This question has probably been asked multiple times but hopefully it's just a bit different to elicit some opinions. Travel for fun and increasing my travels as I get closer to retirement. When I was young I used to carry a Nikon F with a 28 plus a 50 and 135 but as I got older got tired of lugging too much stuff around. Recently using Sony Rx 100 mk 5. Now using a Z 6 mk 3 plus 24-120 which works quite well although planning on a 14-30 sometime. Planning on some trips in future with wildlife such as the Galapagos/New Zealand and Africa so further reach with a telephoto seems necessary. Do not want to spend for a 100-400 so thinking about adding a 28-400. Any other reasonable priced options? Tamrons seem to be in same price ball park except for the 70-300. As an alternate I can for about the same price get a Z50 k2 and 16-50 and 50-250 which would be much more compact and less heavy.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Travel camera
- Thread starter scotomata
- Start date
I wouldn't go to Galapagos/New Zealand/Africa without a back-up body . . . Something like a Z5 II or a duplicate Z6III so you can share batteries/chargers
Rent the 100-400 (and maybe toss in a 14TC) if it is outside your budget.
Z50 II, 16-50 f2.8, 50-250 is a reasonable alternative (and again a back-up) and rent the 28-400.
Last edited:
The 28-400 is so versatile you can’t go wrong, if I had to pick between the z50ii and 28-400 I’d pick the lens. I bought both though to compliment my z6iii but in the 6 months I’ve had it I have barely had a chance to use thez50 ii because it has been out travelling the world first to Europe with my daughter sporting the 16-50. - she loved the compact size then to Africa with other family members, this time with the 28-400, they loved it particularly the versatility and range and a large percentage of their photos were taken at the long end. It is off somewhere else now in Australia, not sure where still with the 28-400.
i did use the z50ii briefly on a trip, I liked it but where I had a choice I preferred the z6iii unless reach was an issue.
BGD300V1
Veteran Member
and my original Z50. I am carrying the 12-28mm and 28-400. Which body carries which is dependent on the days planned events. I brought the original 16-50mm along but left the 50-250mm from my first two lens kit at home.
A few samples from the 28-400mm
28-400 at 400mm in Southampton UK
28.400mm at 300mm
28-400 at 210mm
28-400mm at 70mm thru a moving dirty bus window
28-400mm at 58mm cropped heavy subject motion
--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
WSSA#51 as BG5700
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
A few samples from the 28-400mm
28-400 at 400mm in Southampton UK
28.400mm at 300mm
28-400 at 210mm
28-400mm at 70mm thru a moving dirty bus window
28-400mm at 58mm cropped heavy subject motion
--
I'm a photographer, Jim, not a graphic artist!
WSSA#51 as BG5700
My photo blog: http://birdsnbugs.com
RF Stock Portfolio - http://www.dreamstime.com/resp129611
monte12345
Veteran Member
If you look at my gear list you will see that I have a Z50II, Zf, and Z7 II. So I am speaking from experience here. I will also state that since purchasing the Z50II my Zf and Z7 II don't see a lot of use.
My Zf gets used when I am in a Prime lens only mood and I'll typically go out with the 40mm f2 with either the 26mm f2.8 or 20mm f2.8 Viltrox in a pocket. If I know I'll be working in really dim lighting then the 40mm f2 will get replaced with my 50mm f1.4 because that combo is freakishly good in the light of a single candle.
As for the high resolution Z7 II, currently it's mounted on my larger CF Tripod set up and ready for scanning slides or negatives when the mood hit's me to work on converting a 50 year archive to digital. It's also my choice if I am heading to mountain ranges for some Landscape images.
The bulk of my shooting is now done with the Z50II. In part because this camera actually features a higher pixel density than my Z7 II. As a result the Image Quality is produces in "normal" lighting (EV 3 and higher) is equal to that produced by the 24.5mp Full Frame Nikon's. Yeah, 24.5 is more than 20.9 but the difference is so slight it's not visible in a print and I can't reliably see the difference on my 4K monitor in a 200% pixel peep. I will also note that I have compared the 16-50mm and 50-250mm "kit" lenses to my 24-120mm f4 S lens at 35mm and 100mm focal lengths with apertures matched and they basically match. In my opinion these "kit" lenses are comparable to a very fine S line lens and should be considered as S Line quality lenses. I will also note the 16-50mm lens is flat out AMAZING at it's closest focusing point, it looks as good as if I had used a Micro Nikkor.
