Nikon "Travel Zoom" alternatives?

Which would you choose?

  • Total voters
    17
W44NNE

W44NNE

Messages
453
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I joined this forum a good while ago but I lost a bit of interest in my outdoor photography; until recently when I picked up a Nikon D600 :) I read all about the oil issues etc but found a great deal that swung my decision, and included the two year warranty. Plus if it has to go away for a few weeks, I'd manage... I hope!

Anyway, the camera came with the 24-85mm VR "kit lens". Upgrading from a canon EOS, this is a large jump, and sounded like the ideal travel combo; however I do find the lens a little soft. So I've been looking at the alternatives from Nikon...

- 24-70mm... Very pricey and not a huge zoom range, but apparently very sharp and I like the f2.8
- 24-120mm... Looks quite good in the reviews, however it seems to distort at wide angles and I'm trying to avoid having to post-edit lots of photos on returning from a holiday etc
- 28-300mm... I wasn't aware of this until speaking to a lady at Nikon UK today. I was enquiring about the cash back offer on the 24-70mm but she was incredibly helpful and told me she uses the 28-300mm for travel. It's not a lens I'd normally consider though as I do like to get as much in a shot as possible when we're in a town square etc. Plus it looks like it could just be a longer range version of the 24-85mm I currently own?

So I wondered if any members could give me their views on the above, BUT also help me with the minefield that seems to be OEM alternatives. I just want a lens that will produce sharp, colourful images so that less post processing is necessary. I'm already getting results that I'm happy with on the 24-85mm, but feel a better lens will make more use of the D600's capabilities.

I've seen brands such as Tamron, Sigma and Tokina mentioned, but wouldn't have a clue what's what unless I watch/read another load of reviews.

If there are any lenses that have a macro option this would also be useful for me too but not essential. I like to take pictures of my other hobby, watches, and post them on another forum I frequent. I've always used a zoom lens and been happy enough, however I may purchase a more suitable lens in the future.

Fast focussing would also be great as now and again, I like to photograph Motorsport events.

Budget... I'm prepared to spend what's necessary but if I can avoid going to mega money, this would be a huge help right now. For example, the 24-70's are £1250 new (plus £120 cash back right now via Nikon), however I think I may go second hand as they're more like £800 - £900 used.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Jan K. said:
I voted the 24-120, but I'm severely biased... :D

Compared here to the other lenses in your list (Mansurov): http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr/5


If you have the money, stick with Nikkors! (y)

But why not keep your current 24-85? I hear many good things about it...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I've been reading up this morning on comparisons and it does appear that the 24-85/24-120/28-300 all have very similar image quality in tests. The same sharpness and also the same slow focussing. The distortion is also just as bad with any of these so it looks like post processing would be necessary whichever I choose.

Therefore I think it makes no sense to sell my 24-85 as all I'll be doing is spending a lot of money for an extra few mm that the 24-120 would offer.

I'm now thinking I'll keep the 24-85 for my travels, but spend the extra money on...

- A prime of some kind for low light and when better quality is needed
- A larger zoom such as the 70-200 f2.8 for the occasions when I go to Motorsport events

Maybe this is the way to go?
 
I've voted for the Nikkor 24-120 VR as well. I upgraded to it from a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for the extra reach and the VR. Shooting on a D800 and not being a fan of super shallow DoF, I don't need the f/2.8 aperture, f/4 is enough for my needs.

TBH, I would stick with what you've got unless you NEED to change though, I voted how I would go! If you want that sort of focal range but have image stabilisation, there's a Tamron 24-70 VC f/2.8 which seems to do well in reviews.
 
I'd suggest stick with the 24-85 or get a Tamron 24-75 2.8 which is also popular.

Are you using a Picture Control setting on default? If you are after sharpness, make sure you have the sharpness setting on PC at min of 5 or 6 or use default and apply sharpness in post.

You can get a cheap 50mm F1.8G. On a D600 it should give a normal FOV as we see. You will loose the wide angle, but you can get some really nice pictures at wide apertures.

Another option is the Nikon 28mm F2.8G. As light goes down, you can swap your 24-85 with this one and carry on shooting landscapes at wide and low light.
 
I hired a 28-300mm from Lensesforhire last year and tbh I was less than impressed, it's big, heavy and the image quality is not great. i had an 18-200mm when I had a D80/90 and was always impressed with the overall quality, always a compromise when compared top primes but a good travel lens so I was hoping the 28-300 would be of a similar standard but it's not.

If you can manage it I'd suggest if you can borrow or hire your proposed choices and see whether any of them are a improvement over what you have already.
 
i have a 28-300 and it's perfect for travelling, only criticism is it is a heavy lens, I have no issues with the quality. compared to the Nikon 14-24 and 50mm f1.4 on my d800e
 
W44NNE said:
Thanks for the reply. I've been reading up this morning on comparisons and it does appear that the 24-85/24-120/28-300 all have very similar image quality in tests. The same sharpness and also the same slow focussing. The distortion is also just as bad with any of these so it looks like post processing would be necessary whichever I choose.

Therefore I think it makes no sense to sell my 24-85 as all I'll be doing is spending a lot of money for an extra few mm that the 24-120 would offer.

I'm now thinking I'll keep the 24-85 for my travels, but spend the extra money on...

- A prime of some kind for low light and when better quality is needed
- A larger zoom such as the 70-200 f2.8 for the occasions when I go to Motorsport events

Maybe this is the way to go?
Click to expand...

Stick with 24-85 and then get a 50mm f1.8G ;) for travel....
 
I bought a 28-300 for my trip to Thailand, I personally dont find it heavy at all (800g against, 24-70 900g, 14-24 1000g), and IQ is excellent, Im glad I bought it, no problems at all.

Phil
 
Last edited:
Last year on a cruise I used a Nikon 70-300mm and a 24-120mm lens which seemed to suit my D300. This year shortly going on a cruise again and seriously thinking about taking my 24-70 f2.8 and again the 70-300mm to go on my D800 instead. problem is the 24-70mm lens is non VR which could be a consideration for not taking
 
realspeed said:
Last year on a cruise I used a Nikon 70-300mm and a 24-120mm lens which seemed to suit my D300. This year shortly going on a cruise again and seriously thinking about taking my 24-70 f2.8 and again the 70-300mm to go on my D800 instead. problem is the 24-70mm lens is non VR which could be a consideration for not taking
Click to expand...
Wha? It may not have VR, but it doesn't really need it. It's 2.8, which IMO is better all round than any VR. and since it's short range, you only need 1/80th for sharp shooting. If you feel you need VR, then why not Get the tamron VC instead?
 
Thanks for the replies! I've been thinking about the 24-70 all day, and this would be the one of choice I reckon. However, when I then think of the weight, I wonder if it's ideal for travelling?

So the 24-85 I already have may be best for travelling, and I can put the money I would have spent into a couple of other lenses. Hmmm. It's not easy this lens choosing with limited funds is it?!
 
I am also trying to decide which lenses to take on holiday using my D600.
On my last trip I took an old non VR Nikkor 70-300 for long shots and a Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR.
The 16-35 was used about 90% of the time. It was excellent for interior shots and late evening stuff.
I was toying with buying a VR version of the 70-300 for my next trip. I think it would also
be a good partner for your 24-85. It is supposed to have better image quality than the 28-300. The new price is around £400.
 
One of the considerations for travel ( for me at least) is being discrete. Not sure the 34-70 fits that bill. Great lens that it is.
Also some of the lenses noted are at the long end for me. I tend to fit myself wanting to go wider, rather than closer. Then again, not sure my 16-35 F/4 fits the discrete bill either.
Thinking of taking my Tamron 28-70 F/2.8 to Paris shortly. Let's hope that works out, hence why I've voted "alternative brand"
 
how about 18-35 lens to match your 24-85 while traveling? they are both light weight and pretty share. there isn't really a need for fast zoom while traveling. d600 have pretty good low light ability any way that should help a lot while shooting at night. when I were traveling I took a epl with 14-42 kit lens and D600 with 50, 85 prime. I took the epl cause it is the only zoom I had. between them I had everything covered. but if I got the fund I would definitely get the 18-35 and 24-85 for day time. leave the 50 for nigh time low night shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top