fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Versus the Nikon 28-300mm, as a travel lens for the Df.
Opinions, suggestions, experience greatly appreciated.
Opinions, suggestions, experience greatly appreciated.
Opinion: 24mm is a lot more useful than 28mm for a travel lens and 300mm is rarely necessary unless you are interested in wildlife.
Contemplating zoom but could just buy the 24/1.8 and pair it with my 50/1.8, 85/1.8.
Looking to reduce weight and/volume.
I don't think the difference in weight and volume would be significant between this collection of primes and the zoom, more important will be the difference in aperture, the stabilisation and the fact that primes need to be exchanged when the zoom changes focal by the turn of a zoom ring. In other words: nobody can really answer that question but you, it is entirely a matter of personal taste.
I used the 24-120 on the nikon d800 almost exclusively while traveling. It served me well. Now that I have downsized to Fuji I'm using the 18-135 or 18-55 as the attached lens and 10-24 tucked neatly in my man bag. Not missing the weight of nikon. I still rely on my own sensors to get the picture I want. It's cheaper and I have nothing to blame but myself for a bad picture.
Thank you Tom.
I always blame my equipment for bad pictures. Others always have better equipment and that's why all
Of them make better images than me.
So I am looking for gear that allows me to make images as good as them.
I'm Emily pleased.
Only those that are content to swim forever in the sea of mediocrity do not try their utmost to please themselves.
Jerome, this response has nothing to do with cameras or anyone on this forum. It was a response to a post by a certain Tom that mentioned ' try hard to please ' or words to that effect.
Re: the zoom, I have been to the dealer. No, not for me. Does not balance the way I would like on the Df. And heavy...about 0.8kg.
Hi, Tom,
Maybe a Freudian slip by the spell checker in your browser's text editor.
Or maybe not.
Best regards,
Doug