Thus my Bias. That Z50II Kit is capable of Image Quality rivaling the Full Frame Nikon's and it is an incredible light and capable package. The only limitation is that the 2 kit lenses are distinctly on the slow side and the high pixel density does impact High ISO noise performance. Personally I limit the MAX ISO to just 3200. So I have made a couple of "high speed" additions to my lens lineup. First is a Viltrox 35mm f1.7, a lens that I suspect may be the finest 35mm lens made at present in either DX or FX formats. The second is a Tamron Di III-A VC RXD17-70mm f2.8 zoom (25.5 to 105 equivalent) on a Viltrox E to Z adapter. While the quality isn't quite as good as the 16-50mm f3.5-6.3 it's still an excellent lens with image stabilization and the range is near perfect. Downside is that f2.8 aperture means it is rather heavy. BTW the just released Nikon 16-50mm f2.8 VR is another option that I expect will match the image quality of the 16-50mm f3.5-6.3.
My Zf gets used when I am in a Prime lens only mood and I'll typically go out with the 40mm f2 with either the 26mm f2.8 or 20mm f2.8 Viltrox in a pocket. If I know I'll be working in really dim lighting then the 40mm f2 will get replaced with my 50mm f1.4 because that combo is freakishly good in the light of a single candle.
As for the high resolution Z7 II, currently it's mounted on my larger CF Tripod set up and ready for scanning slides or negatives when the mood hit's me to work on converting a 50 year archive to digital. It's also my choice if I am heading to mountain ranges for some Landscape images.
The bulk of my shooting is now done with the Z50II. In part because this camera actually features a higher pixel density than my Z7 II. As a result the Image Quality is produces in "normal" lighting (EV 3 and higher) is equal to that produced by the 24.5mp Full Frame Nikon's. Yeah, 24.5 is more than 20.9 but the difference is so slight it's not visible in a print and I can't reliably see the difference on my 4K monitor in a 200% pixel peep. I will also note that I have compared the 16-50mm and 50-250mm "kit" lenses to my 24-120mm f4 S lens at 35mm and 100mm focal lengths with apertures matched and they basically match. In my opinion these "kit" lenses are comparable to a very fine S line lens and should be considered as S Line quality lenses. I will also note the 16-50mm lens is flat out AMAZING at it's closest focusing point, it looks as good as if I had used a Micro Nikkor.
Thus my Bias. That Z50II Kit is capable of Image Quality rivaling the Full Frame Nikon's and it is an incredible light and capable package. The only limitation is that the 2 kit lenses are distinctly on the slow side and the high pixel density does impact High ISO noise performance. Personally I limit the MAX ISO to just 3200. So I have made a couple of "high speed" additions to my lens lineup. First is a Viltrox 35mm f1.7, a lens that I suspect may be the finest 35mm lens made at present in either DX or FX formats. The second is a Tamron Di III-A VC RXD17-70mm f2.8 zoom (25.5 to 105 equivalent) on a Viltrox E to Z adapter. While the quality isn't quite as good as the 16-50mm f3.5-6.3 it's still an excellent lens with image stabilization and the range is near perfect. Downside is that f2.8 aperture means it is rather heavy. BTW the just released Nikon 16-50mm f2.8 VR is another option that I expect will match the image quality of the 16-50mm f3.5-6.3.
ZEricM
Active member
My travel kit these days is a Z5 II body with the 28-400 and a 14-30. I could probably leave the 14-30 at home most times but every now and then it's nice to have.
I absolutely agree. Don't go on a trip of a lifetime with only one body. Besides acting as a backup, a second body can carry another lens. When you're around salt, sand and dust, you want to minimize lens changes.
