NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: ravijain on November 26, 2015, 08:39:47
-
Hi,
Thank you all in advance. I am planning to go to Singapore soon and to Sri Lanka thereafter. I have a Nikon 5300 (DX) along with the kit lens 18-55mm and a Nikon 50mm F1.8G. I am confused regarding the next lens to buy between Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 and Nikon 24-120mm F4G.
I mostly plan to use it to shoot around the city in Singapore and along the beaches in Sri Lanka.
Much appreciated.
-
Nikon 24-120mm F4G.
-
If you are a wide angle nut like me, get the Tokina. Otherwise, the 24-120 will be useful.
-
Nikon 24-120mm F4G.
Thank you for the advice. Any specific reasons?
-
If you are a wide angle nut like me, get the Tokina. Otherwise, the 24-120 will be useful.
Wouldn't the options become limited with just a wide-angle?
-
People tend to overemphasise the importance of having a "continuous" range of focal length at their disposal. So they think say 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, etc.
In reality this frequently just causes frustration and confusion. If you carry for example two lenses, one wide, another longer by a factor of at least 2X (24 and 50, 35 and 85(105) etc.), you will *never* doubt what lens to use for a given scene setting. It's either the one or the other. No zooming back and forth just to find yourself at the border between two contiguous ranges. You actually can previsualise and make the composition more or less directly in your mind before even lifting the camera.
I could happily travel with just 24 and 85. Or 35 and 105. Were I to do a lot of close-up work, I'd put a dedicated lens for that purpose with me in the basic kit.
-
The 20/1.8G will complement nicely your 50/1.8G.
Those two lenses are great performers and they offer great versatility in a light combo.
Unless you are a pro and you are shooting an event, you don't need a zoom.
However, you should know that my opinion is usually insignificant :)
-
People tend to overemphasise the importance of having a "continuous" range of focal length at their disposal. So they think say 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, etc.
In reality this frequently just causes frustration and confusion. If you carry for example two lenses, one wide, another longer by a factor of at least 2X (24 and 50, 35 and 85(105) etc.), you will *never* doubt what lens to use for a given scene setting. It's either the one or the other. No zooming back and forth just to find yourself at the border between two contiguous ranges. You actually can previsualise and make the composition more or less directly in your mind before even lifting the camera.
I could happily travel with just 24 and 85. Or 35 and 105. Were I to do a lot of close-up work, I'd put a dedicated lens for that purpose with me in the basic kit.
I understand from your suggestion that I would be less confused if I carry just 2 primes - one long and one short. Sounds great.
-
The 20/1.8G will complement nicely your 50/1.8G.
Those two lenses are great performers and they offer great versatility in a light combo.
Unless you are a pro and you are shooting an event, you don't need a zoom.
However, you should know that my opinion is usually insignificant :)
Would this combo be sufficient for landscape and street photography?
-
Would this combo be sufficient for landscape and street photography?
I don't see why not?
-
Ravijain, the reason for recommending the 24-120mm is that I find it is a great walk around lens, very versatile but not a lightweight!
-
My core kit that always comes along on travel and currently used on a D5100 is Nikon 12-24mm f/4, and 105mm f/2.5 AIS. (If I do not carry the 12-24mm it is replaced with 28mm f/2.8 AIS).
Usually a 55 f/3.5 AI micro (sometimes swapped with a 50mm) comes along. I will also have a hard time not bringing my 10.5mm fisheye...
If I think I will encounter wildlife etc. a 300 f/4 comes along and perhaps more so now with the tiny 300PF.
The manual focus lenses have been chipped for full functionality on the consumer body.
All of these fits in a Thinktank holster 20 with side pocket (or 10 without the 300mm) and the little Speedchanger modular case.
(It could look like most of the advice above comes from FX users ?).
In my early days with the D200, I traveled with the lenses I already had, which were 20mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/3.5 (perhaps 200 f4 or 300mm f/4 on top of that).
This combination worked quite well for nature captures, but today I would miss the 105mm f/2.5 AIS.
-
I prefer primes. The primes are generally faster than zooms and much lighter and smaller (for their speed), which I think is advantageous for travels.
If you don't make large prints, the ability to crop also reduces the need of zooms. When I went to Germany two years ago for an assignment that included taking pictures, I shot everything with a 16mm/f2.8 and a 50mm/1.8 on two APS-C cameras.
The problem with Nikon APS-C system is that it lacks "reasonable" 14mm or 16mm lenses (f2.8 or faster).
-
The 20/1.8G will complement nicely your 50/1.8G.
Would this combo be sufficient for landscape and street photography?
I also dont see why not, if you favour wide a bit.
I don't, so I would have gone longer (50 &135) if I were carrying primes. (on Full frame)
oh and if you see how Bjørn travels - He travels with 2 T shirts and 2 tons of gear. Genuine.
-
The 20/1.8G will complement nicely your 50/1.8G.
Those two lenses are great performers and they offer great versatility in a light combo.
I agree with Jakov. I have traveled on several trips to Europe equipped like that. I rather travel with light and small stuff (unless on pro assignments - then I drag my f2.8 zooms with me).
However on my last trip earlier this year I broke the pattern and took my 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR on my Df. I found I could use little wider end when shooting architecture but for street photography it was just right as I prefer around 35mm for that.
Beside that I usually take my Ricoh GR with me anyway. That gives me very portable solution whenever needed.
I have shot with my friend's 24-120 and found it pretty decent.
My ideal solution for light travel would be 20, 50 and 105 or 130 ta take with, preferably f1.8 (1.4 is big and heavy).
-
I don't see why not?
I've ordered the 20mm 1.8. Thanks Jakov.
-
My core kit that always comes along on travel and currently used on a D5100 is Nikon 12-24mm f/4, and 105mm f/2.5 AIS. (If I do not carry the 12-24mm it is replaced with 28mm f/2.8 AIS).
Usually a 55 f/3.5 AI micro (sometimes swapped with a 50mm) comes along. I will also have a hard time not bringing my 10.5mm fisheye...
If I think I will encounter wildlife etc. a 300 f/4 comes along and perhaps more so now with the tiny 300PF.
The manual focus lenses have been chipped for full functionality on the consumer body.
All of these fits in a Thinktank holster 20 with side pocket (or 10 without the 300mm) and the little Speedchanger modular case.
(It could look like most of the advice above comes from FX users ?).
In my early days with the D200, I traveled with the lenses I already had, which were 20mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/3.5 (perhaps 200 f4 or 300mm f/4 on top of that).
This combination worked quite well for nature captures, but today I would miss the 105mm f/2.5 AIS.
Your lens collection is enviable. :D
-
I prefer primes. The primes are generally faster than zooms and much lighter and smaller (for their speed), which I think is advantageous for travels.
If you don't make large prints, the ability to crop also reduces the need of zooms. When I went to Germany two years ago for an assignment that included taking pictures, I shot everything with a 16mm/f2.8 and a 50mm/1.8 on two APS-C cameras.
The problem with Nikon APS-C system is that it lacks "reasonable" 14mm or 16mm lenses (f2.8 or faster).
Thanks Akira. I've ordered the 20mm 1.8. I'm confident it should be sufficient.
-
I just came back from vacation. The main opportunities was landscapes. I travelled with a relative light kit: 28/2, 55/2.8, 105/2.5, 300/4.5, 16/2.8. For low light I also brought the 35/1.4.
The most used lenses were the 28 and the 105. The least used lens was the 16. The next time I go on a similar trip I will most likly leave the 16 and 35 at home. Replace the 28/2 with 28/3.5 (if I bring my IR camera), and the 55/2.8 with the 50/1.2 (did not take any macro pictures anyway).
The 20/1.8 is a very tempting lens.
-
I fully support Björn's recommendation. On full frame, the combinations :
28/2 + 58/1.4 (Voigtländer)
35/2 (Zeiss) + 105/2.5
40/2 (Voigtländer) + 105/2.5
were all satisfactory.
If you need it shorter, consider panning. If you need it longer, consider cropping. In any case, consider walking. Not of these methods cover 100% of situations, but you have to anticipate what situations you are most likely to shoot, or break your back.
Two more cases are not easy to deal with:
Very low light with moving subject, or subject isolation: there is no real alternative to fast lenses.
Close-ups : the workaround "step back and crop" does not usually work. Since I often do close-ups, one of the lenses should be able to perform. The Voigtländer 40/2 (with close-up lens) has become a favourite for that reason. The 58/1.4 also does nice close-ups, but with reduced performance (softness!). The Zeiss 50/2 or Nikkor 55/2.8 are better candidates but somewhat "stand in the middle", so they OK for one-lens solutions, much less for two-lens kits.