Travel Lens - 24-70 mm f/2.8 on APS-C

[TheBigE]

So this thread got me to thinking a bit (never a good thing) and I decided to take the opportunity to rent a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for my next trip to Northern Italy around Lake Como. I will use this on my D7200.

My normal lens is a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 and I carry a 70-300mm as well. I have always looked at the 24-70mm lens but never ordered one as I was concerned about the FOV at 24mm. I have used a 35mm prime before and always feel a bit limited on composition at this focal length.

For my 16-85mm, I would say a fair number of my photos are in the 16-24mm range.

Is anyone shooting this focal length on a APS-C Sensor? Do you find any limitations or it is just using the lens and gaining experience?

I am looking forward to trying this lens out and seeing how it performs.

[Shadowman]

Hi Erik,

I purchased the lens for use on FF but have used it on DX camera. The only limitation on either camera is the weight of the lens and it is big; nearly the same length and a bit heavier than my 70-300mm. So I don't really have an issue with the lens but it's use as a handheld, in a tight spot scenario might limit its appeal for some. I recently took it and the 70-300 on a walk in the park and shot this handheld but on the FF camera. If you purchase a nice sling for the setup (camera and lens) you might find the combo most agreeable. Also, suggest taking a monopod if a tripod is out of the question, you'll get some good landscapes from that region. Enjoy.

Reconstruction

[TheBigE]

Hi Erik,

I purchased the lens for use on FF but have used it on DX camera. The only limitation on either camera is the weight of the lens and it is big; nearly the same length and a bit heavier than my 70-300mm. So I don't really have an issue with the lens but it's use as a handheld, in a tight spot scenario might limit its appeal for some. I recently took it and the 70-300 on a walk in the park and shot this handheld but on the FF camera. If you purchase a nice sling for the setup (camera and lens) you might find the combo most agreeable. Also, suggest taking a monopod if a tripod is out of the question, you'll get some good landscapes from that region. Enjoy.

Reconstruction

Thanks John - I will be taking a Tripod as well. I am really looking forward to the trip - we have rented an AirBnB on the lake and it will be a bit of a relaxing vacation with family where i will have the opportunity for some photography.

I use a sling - both Black Rapid and Peak Design so from a weight standpoint I hope that works.

[DanK]

Unless you are going to shoot interiors or other low-light scenes, I don't see that this gains you anything. The lenses you already have cover that focal length range, and you have already determined that many of the photos you take with a shorter zoom are in a focal length range that the 24-70 doesn't cover. What do you hope to gain by adding or switching to this lens?

[Saorsa]

You might consider the DX Nikkor 10-24 or 12-24 as a rental for better Wide Angle perfomance on a DX body.

[TheBigE]

Unless you are going to shoot interiors or other low-light scenes, I don't see that this gains you anything. The lenses you already have cover that focal length range, and you have already determined that many of the photos you take with a shorter zoom are in a focal length range that the 24-70 doesn't cover. What do you hope to gain by adding or switching to this lens?

Dan that is the questions I have been asking myself and really on paper I am not seeing much of a gain by going with this lens, hence the reason for me it was not worth searching to buy a lens. For a short long weekend trip to Italy it seems to be a good chance to give it a try and see if there is something I am missing from my "on paper" analysis

It is part of the Trinity of Lenses and everyone speaks of its sharpness, so I figured why not give it a go....I think it will be interesting to see how it works given my current kit/structure...

[TheBigE]

You might consider the DX Nikkor 10-24 or 12-24 as a rental for better Wide Angle perfomance on a DX body.

Thanks Brian - I do have a 10-24 that I will bring along with me for the UWA performance.

[Saorsa]

In that case, if you might want to try out the 16-80 f2.8-4.0 as a potential replacement for your 16-85 but I'm not sure the added aperture would be worth the cost.

[Manfred M]

Erik - I bought that lens when I was shooting crop, but was planning to step up to FF. It quickly became my favourite lens on the crop sensor camera and it continues to be my most used lens on the FF.

While it is relatively large and heavy, the weight gives you a constant aperture across the full focal range and is a fast zoom, so for low light photography, it does have its advantages. The downside is the limited zoom range, so I do a fair bit of changing lenses (usually I carry the 70-200mm lens with me as well).

[TheBigE]

Erik - I bought that lens when I was shooting crop, but was planning to step up to FF. It quickly became my favourite lens on the crop sensor camera and it continues to be my most used lens on the FF.

