Best travel lens for D800

ShawWellPete

ShawWellPete

Messages
3,699
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a good collection of 2.8 zoom lenses and a few fast primes but am considering getting a single walk about lens for when I want to travel light.

For full frame I guess it comes down to either the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 or the 24-120 F4.

Ken Rockwell seems to much prefer the versatility of the 28-300, has anybody used both lenses and have a view on which is better.

Or is there anything else I should consider in the £500ish second hand price level.
 
I have the 18-300 on my D5100, and my friend always has the 28-300 on his D700...after using them both I am definitely sold on superzooms, doesn't feel like a compromise at all. Just pop a 35 1.8 in the bag for really low light and you're done.
 
I have alternative proposal. Ignore these all-in-one "travel" lenses. They are low-quality, still bulky and take average pictures at best.

My travel lens for my D700 is small Nikon 35/2D prime. I rarely take that out when on travel - it can take great pictures of landscape, street-photos, group photos, full-body portraits, reportage, cityscapes, action shots. Its is quite versatile. I think any lens from 24mm to 80mm range can be easily replaced by 35mm lens, your legs and a bit of cropping after the fact.

In addition to that I always take my ultra wide-angle lens (14mm/2.8 prime) and telephoto lens - Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D (I sometimes use it with 1.4 TC for extra range). This is a light, affordable and a versatile setup that covers almost all of my travel photography needs and still fits nicely in a small backpack.

I have used several consumer and pro-level lenses before, incl. 24-70/2.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 18-70/3.5-4.5, 17-55/2.8, 18-200/3.5-5.6G, 70-200/2.8, 70-300 VR, etc. My photography results significantly improved once I eliminated mid-range zooms from my kit.
 
I would agree that the Nikon 35 f2 is a great little lens but my 24-120 f4 is more versatile walkabout lens and is certainly not limited to "average pictures", it's a great little zoom.
 
How often do you think you'll zoom to 300mm when traveling? I would tend to ignore most of what Ken Rockwell says. He talks an awful load of BS at the best of times.

A 24-120 f/4 sounds perfect if you're only taking the one.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
I have the 18-300 on my D5100, and my friend always has the 28-300 on his D700...after using them both I am definitely sold on superzooms, doesn't feel like a compromise at all. Just pop a 35 1.8 in the bag for really low light and you're done.
Click to expand...

Good to know, thank you


mpe said:
I have alternative proposal. Ignore these all-in-one "travel" lenses. They are low-quality, still bulky and take average pictures at best.

My travel lens for my D700 is small Nikon 35/2D prime. I rarely take that out when on travel - it can take great pictures of landscape, street-photos, group photos, full-body portraits, reportage, cityscapes, action shots. Its is quite versatile. I think any lens from 24mm to 80mm range can be easily replaced by 35mm lens, your legs and a bit of cropping after the fact.

In addition to that I always take my ultra wide-angle lens (14mm/2.8 prime) and telephoto lens - Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D (I sometimes use it with 1.4 TC for extra range). This is a light, affordable and a versatile setup that covers almost all of my travel photography needs and still fits nicely in a small backpack.

I have used several consumer and pro-level lenses before, incl. 24-70/2.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 18-70/3.5-4.5, 17-55/2.8, 18-200/3.5-5.6G, 70-200/2.8, 70-300 VR, etc. My photography results significantly improved once I eliminated mid-range zooms from my kit.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, I regularly go out with nothing but the 50mm 1.4, I just want a more flexible alternative that involves no changes of lenses.


gramps said:
I would agree that the Nikon 35 f2 is a great little lens but my 24-120 f4 is more versatile walkabout lens and is certainly not limited to "average pictures", it's a great little zoom.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gramps. Have to tried the 28-300? how does the 24-120 compare?

Cagey75 said:
How often do you think you'll zoom to 300mm when traveling? I would tend to ignore most of what Ken Rockwell says. He talks an awful load of BS at the best of times.

A 24-120 f/4 sounds perfect if you're only taking the one.
Click to expand...

Good point but if he is correct, the 28-300 is not much slower, cheaper, similarly sharp, similar size and similar lens distortion. I get your point about Uncle Ken and BS, so am interested if anybody has hands on experience with both.
 
