3.5 AI Fisheye

Nikon 58mm 1.4G

Nikon 105mm 2.5 AIS

Nikon 180mm 2.8D

This will go in my incase camera backpack along with laptop and other electronics. I have used this bag for month long trips and in my opinion a month long trip is the same as a year with gear and clothes.

For my clothes I am bringing the Osprey Sojourn. I plan to bring 2 bags total, the osprey and incase. The Osprey can roll and be used as a backpack so when rolling I can keep my camera gear on my back.

 

[Toby43]

If it was me for travelling/hiking i would take a D750 with 50mm 1.4 plus a Fuji x100 or Ricoh GR for back up. Plus either 35/2 or 24 2.8d depending on which back up camera. Iphone for back up too I guess although I wouldnt want to rely on it if the FX gets dropped/wet.

 

[travelinbri_74]

Which makes your continued involvement in this thread that much more nonsensical. You must really have a lot of spare time on your hands to continue to partake in a conversation about such nonsense. I guess that is because you have such a winning personality and are not a kn*b (as you reassured us earlier).

-TBri

As I said, if I shot Canon, a 16-35 and 24-70 would cover 75% of my needs, but the Nikon equivalents are much larger and heavier (14-24 and 24-70 VR), and, from what I see, not even as sharp.

It's all just complete nonsense.

Sharp, sharp, sharp, Nikon, Canon, sharp, sharp, sharp, this lens, that lens, what about this, what about that...

 

[travelinbri_74]

I roll with an Osprey as well, although their Aether 85. I use a peak design clip on the strap when I am trekking, otherwise camera is in my hand or in my pack.

How do you find long term travel with only primes? Do you miss the flexibility of a zoom?

-TBri

 

[myshkin]

I have been shooting all primes for about 2 and 1/2 years now and I have gotten used to it. Sure it can be a pain once in awhile changing a lens but I have gotten pretty quick at it.

The last zoom I used regularly was the 14-24mm and I mostly left it for filters and I fell in love with the 20mm 1.8G.

The zooms I find most attractive for travel are the 24-70mm followed by the 14-24 or 15-30mm. The 70-200mm is too big for my personal taste.

The trip I am planning likely won't have a ton of backpacking but I do a lot of backpacking where I live (Colorado). I normally take my D810 and 4 lenses. Not sure where you plan to travel to but you can always leave some of the gear behind when you go trekking.

When I have gone trekking lately I would bring:

Zeiss 15mm (14-24 in past)

Nikon 20mm 1.8G

Nikon 55mm 3.5 AI

Nikon 105mm 2.5 AIS

Sometimes the 180mm 2.8D if I thought wildlife was a possibility.

This was a smaller setup and I think wider is more important for the backcountry. I personally wouldn't love going trekking with a 20mm as my widest.

 

[BasilG]

Advice needed:

I will be doing some long term travel - with a lot of trekking - in 2018, and will likely pick up a D850 for this trip.

I think you may need to give us a bit more info on what trekking means to you. I would think it means you carry some food, some clothing, sleeping bag, probably a lot of water, and your camera gear. Will you be carrying a tent also? Are you trekking in the mountains or mostly level terrain? Are you very fit (= running marathons and stuff)?

My experience from multi-day hiking in the mountains (> 10'000 ft) is that it totally kills me, and that's without any heavy glass. I often bring a 18-35 + 70-300 + D610 + tripod combo, sometimes with the 20/1.8 on top (don't know if you are interested in this, but most of what's shown here is shot with this kind of setup: https://500px.com/basilgreber ). The two wides combined weigh less than the ultra wide zooms you are considering. The D610 weighs less than the D850. And so on. I fully understand you want the best gear, but at some point you will also have to ask yourself (or rather - tell us, because you probably thought about it) about the maximum load you can carry. A 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 is not very sexy, but it gets those shallow DoF and low light jobs done reasonably well. And weighs much less than a 24-70/2.8 E. Oh my.

