Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Travel lens

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    31 Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Qld
    Posts
    14

    Travel lens

    Going to NZ this winter, and wondering if the Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 would make a good general travel lens. I would be using it on a D7000, and the extra DX zoom factor (450mm equivalent I think) appealed to me. I would also take my 17-55 f/2.8 for the wider angle.
    Is the 28-300 a reasonable lens for travelling? Any downsides?


    John

  2. #2
    Adventure & Discovery Redgum's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    595
    The 28/300 works remarkably well and is a great general purpose lens when traveling. Together with your 17/55 you should be well covered.
    Photojournalist | Filmmaker | Writer | National Geographic | Royal Geographic

    D3x and other gear.

    Visit Redgum Television | Visit PhotoImage Media


  3. #3
    Member rodw's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane QLD
    Posts
    188
    From experience, 28 mm will not be wide enough for the scenery. I often used my kit lens in preference to my 24-85 and still it did not fit it all in! I predict you will use your kit lens a lot!
    RodW
    Brisbane south side

  4. #4
    If you can get hold of a wide angle, say 10 - 20mm , I would take that with your 28-300.

  5. #5
    Member richardb's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 May 2010
    Location
    Nordrhein Westfalen
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Skool View Post
    If you can get hold of a wide angle, say 10 - 20mm , I would take that with your 28-300.
    Fully agree, if you don't have a Nikkor 10-20mm, hire or borrow a Tokina 11-16mm.

  6. #6
    Adventure & Discovery Redgum's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    595
    John already has a 17/55 which will be more than adequate for his NZ trip. No need to outlay extra dollars for a 10/20.

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Addict
    Join Date
    12 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    7,837
    i agree, the 28-300 looks pretty good value
    Darren
    Gear : Nikon Goodness
    Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
    Please support Precious Hearts
    Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated

  8. #8
    Member rodw's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane QLD
    Posts
    188
    John, sounds like you are using your trip to NZ as an excuse to buy a new lens!

    I think 17mm on the 17-55 is wide enough and the results will be surprisingly good. It took me a long time to accept that this free lens was near as good as the 24-85 I paid $800 for but it is! When we took a chopper ride to the top of the Franz Josef glacier and I only had room for one lens, I took the 17-55 which proved the right choice (but was psychologically hard to make), I showed a pro photographer one of my glacier shots and he simply could not believe it was taken with a D40 with the kit lens!

    These following comments refer to FX format as they relate to film cameras. When I bought my 24-85 I really wanted the 24-120 VR but could not afford it at the time. After having a 70-200 for previous camera for years, I had come to the conclusion that an ideal zoom for my style of photography would have been around 35-135 and the 24-120 was perfect for me (and I still don't own one!) Since then, I am pretty sure Nikon have added an upgrade to the 24-120 so today the argument is even more compelling. The 85 mm limit was always a limitation on film and I thought I'd eventually get a 70-300 to round out my collection. Your 17-55 in the DX equivalent of this lens so I understand your frustrations!

    If it is your intention to eventually move to FX and I was in your position (eg just with the kit lens and no legacy ones), I would find the extra $150 and get the 24-120 in preference to the 28-300.

    If on the other hand, you thought the D7000 was more than enough of a camera for you and you are quite happy to stay with the DX format then there is no compelling reason to spend the extra money on FX compatible lenses. If that is your direction, I think then you need to make a choice as to which way you wish to grow your lens collection. Is it the long end or the wide end that you should buy first?

    At the long end, maybe consider the 18-200 VR or the FX format 70-300. From what I've read, the 28-300 is short on full zoom so it will only give you about 270mm so you won't loose that much with a 200 mm maximum limit and I think you will get better IQ.

    At the shorter end, the consensus here is the 10-24 is the way to go and it would fit well with the 18-200. I would not just buy something for you NZ trip but think about what frustrates you now and choose which end you want to buy now. In NZ, you'd probably get quite a bit of use out of your 10-24 but you are going to use your kit lens as your walkabout lens and the 55mm limit will be frustrating. I think therefore, you'd be better off going with the long end first and get the 18-200 (the cheaper DX equivalent of the FX 28-300) and pocket the $350 you save and put it towards the next lens purchase (or buy a 35mm F1.8 with the change so you have one low light lens).

    Sorry for being long winded. In my case, I started digital photography with a DX camera and quite a decent FX lens. I have built my collection around the FX format and this means that I am forced to follow through with buying an FX format body hence the D800 is on order. I deliberated a long time on which way to go and considered getting a D7000 in which case my lens collection would have ended up looking totally different to what I have now (which are listed in my profile).
    Last edited by rodw; 12-03-2012 at 11:59am.

  9. #9
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by rodw View Post

    I think 17mm on the 17-55 is wide enough and the results will be surprisingly good. It took me a long time to accept that this free lens was near as good as the 24-85 I paid $800 for but it is!
    Rod, I think that you may be reading the lens specs that John owns a little incorrectly.
    The Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f2.8G IF-ED he refers to is definitely not a kit lens or freebie.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  10. #10
    rodw, john has the 17-55 f/2.8 which is the top nikon DX mid-range zoom I believe (please correct me if I am wrong).

    Edit: I got beaten to the punch.
    Last edited by Lazyshooter; 12-03-2012 at 3:45pm.

  11. #11
    Member rodw's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane QLD
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    Rod, I think that you may be reading the lens specs that John owns a little incorrectly.
    The Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f2.8G IF-ED he refers to is definitely not a kit lens or freebie.
    Sorry guys, I missed the f2.8 .

    It is a hard one I guess, there is a gap in the DX lineup at the long end without going into the kit style lenses so I guess the 28-300, 70-300 and the 70-200 are the options. I personally would probably go with the 70-300 or the 70-200 but neither are walk about travel lenses so I guess the 28-300 is what John should choose from these.

    Having said that, his 17-55 is probably gong to be his main walkabout lens on his holiday which will be bursting at the scenes with spectacular landscapes so does he have to buy anything? Maybe save for a bit longer and get the 70-200 VR II later?

  12. #12
    Adventure & Discovery Redgum's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Aug 2009
    Location
    Brisbane, AU
    Posts
    595
    Don't underestimate the 28/300. I used one of these as a GP lens in Peru just recently (FX mode - D700) and NGS had no hesitation accepting the shots. A little bit furry above 250mm but when you're on the road much easier than swapping in and out lens all the time.

  13. #13
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    31 Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Qld
    Posts
    14
    Thanks for all the replies. The 17-55 is a really nice lens - even in my inexperienced hands! It ought to be too given the price. However I am working on the fact that a quality lens will last me for a good while.

    Pleased to hear the 28/300 is a good option - I realise there may be some small trade offs in picture quality, but sounds like they are minimal.


    John

  14. #14
    Let us know how the trip goes and some pics?
    Graeme

    Nikon D90,Nikon 50mm f1.8D, Nikon 18-105 f3.5-5.6VR, Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6Di VC,Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX, Benro A2692TB1S tripod

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •