Pro vs. General Lenses

I've been reading a few threads on this forum, and also looking through the catalog of Nikkor lenses, and I've noticed that the pro lenses are not what you would want for travelling, or the kind of versatility you would want as a tourist.

I'm guessing that those of you who have enjoyed a Nikon DSLR for a while, and have a comfortable collection of lenses have more than just 'pro' lenses, and you use the general lens (24 - 120mm, f/4) for travelling, and save the pro lens (24 - 70mm, f/2.8) for serious work. Is that correct?

I know what prime lenses I would want in a travelling bag, but I don't think I would want to travel without at least one zoom.

I use my 24-70 f2.8 for travelling. I also use my 14-24 f2.8 for travelling. I took both to NZ with me when I went in July. Both served me excellently.

To be honest, I don't have any 'kit' lens'. I doubt if I would use them if I did though. I would always opt for the best glass in any situation.

I have a pack that can fit all my arsenal, so it all goes with me especially on trips - you just never know, and I'd rather do a simultaneous workout than wish I had "it" lens with me. I can't say I travel just to shoot, but if I'm spending enough money to go somewhere I might as well use it to the fullest.

I currently own just one pro lens (the 14-24) and hope to own the 24-70 before next year
I also own the 28-300 as my walkabout lens.

I have a feeling that unless I am flying with limited carryon weight, I will always take the pro lens(es) The 24-70 felt in a different league when I tried it in the store... and the sharpness edge to edge on my 14-24 is amazing, whereas the 28-300 is soft at the edges and need more processing to get them right.

I don't make any difference between my more expensive lenses or my cheaper ones. Cheap or expensive are very relative labels, just like pro or general. I take with me whatever I need regardless the conditions I'll be shooting.

Those lenses are made to be used and if they can't handle a situation, they aren't worth their money I paid. People have gone to wars shooting pro lenses or been crawling with them through the mud in jungles.

The problem with being afraid to take the good stuff out is that in the end, you're shooting pictures with an old iPhone.

When I saw this thread this came into my mind

I won't own mediocre glass; it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather be down to a single 35mm f/1.8G then own a bag FULL of crappy lenses. I also don't treat my gear like it's made of Ming porcelain. It sees some hard use and I've never had a problem. I think more problems are created by people "babying' their gear.
.....

Lunatic said:

I've been reading a few threads on this forum, and also looking through the catalog of Nikkor lenses, and I've noticed that the pro lenses are not what you would want for travelling, or the kind of versatility you would want as a tourist.

I'm guessing that those of you who have enjoyed a Nikon DSLR for a while, and have a comfortable collection of lenses have more than just 'pro' lenses, and you use the general lens (24 - 120mm, f/4) for travelling, and save the pro lens (24 - 70mm, f/2.8) for serious work. Is that correct?

I know what prime lenses I would want in a travelling bag, but I don't think I would want to travel without at least one zoom.

Click to expand...

I usually travel with the 24-120 f/4, but possibly not for the reason(s) you're thinking. I decided on the 24-120 because of the focal lengths available, and the relatively fast fixed aperture. Carrying the 24-120 means I don't have to swap lenses (and carry both) between the 24-70 and 70-200, while still being able to cover a good bit of that range. The fixed f/4 aperture doesn't come into play much for outdoors "landscape" type shots, but does pay off when indoors with the family. I have primes that overlap with the 24-120's focal length (20, 35, 50, and 85), but they don't usually make it into my travel bag (with the exception of the 20mm) because of the need to change lenses.

This upcoming trip for me will be a little different, since I'm thinking I'll take the 24-120, as well as the 20 and 35mm primes. The 35mm gets added to the bag for possible street photography and not having the bigger 24-120 attracting attention.

Horoscope Fish said:

I won't own mediocre glass; it's more trouble than it's worth. I'd rather be down to a single 35mm f/1.8G then own a bag FULL of crappy lenses. I also don't treat my gear like it's made of Ming porcelain. It sees some hard use and I've never had a problem. I think more problems are created by people "babying' their gear.
.....

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like you consider the 24 - 120, f/4 to be a crappy lens, and you only own the 14 - 24, 24 - 70, etc.