From my own experience I can tell you that I take better photos when feeling reasonably well rather than completely exhausted from a massive load of gear.

In any case. Good luck with it all.

 

[travelinbri_74]

Advice needed:

I will be doing some long term travel - with a lot of trekking - in 2018, and will likely pick up a D850 for this trip.

I think you may need to give us a bit more info on what trekking means to you. I would think it means you carry some food, some clothing, sleeping bag, probably a lot of water, and your camera gear. Will you be carrying a tent also? Are you trekking in the mountains or mostly level terrain? Are you very fit (= running marathons and stuff)?

My experience from multi-day hiking in the mountains (> 10'000 ft) is that it totally kills me, and that's without any heavy glass. I often bring a 18-35 + 70-300 + D610 + tripod combo, sometimes with the 20/1.8 on top (don't know if you are interested in this, but most of what's shown here is shot with this kind of setup: https://500px.com/basilgreber ). The two wides combined weigh less than the ultra wide zooms you are considering. The D610 weighs less than the D850. And so on. I fully understand you want the best gear, but at some point you will also have to ask yourself (or rather - tell us, because you probably thought about it) about the maximum load you can carry. A 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 is not very sexy, but it gets those shallow DoF and low light jobs done reasonably well. And weighs much less than a 24-70/2.8 E. Oh my.

From my own experience I can tell you that I take better photos when feeling reasonably well rather than completely exhausted from a massive load of gear.

In any case. Good luck with it all.

Excellent questions:

I am ex-infantry, having lugged 100lbs bags around about a decade ago, and have a lot of experience trekking up to about 6000 meters - primarily in Nepal but all over - and comfortably carrying packs up to about 30KGs (66lbs). That being said, I am about 10 years removed from my trekking prime (age 43) and have been too sedentary the last few years (still lots of traveling and walking, but less with a big pack or up big mountains), so I will break into it slowly. Back then I carried two bodies and 5 lenses everywhere (including up to Everest basecamp without a porter), but I have less to prove these days and am more focused on comfort. I will be focusing on Northern India, Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan), and Nepal, although will leave some flexibility to see where my fancy takes me. Although it sounds wussy, I will likely use porters or horses to take on a good deal of the weight, and foresee mostly trekking with my emergency kit (first aid, headlamp, etc), a spare jacket and change of clothes, water, and my photography equipment. I feel I am probably comfortable up to about 15KG like this, but would prefer to keep it to 20KG or less.

As I said earlier, a big part of this for me is about exploring my passion for travel, outdoors and photography, so I am allowing myself this as an indulgence.

-TBri

 

[Robert1975]

The letters in this topic are simply not sharp enough on my 8K screen. They must have been shot with an old 14-24 2.8 which is quite soft by today's standards. I use 100MP PhaseOne camera for my beach photos now, it's far from perfect but I can live with it. It also fits my pocket, I'm a big guy. When are we going to see 200MP in phones and compacts? They say human eyes can't resolve more than 50MP of detail, but my eyes are sophisticated and require at least 300MP. I am the pinnacle of human evolution. When I return from my holiday, I expect to see not only the grains of beach sand, but also the atoms and molecules which constitute the grains. And the sky must be noiseless at 800% magnification, because this is the 21st century!

 

[Gareth Bourne]

The letters in this topic are simply not sharp enough on my 8K screen. They must have been shot with an old 14-24 2.8 which is quite soft by today's standards. I use 100MP PhaseOne camera for my beach photos now, it's far from perfect but I can live with it. It also fits my pocket, I'm a big guy. When are we going to see 200MP in phones and compacts? They say human eyes can't resolve more than 50MP of detail, but my eyes are sophisticated and require at least 300MP. I am the pinnacle of human evolution. When I return from my holiday, I expect to see not only the grains of beach sand, but also the atoms and molecules which constitute the grains. And the sky must be noiseless at 800% magnification, because this is the 21st century!

