Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: 60HzShuffle on December 25, 2014, 09:57:15 am
-
I have sold off my DX gear now and only have a Nikon 16-35mm and 50mm right now (for my Nikon D810). I am trying to determine the best way to go. Seems like I should get a 24-70mm, 70-200mm and perhaps a longer lens at some point. The Sigma 150-600mm is on my radar. Here are some things I am looking at and would like to get opinions from board members. Keep in mind, I will be carrying this stuff on a motorcycle and am interested in landscapes and wildlife (if I take a hike off the bike). Weight is not a huge deal but space is :)
- For the 24-70mm, the Tamron 24-70mm with VC seems to make more sense than the Nikon equivalent that does not have VR. I am also considering a Sigma 24-105mm for the flexibility
- For the 70-200mm, I am torn. If I was not going to use a teleconverter then the Tamron seems to rate sharper and is much cheaper. If I get the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII, I can use a teleconverter. When would the use of a teleconverter make sense over getting the Sigma 150-600mm? I can see that you are carrying less weight, but if I think I am taking wildlife photos then I would need longer than the 1.7 x 200mm.
-
Motorcycle travel seems like the natural place for the f/4 zooms. The 24-120/4 and the 70-200/4 are excellent lenses and roughly half the size/weight/price of their f/2.8 counterparts. Then maybe add one of the very long zooms to get the 600mm reach.
-
I have sold off my DX gear now and only have a Nikon 16-35mm and 50mm right now (for my Nikon D810). I am trying to determine the best way to go. Seems like I should get a 24-70mm, 70-200mm and perhaps a longer lens at some point. The Sigma 150-600mm is on my radar. Here are some things I am looking at and would like to get opinions from board members. Keep in mind, I will be carrying this stuff on a motorcycle and am interested in landscapes and wildlife (if I take a hike off the bike). Weight is not a huge deal but space is :)
- For the 24-70mm, the Tamron 24-70mm with VC seems to make more sense than the Nikon equivalent that does not have VR. I am also considering a Sigma 24-105mm for the flexibility
- For the 70-200mm, I am torn. If I was not going to use a teleconverter then the Tamron seems to rate sharper and is much cheaper. If I get the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII, I can use a teleconverter. When would the use of a teleconverter make sense over getting the Sigma 150-600mm? I can see that you are carrying less weight, but if I think I am taking wildlife photos then I would need longer than the 1.7 x 200mm.
I also would urge you to consider the 24-120mm f/4 VR and the 70-200mm f/4 as options depending on your shooting style and types. I own both the 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2,8s and they are great lenses. The 70-200 is usually on a monopod or tripod so VR isn't an issue. The 24-85mm G VR is also a pretty great lens for less money.
Having moved recently from DX to FX I can assure that the 2 things that will mess with you is lack of reach and less DoF. The 24-70mm is great, but has much less telephoto end than you might have come to expect from DX lenses on DX bodies.
-
I've got a minty 70-200 f/4 for sale.
-
Hello,
Some months ago I wanted to replace my Nikon 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5G ED VR cause I wanted a walk around lens with a longer reach even though it is a very good lens. So I tested the Sigma 24-105mm F/4 Art lens.
This lens was terrible even at F8.0-11.0 the corners off the Sigma where soft at all focal lengths.
So I purchase the Nikon 24-120mm F4.0 G lens and I am very pleased with this lens.
Also the Nikon 24-120mm lens is 215 grams lighter and it takes a 77mm filter compared to 82mm on the Sigma 24-105mm lens.
Cheers
Simon
-
Thanks for all of the feedback, I would not have had the 24-120 on my radar screen, also good to hear feedback on the Sigma. Glad I asked the question :)
-
Thanks for all of the feedback, I would not have had the 24-120 on my radar screen, also good to hear feedback on the Sigma. Glad I asked the question :)
I just want to follow up and point out that you will see tons of 24-70mm f/2.8 or 24-120 f/4 threads all over. It really isn't an either or situation. They both have appropriate uses and in an ideal world one would own both! The 24-70mm is a faster focuser and sharper while the 24-120mm has much more versatility. Take the 24-70mm when you're carrying the 70-200mm f/2.8 as the 70-200mm is much better than the 24-120mm from 70mm. Take the 24-120mm when you are going walk about with just one lens! The latest 24-85 G is very good while both the AF-D versions were crap! Same with the 24-120mm. Make sure you don't anything but the latest G models of these two lenses.