Cagey75 said:
How often do you think you'll zoom to 300mm when traveling? I would tend to ignore most of what Ken Rockwell says. He talks an awful load of BS at the best of times.

A 24-120 f/4 sounds perfect if you're only taking the one.
Click to expand...


Agreed. The 28-300 is too compromised, and the D800 will make mincemeat of it. The 24-120 is actually not a bed lens full stop, not a compromise like the 28-300.. which is pretty woeful.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Thanks Gramps. Have to tried the 28-300? how does the 24-120 compare?
Click to expand...

I haven't I'm afraid Pete, I had the same dilemma as you, considering which of the two ... in the end I felt that the reviews gave the 24-120 f4 the edge probably because it wasn't trying to cover such a large range - I don't feel I've missed anything TBH.
 
mpe said:
Ignore these all-in-one "travel" lenses. They are low-quality, still bulky and take average pictures at best.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, it was the photographer that took the pictures, not the lens!

I go for a photography setup that complements my travel, rather than dominates it. DSLR + Superzoom and a small prime, or the RX100 if I'm travelling light. If you can't take good pictures with that setup then your kit isn't the problem.
 
I had an 18-200 on my D300 and it was fine but always a compromise so when I moved up to a D700 I hired a 28-300 for a couple of trips away. Now I don't know whether I had just been spoilt by using primes but the lens left a lot to be desired.

If you really think you might want one, hire one from Lensesforhire and give it a go but I for one wouldn't buy one. I can't compare it to the 24-120 as I've never used one.
 
For sheer versatility I'd go 28-300. It's never going to rival a pro zoom or primes, but the convenience factor for lighter travel means it would get the nod.
 
I never understood why are these 18-xxx or 28-300 superzooms called travel lenses. In fact they are very poor for travelling. All they provide is zoom convenience in exchange for picture quality, build quality and bulk.

My take on great travel lens is:

- I want to take great pictures, even at dusk, or pictures of people or landscapes. That means I want a fast standard lens. I would get 28 or 35mm prime (depending on crop factor) accompanied by a light telephoto zoom (something like 70-300VR) in my backpack. That should serve vast majority of my shooting needs. These two lenses together are lighter that 18-300 superzoom and yet provide significantly better picture quality.

- I want to travel light. 28-300 or 18-300 is approx. 830g and extends to 120cm. I wouldn't be happy to have something like that hanging on my neck for a day. And if I would tolerate that, I would rather have my metal professional 24-70/2.8G that weights 900g which is not that far from 830g of 18-300 zoom.
 
Last edited:
A D700 + 28-300mm weighs in at a hefty 1.875kg, it's just not an all day walkabout combination in my book, that's not really travelling light.
 
It really depends where you are and what you're doing. Like I said, My D5100 + 18-300 does the job for 95% of scenarios. I would rather not carry an extra lens and have to change it (may be more or less of an issue depending on the environment you are travelling in).

I don't see the value in a DSLR + prime for travelling because my RX100 is just as capable as that combo at a fraction of the size and weight.
 
mid_gen said:
I don't see the value in a DSLR + prime for travelling because my RX100 is just as capable as that combo at a fraction of the size and weight.
Click to expand...

Depends what your taking pics of I spose and what the intended output is, a D800 with a prime is going to give you more resolution, DOF control(with the AF to use it effectively) and low light ability.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Agreed. The 28-300 is too compromised, and the D800 will make mincemeat of it. The 24-120 is actually not a bed lens full stop, not a compromise like the 28-300.. which is pretty woeful.
Click to expand...

Hi David, it sounds like you have actually tried both lenses, can you elaborate in which way the 24-120 is not a bad lens and the 28-300 is woeful?


I appreciate the other comments about what constitutes a good travel lens and what doesn't. I agree with a lot of them which is why I have not bought one of these in the past.

I am not looking, necessarily, for a light weight option, I have a GF-1 and a 17mm pancake lens if I need really light weight.

I would like to try a superzoom for myself, however, and am just trying to decide which the best one for a D800 would be.
 
ShawWellPete said:
Hi David, it sounds like you have actually tried both lenses, can you elaborate in which way the 24-120 is not a bad lens and the 28-300 is woeful?
Click to expand...

Yep.. we have pretty much most Nikkor lenses at work and I've played with most of them over the years. I found the barrel distortion on the 28-300 so bad at the wide end that upon correction you lose large amounts of the image.. so much so, you have to shoot everything loose or lose stuff.

