where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I am touring Europe and can only carry one lens (yeah,..I know), what would be your choice?
I traveled recently to Charleston, SC and has a 70-200 and found it was too big for the closer shots, but great for the landscapes.
So I ask the question to you Pro's,..what would you take? 24-70?
lol, well that will depend on what you want to take photos of. (by the way i'm NAP)
European cities are generally "denser" (don't know a better word) than the ones in the US, so I would definitely recommend wide angle (my favorite one is my 20 mm AI-S). For landscapes it probably depends on where you go (mountains, forrest etc.).
As I prefer wide angle lenses I would recommend the 24-70 if not wider. But as Gareth pointed out: it will depend on what you want to take photos of...
Gareth said:
(by the way i'm NAP)
sorry for being stupid, but what does NAP stand for???
either a 14-24 or 24-70 if you have them.
14-24 would be better for those narrow streets and stuff, but the 24-70 would be even better.
Maybe renting a 17-35? or the new 24-120 F4 VR?
which camera?
If you have a D700 The new 24-120 F4 VR is all you need
since buying one I rarely use my 70-200 f2.8 or 16-35 f4
This sounds like a game question, for if one has room for a 28-300 they have room for a 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4 and an 85 f/1.8 (maybe even f/1.4).
But my answer of 35 on FX, 24 on DX isn't going to fly with you, as I can't imagine using the 70-200 for landscapes.
Remember for wide shots, you can often stitch 3 or 4 vertical shot together, make sure there is at least a 30% overlap
On the D700, I use my 70-200 when going to the zoo ( and find it not long enough), my 105mm macro for close-ups and portrait but most of the time, I have the 24-70mm for everything else. If I had to pick only one lense for a Europe trip, it would definitely be the 24-70mm.
NAP is "not a pro" and i just made it up re the original post.
like drab, i would take my 35 1.4G on my d700, but what can i say, it is all i use atm.
I would go for 28-300, as one lens is really tough decision, if You manage take another wide one with You :)
Only 1! I'd take a 24-70.
sevencrossing said:
Remember for wide shots, you can often stitch 3 or 4 vertical shot together,
And have not the perspective of a wide lens.
It's all about perspective, not FoV. Even at 70mm one is challenged to prevent the "flattening" effect, and IMHO landscapes quickly become a catalog of places I've been, and have little visual interest.
Is this post just intended to be a conversation piece? I find it hard to believe that one doesn't have a camera bag capable of carrying a least one additional lens. Instead of trying to decide on one lens, I would spend my efforts on devising ways to facilitate multiple lenses (wide zoom, 50 prime, tele zoom). How often are you able to take trip to Europe?
It would really depend on where I was going and what I was planning on shooting. Heading to Venice? Go as wide as you can possibly go (14-24 would be good). There aren't a lot of long shots to be had in Venice, but tons of small alleys and tiny courtyards with beautiful churches that would require going really wide. Inside most of the churches are very small spaces that again would take a very wide lens.
In Scotland, Norway etc. the wide lens would be fantastic for panoramas, but there a longer lens might be good for those shots where you can't get as close physically as you would like. Lots of castles (Scotland) and fjords (Norway) that can be shot effectively with much narrower field of view.
If you are going with a DX body, I would take the 18-200. What you give up in IQ will be more than made up for in being able to get any shot you want. On FX I would go with AdamZ and say the 28-300.
I guess you're shooting FX?
24-70 wouldn't be a bad choice, but I'd go for 24-120 F/4.
Maybe 28-300.
Hi,
If FX, I'd cheat and take the 14-24 _and_ the 24-70.
Have a great time and my best,
Mike
18-200mm VRII for DX 28-300mm VR for FX. I would look into a 35mm DX or 50mm 1.8.
To give a very different opinion, you could always try just using 50mm. Picking any single lens will always limit you in many ways, so there's no way you can "get it all". You could go with an option that's midway between wide and long, is very wide in aperture, very sharp, cheap, and light.
If this were me, though, I'd probably stick with 10-24 (or any wide zoom) on DX. If I could cheat and smuggle another lens, it'd be the 70-300VR. I did this for real last year, I also brought the 50/1.8 (it's so small how could you not carry it).
Take the 16-85. It's the lens I keep on my D300 all the time. It will give you the best results. And if you need to get closer to the subject… You have two legs :o) Use them !
smarterchild said:
either a 14-24 or 24-70 if you have them.14-24 would be better for those narrow streets and stuff, but the 24-70 would be even better.
Maybe renting a 17-35? or the new 24-120 F4 VR?
Is this the lens you are speaking about? I just reserved this to rent this weekend to give it a try. Thanks to everyone for the advice. It's very appreciated.
Getting stuck with only a 14-24 rules out portraits unless ye like big noses! Also prevents filter use (unless one huge lens + a lens-sized filter package is somehow acceptable but two little primes isn't).
24-70 covers my suggested focal lengths just fine and gives you versatility, I just don't see how it (the 24-70 f/2.8 or even the 24-120 f/4) counts as "less" than three little pocket primes
Good point.
You must log in to post.