While it is relatively large and heavy, the weight gives you a constant aperture across the full focal range and is a fast zoom, so for low light photography, it does have its advantages. The downside is the limited zoom range, so I do a fair bit of changing lenses (usually I carry the 70-200mm lens with me as well).

Manfred - Thanks. This was also sort of my mindset - this lens would be a good solid purchase in the future and prepare for going FF. If I made a decision to go that route. It may not be for me, but I really wanted to give it a try and see how it fits in my normal routine.

Incidentally I have tentatively reserved at 70-200 f/2.8 for my trip this summer through Iceland, Norway and UK. Given the cost of these lenses I really feel that testing driving them a bit to see how the "fit" into my photography is a good idea.

[Manfred M]

Eric - those two lenses (and both Canon and Sony have equivalents - same focal length range and maximum aperture) are Nikons two best selling pro lenses for a very good reason. They are optically excellent and cover the ranges most shot by commercial portrait and wedding photographers (by far the largest target demographic for both companies). They are overkill for landscape photographers as these folks rarely shoot at those wide apertures, so less expensive, slower lenses (as well as being lighter and less expensive) make sense for the folks that live to shoot in the f/8 to f/11 aperture range.

[george013]

Manfred - Thanks. This was also sort of my mindset - this lens would be a good solid purchase in the future and prepare for going FF. If I made a decision to go that route. It may not be for me, but I really wanted to give it a try and see how it fits in my normal routine.

Incidentally I have tentatively reserved at 70-200 f/2.8 for my trip this summer through Iceland, Norway and UK. Given the cost of these lenses I really feel that testing driving them a bit to see how the "fit" into my photography is a good idea.

You could look for the predecessor of this lens: the 28-70 2.8. Some people say it's better as the 24-7- 2.8. Though not very cheap, less as the 24-70. And heavy.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/809...7028fx?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456..._28_ff?start=1

Like Manfred it's the standard lens on my camera.

A same story for the af-s 80-200 2.8 vs the 70-200 2.8. Except the 80-200 misses the VR.

The 28-70 and the 80-200 are sold for about €700.00.

George

[rpcrowe]

I replaced the original 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on my Canon crop bodies with the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lens. I carried a 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ATX, the 24-70L Canon and an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. That was a decent combination but it was rather heavy. The 24-70mm F/2.8 is nicknamed "the brick" for very good reasons...

I did not like using the 24-70mm lens alone because, although I am not a great wide angle fan, 24mm (38.4mm equivalent on my 1.6x crop cameras) was just not wide enough. The 12-24mm filled my needs for a wider lens in combination with the 24-70L...

I had the opportunity to sell the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens before the Mark-2 version was introduced (and therefore still got a good price for that lens). I replaced the 24-70mm f/2.8L, and much of my work done with the 12-24mm Tokina, with the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens.

The 17mm side is wide enough for a substantial majority of my shooting but, I have retained the 12-24mm Tokina for times when a wide focal length is absolutely essential. The 55mm long end is not quite as long as I would like (I'd prefer 70mm) but, I usually carry a pair of crop cameras with the the 17-55mm and 70-200mm lenses mounted. That, IMO, is a great combination.

I purchased the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens because I did not want to carry the weight of the f/2.8L models. I can carry a pair of cameras and my 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens at just about the same weight as carrying a single camera along with the 17-55mm and a 70-200mm f/2.8 (series) lens. I have recently added a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens to my telephoto arsenal. That lens weighs about the same as a 70-200mm f/2.8L. While I love this lens for specific shoots, I would not want to carry around that weight on a full day of walk-around shooting.

With my two lens and two camera combination, I have a constant aperture f/2.8 mid-range zoom lens with excellent image quality and fast and accurate auto-focus. The IS assistance of the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens allows me a bit of freedom. I am not restricted to very bright areas as I was with the non-IS version of this lens...

I am often asked if I miss the 55-70mm gap between these two lenses. The answer is no! Because I carry a pair of cameras and have the 70-200mm lens ready to shoot. However, if I were carrying a single camera, I think that the 55-70mm gap might be awkward.

[William W]

Long time since I used Nikon, hence I cannot comment to the specific (Nikon) lens; but (referring to the Focal Lengths and the Zoom's Compass) a 24 to 70 (or 24 to 105) Zoom on APS-C has never floated my boat, (simply because of the lack of the wider FoV which you've mentioned).