Also, edge sharpness across the range (but far worse at the short end) is terrible wide open at teh wide end.. I mean borderline unusable on the D800. It gets better stopped down, especially at the long end, but it's still very soft.

The 24-120 is just demonstrably sharper and has much less distortion, although it' still barrels badly at the wide end. It's still compromised as you would imagine, but is in a different league to the 28-300.

Yes, you get less focal length at the long end, but you can shoot DX mode on a D800 and still get a 16MP image and the 120 becomes a 180... which ain't so bad.


These lenses on a crop sensor camera are probably acceptable, but a FF camera really shows them up... and a 36MP FF camera makes it worse still.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Yep.. we have pretty much most Nikkor lenses at work and I've played with most of them over the years. I found the barrel distortion on the 28-300 so bad at the wide end that upon correction you lose large amounts of the image.. so much so, you have to shoot everything loose or lose stuff.

Also, edge sharpness across the range (but far worse at the short end) is terrible wide open at teh wide end.. I mean borderline unusable on the D800. It gets better stopped down, especially at the long end, but it's still very soft.

The 24-120 is just demonstrably sharper and has much less distortion, although it' still barrels badly at the wide end. It's still compromised as you would imagine, but is in a different league to the 28-300.

Yes, you get less focal length at the long end, but you can shoot DX mode on a D800 and still get a 16MP image and the 120 becomes a 180... which ain't so bad.


These lenses on a crop sensor camera are probably acceptable, but a FF camera really shows them up... and a 36MP FF camera makes it worse still.
Click to expand...

Thanks - that is very helpful, certainly puts me off it somewhat but...

Laudrup said:
Andy Rouse liked it:

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/index.php?page_id=55
Click to expand...

From the Andy Rouse review

CONCLUSIONS - I didn’t expect much from the 28-300 to be honest, and it surprised me a lot. So much that I bought the loan one I had taken to Galapagos. It’s important to realise that when you use a lens like this it is for reasons of flexibility. Of course a much higher priced zoom or fixed focus lens will offer performance advantages and perhaps marginally better quality. To be honest though my eyes could not see it and the quality is fine for me my professional use. The second generation VR worked well and the autofocus was quick enough. My only negative was that the autofocus tended to hunt in very low light at the 300mm end of the range and it was not great at following birds in flight.

I think that for flexibility you cannot beat this lens. It’s a perfect lens for taking on that walk in the country or a day out with the camera, without the clutter of a bag. That is how I use it, when I don’t want to take a lot of gear with me and need to travel light. It’s always with me anyway, no matter where I go, the flexibility means that I never miss a shot.
Click to expand...


:shrug: :lol:
 
Last edited:
Ive got to say i personally think the 28-300 is a superb all rounder on FF just as the 18-200mm is on DX, i dont see where all this distortion and softness is coming from, unless youre ultra critical and shoot interiors and architecture for a living its an excellent 1 stop solution, its as sharp as anything ive used in centre frame, OK it softens a little in the corners but even the 14-24mm, and 16-35mm does that, its certainally not "very soft" in fact its good and better than a lot of the pro grade Nikons ive used and better in the corners that the 18-35mm, OK at 28mm it probably should be better than the ultra wides.

Im not a one lens kinda guy preferring to take 3-4 lens to cover all bases, but if i were on a budget this would be the one and only lens i would buy.

My copy is being now used "professionally" on a daily basis and its new owner earns a great living with it.
 
It was already mentioned above but would you not consider taking 2 lenses?

Something small and wide and a 70-300vr seems like a reasonably light weight set up with just as much flexability. Possibly less £'s as well.

The 70-300vr is surprisingly good, I still hanker after the one I used to own even though I now have a 70-200 vr2.
 
I have one and use it.

Is it as sharp as the following?

300 F4
70-200 F2.8
180 F2.8
85 F1.4
50 F1.4
35 F2

A resounding no, not at all. But sometimes I just cannot be bothered taking that lot so I take the 28-300 and accept that it is a jack of all trades.

Edit to add, I don`t have a D800, so the above is based on using a 300 and 700.
 
Last edited:
mid_gen said:
I said, My D5100 + 18-300 does the job for 95% of scenarios.
Click to expand...

