If you could chose one, and only one, FX lens for Italy, what would it be? Budget be damned.
More specifics... I'll be visiting the Vatican, Colosseum, Pantheon, Trevi, and Tuscan countryside. Shooting a D700.
I'm leaning towards the 17-35mm but I'm quite tempted to splurge on the 14-24mm. My concern is 24mm won't be enough zoom but the ridiculous IQ for the churches and landscapes is tough to pass up. 24-70mm is also in the running but the weight and lack of UWA are drawbacks there.
Typically I shoot primes but I'm feeling the convenience of a zoom is tough to pass up here especially given how crowded some of the Roman tourist spots can get (makes it tough to zoom with your feet).
I've done quite a bit of touring through Italy. Speaking from experience, a 35/1.4 would be great, HOWEVER in the Tuscan Countryside, you will really want an 85-135mm prime. The hills look great in telephoto.
Budget be damned?? Ok, i'll call nikon and offer them whatever it takes to make me a custom 14-300mm f/2...millions?? Billions?? It doesnt matter, you said budget be damned!!
24-120VRII, but I wouldn't opt for one lens. In Rome you want/need wide in Tuscany you want/need longer.
My pick would be 16-35VR and 70-200/4.0VR and perhaps a fast wide like the 28/1.8
on my last trip to Italy which covered the areas you mentioned, I used only one lens the 24 1.4. I had other lenses with me but ended up with the 24 glued to my camera.
If carried only one lens and had to decide between those two, it would probably be the 17-35. The 14-24 is a must-have travel lens for me, but the 17-35 is obviously more versatile. Only if you're willing to carry another lens would I suggest the 14-24, a 50 f/1.8 being the most obvious candidate because it's so small and light.
Forgive my ignorance but isn't the 16-35mm VR a DX lens? I do not own one and was wondering how well it works on FX as I need an ultrawide lens and shoot FX. My vote would be 24-120 VR aand for a smaller lighter with more range the 28-200 is a bargain at around $100.
pcrit wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but isn't the 16-35mm VR a DX lens? I do not own one and was wondering how well it works on FX as I need an ultrawide lens and shoot FX. My vote would be 24-120 VR aand for a smaller lighter with more range the 28-200 is a bargain at around $100.
No, the 16-35 VR is definitely an FX lens. You may have gotten confused with the 16-85 VR, which *is* a DX lens.
I could've gotten away with just a 16-35/4. In most places in Rome, you will be hassled the instant you bust out a full-sized tripod, so the VR can come in handy indoors. My most used lenses were a Voigtlander 15/4.5 and Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 on a mirrorless cropper (Ricoh GXR). I had a Voigtlander 35/1.2 for low-light. Had I used my FX kit, it would have been just the Voigtlander 20/3.5 and Zeiss 35/1.4.
Separate advice for the city. While full-sized tripods are not allowed indoors anywhere and can be dangerous to set up in most of the tourist sites (so many people walking around), table-top tripods go undetected. An RRS TFA-01 and regular sized ballhead can handle the D700 and a zoom lens if balanced well, lens over a leg.
Very tough choice, if you were truly limited to one lens then you'd have to prioritize what shooting is most important to you.
**Inside buildings - 16-35 / 14-24 / I only have a 17-35 and that worked fine with higher ISO's.
**General all-in-one, if you can only have one lens - 24-120 f4 VR.
**Tuscany - a long lens is really beneficial here, though if you buy a high res D800 (you did say budget did not matter) then you could stretch the 24-120 with cropping.
I left my 70-300 in the hotel other than in Tuscany and Cinque Terre.
The 17-35 saw action as described above (mostly indoors, some outdoors)
The 24-120 was the most versatile, most used, but I tend to find 24mm plenty wide other than indoors.
Other option - bring one DSLR lens that covers your top subject priorities, and a P&S to cover the rest. Primes are great, I enjoy them but I don't like visiting places I don't have easy repeatable access to (like Italy) with just one prime.
Lugging around all day with a heavy lens on your camera is very tiring even the idea of one lens setup seems to be apparently convenient. IMHO the best thing, considering the places you will visit is to stick a Tamron 28-75/2.8 to your D700 and to put in your bag a Rokinon / Samyang 14/2.8. Tammy is lightweight, with great IQ and compact size. When need something wider you can switch to the 14/2.8. I do not think that switching between two quite compact lenses is a lesser option than having all the time a 14-24 mill stone on your camera. Also going with a f/4 lens will limit you in low light even D700 is doing pretty well in this regard.