It will take me a year or two of owning a Nikon to see where I will stand.

I just want to get a feel for priorities, and 'what goes in the bag.'

Lunatic said:

It sounds to me like you consider the 24 - 120, f/4 to be a crappy lens, and you only own the 14 - 24, 24 - 70, etc.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about the 24-120mm f/4 so I'm not sure where that's coming from and, actually, I have no real feeling's about that particular lens one way or the other. Further, I currently own very little Nikon glass. Some Nikon glass is extraordinary but I think most of it way over-priced for the performance offered. Third party manufacturers have stepped up their game over the past several years and makers like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron are turning out some magnificent lenses.

As for what goes in the bag, that depends on the needs for your shooting style. I get by just fine with one wide-angle, two fast primes (35mm f/1.4 & 85mm f/1.8) and one medium zoom (70-200mm f/2.8). If I had to (and I have in the past) I could get by nicely with the two primes all by themselves; though I'd sorely miss the compression I get from the 70-200mm.
....

RocketCowboy said:

I usually travel with the 24-120 f/4, but possibly not for the reason(s) you're thinking. I decided on the 24-120 because of the focal lengths available, and the relatively fast fixed aperture. Carrying the 24-120 means I don't have to swap lenses (and carry both) between the 24-70 and 70-200, while still being able to cover a good bit of that range. The fixed f/4 aperture doesn't come into play much for outdoors "landscape" type shots, but does pay off when indoors with the family. I have primes that overlap with the 24-120's focal length (20, 35, 50, and 85), but they don't usually make it into my travel bag (with the exception of the 20mm) because of the need to change lenses.

Click to expand...

That is exactly the reason for my question: the issue of quality vs. versatility. Some would consider Horoscope Fish to be too picky about quality, while others would consider you to have low standards in your photography.

In the end, I know there is no right or wrong way, and that it comes down to preferences, and doing what is right for you. The question for me is what are the best reasons for each view. In the same vain, some of you really like your Tamron lenses, while others would never own one. I have a friend who owns about a half dozen Nikon bodies who insists that you can't tell the difference between Tamron and Nikkor.

So it's all a question of where you draw the line and what works best for you.

traceyjj said:

I have a feeling that unless I am flying with limited carryon weight, I will always take the pro lens(es) The 24-70 felt in a different league when I tried it in the store...

Click to expand...

I went to Spain on the weekend and we flew EasyJet and didnt take any hold luggage, they specify you are only allowed 1 piece of carry on luggage but I thought I would be cheeky and take my Cabin suitcase and my camera bag,

Coming from the UK this wasn't an issue, never questioned on the 2 bags, on the way back I clearly got someone in a mood as he said I could only take 1 on and would have to pay 55 euros if I couldn't fit it into my cabin suitcase but once I showed him it was Camera equipment all was fine ...

Horoscope Fish said:

I never said anything about the 24-120mm f/4 so I'm not sure where that's coming from and, actually, I have no real feeling's about that particular lens one way or the other.

Click to expand...

My OP was about the expensive and so-called pro lenses, 14 - 24mm, 24 - 70mm, and 70 - 200mm, with more refined f-stops, vs. the cheaper, more versatile zooms, such as the 24 - 120mm lenses, with less restrictive f-stops, and you said you won't own mediocre glass. I wasn't referring to a cheap Sigma.

Someone new to photography, with a lot of money to spend, will go for a lens that offers the most freedom, and not understand the difference in lenses.

As another member here recently said:
"...but if I see a "semi/pro" shooting with a DX camera, I lose respect for them. sorry, but I feel that if you're a semi/pro, you should be using FX cameras. and it goes without saying no variable aperture lenses. Im still on the fence on how I feel about F/4 gear. but its not leaning towards positive."

When looking through the list of Nikkor lenses, it seemed that the line drawn in the above quote was between the lenses I asked about. I asked because I want to know more about this kind of preference, and whether I might agree with it.

I consider the right lens to be that one which fulfills your demands during any specific situation. That can be a 100$ lens or a 2000$ lens depending upon how much you demand of that lens.

There are people perfectly happy shooting cheap lenses and those deliver everything they demand. Are those lenses mediocre? What's mediocre? My 18-55mm kit I had with the D3300 can be considered mediocre compared to the 35mm 1.8 I have on the D750 but to someone who swears by Zeiss, my 35mm is some crap from the dollar store.

I don't care what is considered pro or not. I generally like primes and buy them purely based upon optical sharpness in the range I'll shoot them. If that's Samyang for a specific length, I buy Samyang. If it's Nikon or Tamron, I buy those. If they're cheap or expensive don't matter that much if the difference in sharpness justifies the difference in price but for something I only might see when using a magnifying glass on a 100% shot, I ain't paying a thousand more because it's considered pro.

Lunatic said:

As another member here recently said:
"...but if I see a "semi/pro" shooting with a DX camera, I lose respect for them. sorry, but I feel that if you're a semi/pro, you should be using FX cameras. and it goes without saying no variable aperture lenses. Im still on the fence on how I feel about F/4 gear. but its not leaning towards positive."

Click to expand...

I would like to know why they lose respect for them shooting in DX ... Do they also lose respect for someone shooting Mirrorless or a Canon ...

A camera is a persons preference, I like using DX due to size and weight advantages (Plus you get the DX crop factor) I shoot my DX and I can out shoot friends of mine that are using an FX ...

You don't need to have an FX to be a "Pro" or even "Semi Pro" ...

Not counting my nifty 50, i do not have any lenses that might be considered "pro" simply because I cannot afford them but you can bet your bippy that if I could afford them I would do the necessary research and buy the ones best suited to my shooting style. Of course, I would also want enough money to have an assistant to lug all those heavy lenses around for me. I would just carry the shorter primes. Soon, the short answer is that i think we all would like to have the best glass we could afford.

Pro lenses (currently 24-70/2.8, previously 17-55/2.8) all the way for "serious" vacations. I'll only bring a utility lens (28-300 or previously 18-200) if I will be on a guided tour or where changing lenses is difficult (e.g. Pearl Harbor). If I'm only looking for snapshot type images or traveling for work, my V2 kit is the answer. With the V2 I can bring a full kit in little space.

Lunatic said:

I've been reading a few threads on this forum, and also looking through the catalog of Nikkor lenses, and I've noticed that the pro lenses are not what you would want for travelling, or the kind of versatility you would want as a tourist.

I'm guessing that those of you who have enjoyed a Nikon DSLR for a while, and have a comfortable collection of lenses have more than just 'pro' lenses, and you use the general lens (24 - 120mm, f/4) for travelling, and save the pro lens (24 - 70mm, f/2.8) for serious work. Is that correct?

I know what prime lenses I would want in a travelling bag, but I don't think I would want to travel without at least one zoom.

Click to expand...

It would help if you would list your equipment so we could help. If you're shooting DX ,I would recommend the 18-140mm lens as a travel zoom.

Blacktop said:

...If you're shooting DX ,I would recommend the 18-140mm lens as a travel zoom.

Click to expand...

I second this! Having seen what Pete can do with that 18-140mm, it's a beast of a lens mated up with a D7100.

The only reason I didn't go that route and did the 24-120mm ... I wanted to make sure any new lens I purchased was also FX capable.

With my film cameras I had only one lens - 50mm, and shot thousands of images over 30 years. Then I got a 300mm, but that saw very little use compared to the 50. Now with DSLR, I use the kit 18-55 when the light is good, and for all shots evening onwards I use the 35mm F1.8.

I have found that photographs taken during travel are 90% close range shots - people, family, friends and streets, where a 50 on FX and 35 on DX are best used. Unless you envisage taking distant shots, or going to shoot wild life a longer lens is not needed, especially if you are never going to print large, but limit to 6x4 prints and the web, a 24 MP sensor can be cropped from 6000x4000 to 1800x1200 for 6x4 prints and 1200x800 for the net (look how much space you have used!).

One thing that I do, is to stitch panoramas and monuments. That is much better option than carrying an ultra wide lens, and gives much better results for static objects.