I am moving from crop to FF, and have the opportunity, since most of my lenses are crop, to move to Nikon. I am considering it but neither sold one way or the other. The big reason for me to move to Nikon would be the excellent 14-24 and the ruggedness of the D700. The downsides would be no high quality mid zoom (like a 24-105, the 24-70 may have better IQ, but is half as long, 2x the price, and 1.5x the weight) and the lower resolution (yes, it does matter). Anyway, this is my problem not yours. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both systems. My question is, have any of you done serious hiking/trekking/backpacking with these two lenses? What kind of set up do you use?
Cheers in advance,
-TBRI
(PS: Comments on the other issues I'm mulling over are welcome, my 5Dii kit would be 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4IS, and a canon 50 1.4, perhaps the 135L as well, with a nikon, I would probably go 14-24, 24-70, and 70-300).
ive done some hiking and traveling with these lenses. and to be honest, yes they are a bish to lugg, i dont mind it when im actually prepping for the shot.
I travel with my 14-24mm. When I was hiking at Zion National Park I practically had the 14-24mm glued on.
I wouldn't carry the 24-70mm though -- it's too heavy with only a minor advantage over my Tamron 28-75mm. It think the 24-85mm would be good enough too.
I hike with the 14-24, 24-70 and 105VR. When shooting travel shots I carry the 14-24, 35/1.8 and 24-70. That said, I'd love a 24-105/4.0VR - that plus a 14-24 would make a killer 2 lens kit.
I recently took my 14-24mm with my D5000 as a go light kit. Not sure if it's the same on the D700, but on the D5000 the 14-24 is too big to be used with flash. I took a couple snapshots of people and quickly remembered that.
Looking at Corey Rich right now. I really appreciate the honest answers. I backpack and do humanitarian work. While I would love the best quality possible, I also realistically need to carry these things up into the Himalayas. I love the 14-24 and D700 body, but wish I could pair that with a lighter, weatherproof, second lens. Maybe I should try to attach a 14-24 to a canon 5dii or a 24-105 to a D700...
I just take my 14-24, 50/1.8, and my bigass tripod with me when I need to travel light. I will be going to the Himalayas next year and I will probably throw in the 70-200 on top of all that.. It is all about the pictures man.
I will work out and run a lot more than usual before a trip to make sure the extra weight doesn't drag me down, although, I haven't climbed any big mountains since I bought the D700 and 14-24 yet.
It is all about the shot, so I decided that I will do whatever it takes to have the gear I want to have with me, wherever I am traveling because when you get home, it is more than worth the asspain of feeling like your neck is going to fall off because of all the camera gear you had strapped around it.
Steezus wrote:
It is all about the shot, so I decided that I will do whatever it takes to have the gear I want to have with me,
That's the kind of attitude that gets the money shots
My back and feet hated me at the end of the day, but nearly 5 months later, I grin when I go through my 2,000+ Eurotrip pics I took and realize that I didn't miss a single opportunity.
I've carried them, usually the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-300 VR or the 14-24, 24 and 45 PC-E and the 70-300, both kits are pretty darn heavy and a burden unless your specifically traveling for photography. 8lbs of photographic gear, plus tripod, ballhead etc gets a bit heavy for general vacation
I'm trying out a Panasonic G1 for a lightweight alternative. 7-14mm, 14-45mm and the G1 body actually weight about the same as just a 14-24 or 24-70 alone. Add in the 45-200mm zoom and your kit is still under 3lbs
Other options I've thought of are the D5000, as it with a 10-20mm Sigma or something would be pretty cheap and light and still have some decent IQ
Hard to beat the 14-24 and 24-70 though when your specifically using them for photographic pursuits. For me though not many trips are just about that and they make some rather heavy and bulky bits to try to carry with the rest of the junk you'd take on a day trip to the beach etc.
Steezus wrote:
It is all about the shot, so I decided that I will do whatever it takes to have the gear I want to have with me, wherever I am traveling because when you get home, it is more than worth the asspain of feeling like your neck is going to fall off because of all the camera gear you had strapped around it.
I used to share that mentality and would grin and bare it all day but as I got older I found that my heavy bags full of everything I owned were actually starting to cost me shots. Not because I didn't have the gear I needed, no, I always was prepared for anything, but because I wasn't seeking out as many shot.
Its lazy I know, but when I was all weighted down with my bag, my tripod rig etc, I wouldn't want to climb up onto the next little ridge or rise because I'd frankly be worn out. I'd take the shots from where I was at.
I had a "here is good enough" approach and thats not really want you want. You want to do what it takes to get the shot.
Thats one of the things I'm hoping the G1 kit might give me back. Since its so small and light, had an articulating scrren, I should be able to carry it anywhere and set it up in some challenging positions.