 

[voider]

14-24 + 24-70 + 105 1.4E or 135 Sigma

or

20 1.8 + 58 1.4 + 105 1.4E or 135 Sigma

I would go for the second setup due to weight

 

[BasilG]

Advice needed:

I will be doing some long term travel - with a lot of trekking - in 2018, and will likely pick up a D850 for this trip.

I think you may need to give us a bit more info on what trekking means to you. I would think it means you carry some food, some clothing, sleeping bag, probably a lot of water, and your camera gear. Will you be carrying a tent also? Are you trekking in the mountains or mostly level terrain? Are you very fit (= running marathons and stuff)?

My experience from multi-day hiking in the mountains (> 10'000 ft) is that it totally kills me, and that's without any heavy glass. I often bring a 18-35 + 70-300 + D610 + tripod combo, sometimes with the 20/1.8 on top (don't know if you are interested in this, but most of what's shown here is shot with this kind of setup: https://500px.com/basilgreber ). The two wides combined weigh less than the ultra wide zooms you are considering. The D610 weighs less than the D850. And so on. I fully understand you want the best gear, but at some point you will also have to ask yourself (or rather - tell us, because you probably thought about it) about the maximum load you can carry. A 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 is not very sexy, but it gets those shallow DoF and low light jobs done reasonably well. And weighs much less than a 24-70/2.8 E. Oh my.

From my own experience I can tell you that I take better photos when feeling reasonably well rather than completely exhausted from a massive load of gear.

In any case. Good luck with it all.

Excellent questions:

I am ex-infantry, having lugged 100lbs bags around about a decade ago, and have a lot of experience trekking up to about 6000 meters - primarily in Nepal but all over - and comfortably carrying packs up to about 30KGs (66lbs). That being said, I am about 10 years removed from my trekking prime (age 43) and have been too sedentary the last few years (still lots of traveling and walking, but less with a big pack or up big mountains), so I will break into it slowly. Back then I carried two bodies and 5 lenses everywhere (including up to Everest basecamp without a porter), but I have less to prove these days and am more focused on comfort. I will be focusing on Northern India, Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan), and Nepal, although will leave some flexibility to see where my fancy takes me. Although it sounds wussy, I will likely use porters or horses to take on a good deal of the weight, and foresee mostly trekking with my emergency kit (first aid, headlamp, etc), a spare jacket and change of clothes, water, and my photography equipment. I feel I am probably comfortable up to about 15KG like this, but would prefer to keep it to 20KG or less.

As I said earlier, a big part of this for me is about exploring my passion for travel, outdoors and photography, so I am allowing myself this as an indulgence.

-TBri

Ok, that's important information. You'll be able to carry quite a bit more than I anticipated. Enjoy your trip and I am looking forward to seeing your photos.

I think if it were me, I would cover ultrawide with the Tamron 15-30 or Nikon 14-24 and the long end with a 70-300 AF-P. I don't shoot mid range much, but probably can't go so wrong with the 24-70/2.8 VR or 24-120/4 VR. Not sure about the third party options in that range, somehow people do not seem extremely impressed.

One thing I might be bothered by is that the ultrawides are quite flare prone. The 18-35 AF-S or 20/1.8 AF-S are much better in that department. I might bring one of them to shoot into the sun, but again, that's just me, you probably want your fourth lens to be a fast short telephoto.

 

[JJ1983]

My preferred Nikon travel combo was

16-35/4 VR because it's relatively light and takes a filter for long exposure.

58/1.4 Just because I loved the rendering

I never seemed to need another lens.

 

[dav1dz]

My preferred Nikon travel combo was

16-35/4 VR because it's relatively light and takes a filter for long exposure.

58/1.4 Just because I loved the rendering

I never seemed to need another lens.

This resembles most of my friend's kits for travel. Unless you shoot stars, f2.8 on an UWA is not really needed.

I think the only f2.8 UWA I would consider is that Tamron 15-30 due to its price.