Lens selection for upcoming trip

[arnica]

Hi All,

I've got a family holiday coming up in March/April. The Wife, 2 kids (1.5 and 3.5 years), and I will be going to HK and Japan. We will be flying out to HK first for a week and then flying to Japan (3 weeks) hoping to get some Cherry Blossom action during our stay, and then back to HK for another week before flying back home.

I have a bit of a conundrum, I don't know which lens to take with me. usually I would have no problem making this decision because I would just bring the trilogy with me. But I wanted to this time bring only the one lens and spend more time with the family instead of busily shooting.


At the moment it's between the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-120mm f/4. The 24-70 is a much faster lens whereas the 24-120 isnt that bad either (gives me that extra range).

I've been to HK many times, but never have taken my DSLR with me. I've never been to Japan so I don't know what to expect.

I'll be shooting with a D800.

So yeah, I don;t know which lens to bring with me, and wanted to hear and see what other members would do if you were in my situation. Maybe I would be convinced to bringing more lens?

[arthurking83]

if it were only the one lens .. 24-120 for sure.

While it'd be great to have the faster aperture, on a trip which may pose a wider variety of opportunities, I'd choose the longer zoom range.

I suppose if you have the 24-200mm range covered in the form or two lenses and taking two lenses instead of one was an option, then I'd take this option instead.
Having 24-200mm covered with two lenses relegates the 24-120 lens redundant.

So really it's a matter of can you take 2 lenses, or are you only allocated one lens for your personal space? :D

[arnica]

if it were only the one lens .. 24-120 for sure.

While it'd be great to have the faster aperture, on a trip which may pose a wider variety of opportunities, I'd choose the longer zoom range.

I suppose if you have the 24-200mm range covered in the form or two lenses and taking two lenses instead of one was an option, then I'd take this option instead.
Having 24-200mm covered with two lenses relegates the 24-120 lens redundant.

So really it's a matter of can you take 2 lenses, or are you only allocated one lens for your personal space? :D

This is gonna really do my head in. The idea of having the 24-200mm range covered really sounds great, but I've also got a 1.7X TC ... hahaha. If I bring the 70-200mm I may as well bring the TC along with it.

Grrrr .... LOL!

[rackham]

I'd just take the 24-70. Especially if you have a TC.

That said, you may shoot more in the 70-120mm range than I do (which is little).

[old dog]

yes, the 24-120 would be my pick as well. I use a 17-55 on a D7000 and I have not missed many occasions where I needed wider or longer so I`d go with the 24-120. have a great trip too.

[andylo]

Just back from Europe (with wife).

I did what a "true photog" should do! Bring 2 Full Frame DSLR bodies, bring all my pro lenses with me which cover anything from 8mm -> 400mm. I even brought my macro lens just in case! Oh should I have mention that 4 speedlites and my carbon tripod?

End result - yes I got some pictures I really like, I even got my wife a few good portraits with Europe landmark background that she really can show off.

But I could have done all of above with a crop body, using a Tamron 18-270, 1 powerful speedlight (with defuser). I don't even need to tripod - or even if I need to, I am not allow to anyway.

Majority of the pics I have took was f/8 - f/11. Occasionally a 5.6 and couple of f/4. If I took a pic of my wife @ f/2.8 with the Eiffel Tower melt in bokeh, no matter how good she look my wife will rips my balls off!

[Mark L]

So in order to spend more time with the family, forget the 70-200mm. May help you not have more photographic possibilities entering your head.
Take the TC, doesn't take up much space.
Now the choice between the other two lenses?

This is gonna really do my head in.
Toss a coin.
Heads, the 24-70mm, tails, the 24-120mm. Simple really. Go on, do it, and then you can get onto thinking about other things.:)

[Lance B]

I'd just take the 24-70. Especially if you have a TC.

That said, you may shoot more in the 70-120mm range than I do (which is little).

TC won't work with the 24-70.

- - - Updated - - -

Tough question. I don't have the 24-120 f4 VR but I have been thinking of getting it for just such occasions, travel. However, like you, I normally take at least 3 lenses, my 16-35 f4 VR, 24-70 f2.8 and my new 80-400 f4.5-5.6. If I were taking only one lens and I had the 24-120, I'd probably take that. VR is very handy inside buildings etc, much more useful than f2.8 over f4 and one reason why I have been contemplating the 24-120 f4 VR. Many a time inside a building or church etc, I've wanted a VR lens longer than the 16-35 but shorter then the 80-400 VR (or 70-200 when I used to take that).

[Mark L]

TC won't work with the 24-70.


So hope the coin comes up tails.:)

[Sdison]

Why won't Nikon just build a 14-200 2.8 already, right?

[rackham]

Why stop at 200?

:P

[Warbler]

No recommendations for Nikon's very good 18-200VR?

[I @ M]

No recommendations for Nikon's very good 18-200VR?

Probably because it is a DX lens, the 28-300 on the other hand is an all in one FX type offering but maybe not wide enough at the short end.

[Warbler]

Sorry. I thought the D800 would shoot in crop mode too. My mistake.

[Lance B]

Sorry. I thought the D800 would shoot in crop mode too. My mistake.

It does shoot in crop mode. However, I would suggest that it is better to get the FX version and have the extra Mp in case of anting to crop.

[Mark L]

No recommendations for Nikon's very good 18-200VR?
Based on his OP, Phil doesn't have this lens, so it's not an option for him (yet).

[arnica]

Thanks for the responses guys and girls, my trip is a little over a month away and at the moment I'm leaning towards taking the 24-120 f/4. At f4 it's still quite a fast lens and can also produce very nice shallow depth of field shots too.

Another positive is that is much lighter in terms of weight compared to the 24-70, a little weight goes a long way especially if I am carrying one of the kids on the backpack carrier, along with what other odd bits in the compartments.

[arnica]

Thanks for the responses guys and girls, my trip is a little over a month away and at the moment I'm leaning towards taking the 24-120 f/4. At f4 it's still quite a fast lens and can also produce very nice shallow depth of field shots too.

Another positive is that is much lighter in terms of weight compared to the 24-70, a little weight goes a long way especially if I am carrying one of the kids on the backpack carrier, along with what other odd bits in the compartments.