Maybe yours. It would certainly not cover 95% of mine. The reason I am using £2000+ DSLR is to provide depth-of-field isolation of my subjects, smooth bookeh and snappy speed. On tele-lens I want reach and aperture fast enough to stop the motion and to provide fast AF. On wide end I want ultra wide-angle to provide unique perspective of my subjects. On moderate focal lengths, I want great sharpness across the field, good contrast and minimum distortion. None of these can be provided by super-zoom lenses.

The only type of shots that would cover it for me is ordinary tourist-quality pictures at good daylight. It is true you can sometimes take a great picture using a superzoom lens. However, if you are lucky you can take dream picture even with a cellphone. The same performance you can easily achieved by a decent ultrazoom compact camera like coolpix s9300 for £360. You don't need to spent £2600 for D800 and 28-300 if 95% of your needs is served by 28-xxx superzoom lens.
 
mpe said:
You don't need to spent £2600 for D800 and 28-300 if 95% of your needs is served by 28-xxx superzoom lens.
Click to expand...
You do need to spend money on the D800 if you want the best dynamic range and 36pm pixel count and if then funds are limited the 28-300mm might just be your only choice if you want/need to cover 28-300mm
 
You have to consider that this 28-300 will be on a D800.. which will just show it no mercy. I used it on a D800 as well, and I can promise you... the 24-120 is a MUCH better lens.

You'd be much better off taking a DX camera with you if you want to use the 28-300 as it's not half bad on a DX camera. It's at the edges on FF that it all falls apart.

If you insist on using a D800, for the love of god, use the 24-120mm f/4G ED VR... it's soooo much better as an all rounder. If you need the extra reach, switch the D800 into DX mode, and you're nearly 200mm effective.
 
Each to their own, I think the 18-300 is an excellent travel companion on an APS-C DSLR...but then, I am enjoying the images I capture rather than peering at the corners at 100% zoom.....and I am aware that a D800 will show up the limitations of a lens ruthlessly.

I really liked the 24-105L on my 5D2, great walkaround, and by all accounts I gather the 24-120 is better....but I want the extra reach when I'm travelling around, I frequently use both ends of the zoom range of my 18-300.

Anyone saying that a 1500GBP+ SLR/Lens combo is only capable of 'tourist quality' snaps is the worst kind of gear snob to be frank.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
YIt's at the edges on FF that it all falls apart.
Click to expand...
Then your copy should have been sent back, honestly David the copy i owned up until 2 weeks ago was good in the corners at every focal lenght and aperture, not 14-24mm good, but good enough that it would have never have caused me to pixel peep, then again ive also owned a duff 14-24mm and 70-200 as well.
 
This is just turning into another thread where peoples acceptance of quality differs with no conclusion isn't it?

Some people find the 28-300 good enough for their needs while other don't, who is right?
I tend to be satisfied with a kit lens for my needs but I can fully understand that people who have paid out for a D800 would want lenses to match it.

Travelling light with a D800 and lenses to match requirements may not actually be possible of course...
 
ernesto said:
This is just turning into another thread where peoples acceptance of quality differs with no conclusion isn't it?
Click to expand...
Youre right, although there are odd occasions where variances between lenses need to be considered
ernesto said:
Some people find the 28-300 good enough for their needs while other don't, who is right?
Click to expand...
No ones right or wrong, people should just go with what works for them, i currently have no need for a one lens solution but for my summer holidays ill be walking the southwest coastal path so i will be buying the 28-300mm again
ernesto said:
Travelling light with a D800 and lenses to match requirements may not actually be possible of course...
Click to expand...
The 28-300mm will always be a compromise but not a bad one, as Fracster says its not as good as primes or some zooms :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread and loads of useful information and personal preference seems the biggest factor.
Depending on what type of travel it is I like to have at least another lens just in case it does accidentally get damaged :(
 
Gary Coyle said:
Then your copy should have been sent back,
Click to expand...


It wasn't mine, or I would have. It could have been faulty, of course.. but then again lens tests seem to give it a bit of a panning as well. It wasn't just edge sharpness either that made me hate it... it was the huge amount of barrelling at the wide end. You just couldn't compose in camera with a 100% finder with it as when you corrected it in lightroom, you lost about 5% of the image it was that bad.
 
There has been some great advice on thus thread, thank you. I think what I'll do is keep an eye out for both lenses second hand and pick up either or both them and see what I think. I suppose that is one of the benefits of this forum that you can buy and sell second hand with little marginal cost.
 
Where are you based Pete?

You can borrow mine if your anywhere near east Lancs. Nothing better than trying one for yourself.
 
Forget quality :D

If it's a "walkabout lens" (and I still struggle with that concept...) then these will be for Flickr/FB/11X14 max, right? A coke bottle would do.

But whatever you do, get a prime. If you walk about with a zoom you'll slowly start to believe that the "best" picture is from where you are with some zoom setting or other. And that's very unlikely to be true.

Get whatever prime you want (though personally I'd stay away from 50mm as it's dull). Then every shot you'll need to work for the best position.

I saw a STUNNING portfolio fo a guy who travelled India with only a fisheye. Some of the most creative travel stuff I've seen.
 
Plenty (probably most) of my holiday photos are taken where footzoom simply is not an option - there tends to be either the sea or cliffs behind or in front of me or, failing the sea being a barrier, it'll probably be a sheer drop! Yes, I could have a bagful of assorted primes but my 24-70 f/2.8 is far more convenient and in the real world, more than adequate for A3 prints. There are times when even that isn't enough though, so I'll go either wider or longer depending on my needs and if there's a specific need for one of the 3 primes I have in the bag, I'll use it!

At one time and for one holiday, I tried travelling a bit lighter and took a Tamron "super"zoom - IIRC, a 28-300. Not sure what's supposed to be so super about it... softer than poo, more distorted than a politician's idea of the truth and slower than my Royal Enfield! Having said that, it did cover all the bases (apart from ultra wide) that I wanted it to and was OK (just) for prints up to 5x7.5. Luckily, all I needed that holiday were snaps.

Having failed to use the DSLR kit on last year's holiday, I'm not allowed to take it this year (my rule has always been that if a piece of kit isn't used on a trip, it stays at home on the naughty shelf for the next trip!) so I've bought myself a Fuji HS30 bridge with its 24-720mm lens and many megapixel sensor. Yes, it has its limitations but since we're not going anywhere new, I'm confident that I won't miss the DSLR - if I do, there's always next year or possibly September for a reshoot. I'll also be taking a pair of non-interchangeable lens X series Fujis for portability - the XF-1 is so pocketable, it'll be a constant companion and the X-10 will allow me to use a pol should I feel the need as well as a waterproof compact for snorkelling (luckily, despite me staying dry last year, I used the D10 for general snaps - not much but I did use it so am allowed to take it!)

Will I miss the SLR kit? Probably! Will I miss the weight and bulk? No chuffing way!!! The weight I'm saving will be close to a gallon of EVOO (bought direct from the producer) not to mention the convenience and lack of backache...

If I had to take just one lens to use on my D700, it would be a 24-70, although I could possibly be tempted by a 24-120 f/4 (I wasn't overimpressed with my older 24-120 but the newer version is supposed to be superior).
 
Nod said:
If I had to take just one lens to use on my D700
Click to expand...

My choice for that purpose is the 28-105 f3.5 / f4.5, SH cost me £100, not sure how it would hold up on the D800, but peach of a lens on the D700
 
Looks like many people believe that the only option how to be flexible on travel is to have as many focal lengths as possible. That's why these bulky 18- or 28-xxx zooms are so popular despite of their limitations.

For me it is actually much more important to always have a reasonably fast aperture. For creative photography I would rather be focal-length limited than aperture limited. Fast aperture and being able to use the aperture I want without having to stop-down for performance gives me much more creative freedom than any superzoom.

I can easily replace almost any of focal lengths in 20-70mm range by just having a single 35mm prime. In most situations it is only a matter of few steps back and forth and playing with distance between camera, foreground and background and a bit of cropping in post processing. On superzoom you are happy to have largest aperture f5.6 and even that would should be probably stopped down to have acceptable contrast and sharpness. You can zoom in and out but can never really isolate your subject, shoot under low light, etc. That's very limiting.

Therefore if I wanted to take D800 on travel with the only one lens. I'd be a small fast 35mm prime. If allowed to take two, the other one would be a tele lens. The third lens would be ultra-wide. I'd never need a fourth lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top