kharken wrote:
All, I've noticed a few did actually mention 24-200 and 28-400 for some cases. While I acknowledge the "bring one lens" fits this criteria for both lenses, isn't that very wide range compromising a lot on the quality of your shots? Isn't it better to just bring a dedicated telephoto?
Not always. Weight, hassle, time, packing space, intention, opportunities all play a real part in the decision. Modern optic design, digital correction and post-processing tools have all narrowed that 'compromising a lot' metric. Look at the dedicated threads for these tools and it is clear folks are happy enough with them.
I went to Mexico in November with my Z6iii. Primary lens was the 24-200. Still too much weight for me these days. It's all relative - how much do you want to carry?
The AF-S 28-300mm was an excellent travel lens outdoors. For indoors and for nighttime photography I always took a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.
The 28-400mm is better than the 28-300mm in terms of image stabilization with its Syncro VR. It is very inconspicuous and compact and lightweight and uses 77mm size filters. For a Z camera my choice of a companion lens would be either the 14-28mm or 14-30mm or the 24-120mm f/4 (also uses 77mm filters).
My first choice is the 28-400mm with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and a 10mm fisheye lens (for temples and church interiors).
I've taken some of my best landscape shots with the 24-70f4. I've owned the 2.8 version twice now, and I keep selling it because for me, it doesn't offer much over the lowly kit version. I went hiking in the Eastern Sierra for several days this past summer, and for that trip I took the 24-200 along. It was a great all around performer. Yes there are compromises, but if you can only bring one lens, it should be on the list to consider. Especially given how good post processing software has become...
Started with Z mount with 24-200, which I liked quite a bit, sharper and less CA than the F-mount 24-120/4 which I used for years when going minimal.
However the Z-mount 24-120/4 is next level in image quality, and I am happy with the tradeoff to the additional range. I could not get by in "travel" situations with only 70mm, so the 24-70/4 was never an option for me despite its' size advantage.
I could see situations where the 28-400 could be very advantageous, thought I think it would likely be on a 2nd body complementing a 500mm+ prime in a wildlife-heavy environment. Not something that's a frequent part of my current travels.
For city- and landscape duties, the 24-120/4 Z is the pick for me.
Of the 14 lenses I currently own, the Z 24-120 is the one I’d take for travel if I only could carry one and didn’t have a particular shooting scenario in mind. It is almost impossible not to have fun with that glass given its sharp details, smooth render, close focus ability, and reach. While I like its focal length range, it can be extended to ultra wide as a very good panoramic stitch lens (which I do a lot), and for a little more telephoto reach you can use it in crop mode (which I almost never do).
I'm currently traveling and have been for close to 9 months. I had to think long and hard about what gear to bring as I will be on the road for at least 16 months. It took me 4 months of switching and fussing with lenses in my bag, I had the z24-70mm f4 already but decided last minute to swap it out for the z24-120mm. My final set up was the 14-30 / 24-120/EF 70-300L / z26/ z40. At times in the summer heat and humidity I wished I had the z24-70 f4 but overall the z24-120mm was the best choice for me, because it is so versatile. I just returned from a trip to Ireland for Christmas to see family and took the z24-120 / z40 combo, the zoom worked great for morning walks and daytime activities and the 40mm for low light family stuff.
My preferred travel zoom is the Z 24-70/2.8 S. It can also be used inside buildings without a lot of noise or blurred people. It's of excellent quality.