On my last trip to the Galapagos, I offloaded every memory card after each outing and had at least two copies on separate hard drives before formatting the cards. My cards had enough capacity to hold all of the images from an outing, so I never had to swap cards in the field, which is a perfect time to lose or mix up cards.
So take two bodies and have a failsafe backup strategy.
the 28-400 is on sale now for $1150 and the weight of this lens is similar to the dx combo of 16-50 and 50-250 so I am leaning towards the one lens solution. The 50 mk 2 body is however much lighter than my 6 mk 3. The Tamron 300 might work but I am afraid the reach is not enough
The 28-400 is definitely a great option.
A more budget option would probably be the Tamron 18-300mm paired with the Z50ii which gets you 450mm FF equivalent field of view.
I brought it to a zoo with my Z fc just as a one camera one lens combo and it's not bad. I am sure the Z50ii will get even better AF on the lens. Quality will definitely not be able to compete with probably the 100-400 and even the 28-400. If you image quality is priority then probably the 28-400 or 100-400. But just throwing a cheaper option if you are interested.
A more budget option would probably be the Tamron 18-300mm paired with the Z50ii which gets you 450mm FF equivalent field of view.
I brought it to a zoo with my Z fc just as a one camera one lens combo and it's not bad. I am sure the Z50ii will get even better AF on the lens. Quality will definitely not be able to compete with probably the 100-400 and even the 28-400. If you image quality is priority then probably the 28-400 or 100-400. But just throwing a cheaper option if you are interested.
+1 for the Tamron 17-70mm f2.8. It kept me in Fuji for another year before the Zf came out and I really wanted better than 2018 mid-pack autofocus performance. (I'm not disparaging my trusty X-H1 here, I still have it because it's a lovely camera to shoot). So I could just buy the Fuji to Z AF adapter and use it on a crop Z body. I could see doing that on a Zfc if I had money to burn.
I own both alternatives that you mention: a Z50ii with the Z DX AF 50-250mm f/4.5-6.3 VR and a Z6iii with the Z FX AF 28-400mm f/4-8 VR. The Z6iii rig weighs about 1 pound more than the Z50ii rig. With either body, I'd opt for the Z FX AF 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens since it would provide wider focal length coverage.
The caveat is whether you'd get results that you can accept in low light situations with that lens. A fast prime (APS-C or full frame) from Viltrox, for example, could be an inexpensive solution for that circumstance.
As for those who advise taking a second Z body, that's a matter of personal finance.
sirhawkeye64
Veteran Member
The Z6 III (or even a Z5 II) would work with the 24-120. My travel kit is the z8 + 24-120 (although the Z8 is likely overkill for travel but I do like having the extra pixels for cropping if i Have to). But really any of the Expeed 7 FF bodies would work. I wouldn't necessarily recommend the Z II's or the original Z5 unless budget was a concern, even though they are capable for travel, the AF experience may be a bit disappointing on a number of levels.
If you're going to Africa, I would recommend the 180-600. Pairs nicely with the 24-120 and you only have a 60mm gap, which is not a huge deal. The Z 100-400 might come up short in some cases (from what people have told me who have done African safaris). And if you're on a 24MP sensor, having to crop in on your shot might be an issue. If you were using a 45MP sensor camera then you can maybe get away with a 100-400 on something like a Z8 or Z9, but I wouldn't on a 24MP camera. One other option would be to get the 28-400 and either buy or rent a 180-600. That way most of your FLs are covered with a good amount of overlap in just two lenses.
If I was to do an African safari in the next 5 years my plan for a kit would probably be my Zf and Z8, my 24-120, a 100-400 or 70-200, and a 180-600 just to make sure all of my bases are covered from 24mm to 600mm with two bodies (so I can mount a lens on each body). If I had to cut it down for weight reasons, then I'd probably forgoe the middle-range and just go with a 24-120 and 180-600 and make it work.
--
* PLEASE NOTE: I generally unsubscribe from forums/comments after a period of time has passed, so if I do not respond, that is likely the reason. *
Last edited:
Would anyone just add a Tamron 70-300 for $500? Would than carry both the 24-120 with my 6 Mk3. More unwieldy than just one lens but less expensive than the 28-400 albeit with less reach.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum