Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lens strategy question  (Read 2106 times)

60HzShuffle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Lens strategy question
« 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.
Logged

Ken Bennett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1752
    • http://www.kenbennettphoto.com
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2014, 03:29:38 pm »

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.
Logged
Equipment: a camera and some lenses.

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2014, 03:36:29 pm »

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.
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3265
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2014, 06:31:31 pm »

I've got a minty 70-200 f/4 for sale.
Logged

HarperPhotos

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1309
    • http://www.harperphoto.com
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2014, 06:57:03 pm »

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

 
« Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 09:43:01 pm by HarperPhotos »
Logged
Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand

60HzShuffle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2014, 10:12:12 pm »

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 :)
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Lens strategy question
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2014, 12:52:17 pm »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up