However there is a fellow in England with whom I correspond and he uses (Canon) APS-C kit and pairs the EF24 to 70/2.8L MkII with the EF-S-10-22mm F/3.5~4.5 USM. My view is, that is a good pairing when carrying two cameras, but when carrying one camera the change over of lenses at 22~24mm, (dependent upon the Subject Matter and type of Photography) can be a real pain.

***

Anyway the major reason why I chose comment, is this:

I am looking forward to trying this lens out and seeing how it performs.

be aware that one cannot really test the lens's performance, mainly because you will only be seeing the centre area of the lens: however I am quite sure it is a very good lens in any case.

***

As a side note, I think that one of the 'best' pairings of two zooms as a "two zoom kit" for an APS-C Camera is a suitable high quality, Fast (F/2.8) 17 to 50~55 (eg for Canon the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM) and the Tokina AF 50-135mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX.

Though the Tokina does not have "stabilization" is a very nice lens for APS-C.

WW

[DanK]

Manfred beat me to it:

They are overkill for landscape photographers as these folks rarely shoot at those wide apertures, so less expensive, slower lenses (as well as being lighter and less expensive) make sense for the folks that live to shoot in the f/8 to f/11 aperture range.

IMHO, the only time it makes sense to buy a long, fast, fixed-aperture lens is when you need a fast, fixed-aperture lens. Long fast fixed aperture lenses are both expensive and heavy. Years ago, I ignored the constant chatter about how the "best" canon 70-200 is the f/2.8 and instead bought the f/4.0 IS. Roughly half the cost and half the weight. In the 4 or 5 years I have owned it, the number of times I have regretted not buying the f/2.8 is, if my memory isn't failing me, zero. I certainly don't need the narrower DOF, and I would rather occasionally up the ISO by a stop (I have very, very rarely had to do that) than carry around the extra weight all the time. If I did a lot of ambient-light events, it would be another matter, but I don't. I now own the Canon 100-400, which is not fixed-aperture or fast but is slightly heavier than the 70-200 f/2.8 because of the focal length, and it is simply unpleasant to have to haul around the extra weight.

[Saorsa]

I'm about to take off on a month long opportunity to cruise between Vancouver and Glacier Bay as an onboard naturalist. Since I will be taking care of guests and need more presentable clothes, I'm not taking my big gear but the list is still large.

Nikon D750 and 7100 (AKA the teleconverter)
DX 10.5 fisheye because it's small and fun
FX 18-35mm f3.5-4.5
FX 24-120mm f4
FX 70-200mm f4
FX 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor
FX 85mm f1.8 for interior entertainment shots.
TC-14E II which will get me to 420mm effectively with the 70-200mm on the D7100
SB-400mm flash

Except for the D7100 body all of this fits into a Manfrotto Sling bag.

Leaving behind:
FX 70-200mm f2.8
FX 200-500mm f5.6
All the other DX and Nikon 1 stuff.

[rpcrowe]

Just an after-thought regarding the 55-70mm gap between the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. When I carry two cameras I don't mind the gap. In fact, I never even notice it. However, if I were shooting with a single body and switching lenses, I would prefer to have lenses which overlap focal lengths a bit, such as the 12-24mm and the 17-55mm. The 17-24mm overlap means that I don't need to switch lenses as frequently. The extra 5mm (12-17mm) that I get between the 17-55mm and the 12-24mm lenses is really quite a range...

Speaking about light weight travel gear...

I am traveling to South Carolina next month and I am bringing a dog in a carrier. That means that I want to only have one carry-on bag for the trip with no checked aboard luggage. I will be gone 4-5 Days so I will carry minimal clothing but will still take 2-cameras + 2-lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS).

I won't be able to take my standard travel tripod but will bring my tiny table top tripod to support the camera/lens.



I have owned this German-made Culliman tripod for over twenty-years. I don't normally extend the center column to this degree but, I did this as a test. It works OK, especially with the IS of my lens turned on.



Plans have changed. Since I am carrying the puppy aboard in a carrier, that counts as my one allowed carry-on bag. I can bring a small pesonal bag (I use my camera case) and will need to send my clothing through as checked baggage. I am therefore able to bring my standard travel tripod (Slik 330D Pro with an after-market lighter ball head and a shorter optional center column. These upgrades reduce the tripod/head weight to right at 2-pounds (under 1-kilogram).