Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Planning for a trip to Greece and Italy - what lenses to take

which 24mm and missing?

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1
John Howard

John Howard

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Country Flag

I plan to take the D850 and as a very good back up / second, the D810.  I shoot mostly landscape and architecture (and print large), and will be in some very famous places with epic structures.  First question, since I like the 24mm view, should I take the f.4 or 1.8 version?  I also plan to take the newest 24-70 for a walk around lens.  I will also take the 85mm f1.8, which I will mostly use for landscapes, portrait format, to stitch together panoramas,  and the 70-200 f4, because it is smaller and less heavy than the f2.8 version.  I will be shooting the old villages of central Italy, the monasteries of northern Greece, and the Acropolis from all the hills of Athens.  I will need, based on my research, from ultra wide to about 150mm.  I will also take the 16-35 F4 for interiors of the famous buildings like the Pantheone.  So in conclusion - 

 

16-35, 24, 24-70, 85 and 70-200.  What am I missing and which version of the 24mm?



#2
Malice

Malice

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

 What am I missing (...) ?

 

Good insurance?

 

Which of these lenses (or cameras for that matter) do you own already? From your post it's not totally clear, if you're looking to buy or if you're just putting your travel bag together.

 

And why would you want to double up on 24 mm and 85 mm? Do you have any special plans that you will need those primes on top of the zooms?



#3
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I agree with Malice.  It would also help to know if you are looking to purchase or pack your gear.  Unless you feel you need / want the low aperture, I'd take 24-70 and 70-200 along with the 16-35 in case you want ultra-wide.  Personally, I would deal with the weight and take a 70-200 2.8 and that along with the 24-70 should give you good low-light performance across a wide range with two of Nikon's best lenses.  



#4
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

What does the 24 mm prime (either version) bring that the 24-70 can't handle? They are all very sharp from ~f/3.5 to f/16, have some barrel-shaped distortion and some CA in the corners when used wide open. The 24/1.4 doesn't handle shooting against the light too well.

 

Bringing the 85 as well as the 70-200/4 is understandable, unless you have the tripod mount on the 70-200/4. The node in the 70-200/4 is a bit too far in front of the camera body for ideal stitching. If you bring a 70-200/2.8 instead, the node is over the lens foot. The mass penalty for the 70-200/2.8 compared to the 70-200/4 and 85/1.8 is 230g.

 

I hope you have good distortion-correction curves for the 16-35 if you intend to use it for interior shots.



#5
John Howard

John Howard

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Country Flag

I own the 24mm 1.4 and can borrow the 1.8 for the trip.  What I have read is the 1/4 has better bokeh but the 1.8 is sharper across the field which I think is more relevant for landscape.  It is also smaller and lighter.  The 85mm 1.8 is also small and light and good for walking.  It also rates sharper than the zooms.  

 

When I travel, I use a good carry-on to transport my gear, and then a messenger bag for each day, so I tend to have more gear available than I need at any one venue.  I do not think I will need the 70-200 in Italy (per my NG guide) so I will leave it locked in my suitcase in the hotel.  I will need that range in Greece, where a lot of my shooting will be close to the vehicle.

 

What this really comes down to is (and I know technique is more important), is a 5 to 7 point difference in DxO overall rating and sharpness rating noticeable in the result.

 

One of the comments noted the issue of the 16-35 f4 having a distortion issue and this could be problematic for stitching interiors.  I have tested it with both panos and vertaramas and agree.  So what would be the better choice for this trip.  The 14-24 has similar issues I think as do most ultra wides.  Most of my shooting does not require speed.  I carry a tripod everywhere and rarely shoot moving subjects.  

 

My first time on this forum and I appreciate any input.



#6
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The 14-24 has some distortion but unlike the 16-35 it is easy to correct using the lens profiles in Capture NX-D, DxO or PhotoNinja. The Adobe lens profiles overcorrect the distortion far too much for that lens. I haven't found any application that corrects the 16-35 correctly. The 17-35 has more distortion than the 14-24 at the wide end, but it is, again, easier to correct than the 16-35. The Tamron 15-30 also exhibits some distortion, but not the frustrating moustache shape of the 16-35.

 

The two 24-s have very similar field curvature when closed down to their optimal f-stop range, the f/1.4 has more curvature until f/2.5, which shows much more in an optical bench than in the real world. The f/1.4 is prone to flare and ghosting compared to the f/1.8. In real life there is little difference in sharpness when comparing the primes to the 24-70E, the old 24-70 isn't quite that good.

 

For stitched panos, I prefer a collared lens as it is easier to rotate around the rear nodal point with a lens foot. When I have to, I use a rail to position the camera correctly, but there are too many ways to set things wrong that way. APG can compensate for a missed nodal setting, but the results are always better when the shots are done as precisely as possible.