It comes down to figuring out if the gear is holding you back, or if your holding back what your gear can do, even if its a modest kit
I went on a trip to Croatia, Rome and Paris in July, and I took a D700, 17-35, Sigma 1.4 and the 70-300. Ironically, I originally bought the 24-70 and was going to go with just that, but I switched because I read everywhere that I need to go wider
After looking at my pictures, of the 2000 pictures I took about 1400 of them with the 17-35. Great decision, right?
Well, not exactly. The vast, vast majority of my pictures were taken at 24mm or greater, so I could have taken the 24-70 and done just fine. I took a few with the 50mm that I love, but it too is a beast.
I knew in advance that it would be a heavy kit, but I decided to shoulder the burden since this was a special trip; my father escaped from Croatia 50yrs ago and has never returned, and I was there to document as much as I could so I could show him (he's 86 and has bad knees so he couldn't go). But it was very painful and something I wouldn't want to do again. I had to take a couple of days off from taking pictures altogether because I was so tired of carrying all that gear, and it took about a month after I got back to get rid of a numb spot between my shoulders. BTW, I prepared for this for months - working out with a trainer, etc - so it's not because I'm a tub of goo.
The result of all this is that I'm in the process of coming up with a light travel kit to replace my D700 and ton of glass. I've sold my LX3 to get a lighter, pocketable P&S (S90), and I'm in the process of selling my 50 and 17-35.
I'm thinking I'll get a D90 with a 18-55, 35 and SB600. I'll get the lighter Nikon 50mm and use it on my D700 and as a portrait lens on the D90. I'll suck it up and use my 70-300 for now because it's already paid for, but if that doesn't pan out I might just get the 50-200.
I love the D700 and don't want to get rid of it, but my patience is really wearing thin wrt Nikon's lack of lighter weight high quality lenses. They really need to make an f/4 VR lens comparable to Canon's 24-105; not everyone can afford to buy all the 2.8s, and probably even fewer can carry it all.
Anyway, just wanted to vent a little I guess. To keep it more on topic I'll just say: I can't imagine traveling with the 14-24 and 24-70. I'd never make it through the trip
It's interesting reading the responses where people are thinking of the m4/3 as a compromise to carry a much lighter kit around. I do a lot of hiking / mountaineering / skiing and use the Panasonic GH1 as a light kit (with the 14-140mm kit lens). It helps that the camera has HD video with full autofocus. BUT...
...I do want to point out that you get what you pay for! There's a reason for the price difference of a D700 + 14-24 and 24-70 and the GH1! The G1 has worse quality than the GH1 so that's another thing to remember.
I carry a FF Nikon for my 'formal' landscapes now, simply because it's that much better for large prints and in case someone wants to buy that once-in-a-lifetime shot!
Have to remember though Vern that its all really relative. Even the best FF 35mm gear isn't a match for a 4x5 large format camera. However, I honestly have not shot my 4x5 in probably 2 or 3 years! The resulting images are amazing but its just too much to carry, too expensive on a per shot basis and just frankly too much hassle in the field dealing with film holders etc.
Its really about finding that personal level of trade off. Some people still do carry a 4x5 or maybe even an 8x10. Most of us aren't willing to do that and are pretty happy with the current 35mm DSLR options we've got.
To others perhaps a D700 and some f2.8 glass is more that we are willing to carry, just as some might not want to take anything other than a point and shoot (I've actually seen some good stuff from cams like the LX3, Canon G10 etc)
On one hand having the best possible gear for a once in a lifetime shot is great, but on the other, would a lighter kit mean your actually there to experience more once in a lifetime moments ?
This is a lot of great info. Makes me consider something like: 5Dii + 24-105, plus GH1, GF1, 7-14, 14-150, 20 1.7. Perhaps the 50-200. Great info here.
This guys an 'adventure' photographer (http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/) and in an issue of Australian photography he took a d700, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 with him to document a week long race in patagonia (kayaking, hiking through rainforest, mountain biking/climbing etc) and it all survived. In one of the photos his d700+24-70 is literally dripping with rain. most of the time he had the d700+24-70 in a lowepro toploader on his chest so he could access it easily while hiking
donaldy wrote:
This guys an 'adventure' photographer (http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/) and in an issue of Australian photography he took a d700, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 with him to document a week long race in patagonia (kayaking, hiking through rainforest, mountain biking/climbing etc) and it all survived. In one of the photos his d700+24-70 is literally dripping with rain. most of the time he had the d700+24-70 in a lowepro toploader on his chest so he could access it easily while hiking
I don't think its a question of if its possible to take it, because it certainly is, nor is it an issue of if it can produce great results because it certainly can.
What its a question of is can you still enjoy yourself with such gear, and also is the point of the trip even to enjoy yourself or not ?
When I've covered a PGA Tour event I'll be walking mile after mile every day with a 400 and D3 and 1 or 2 other bodies. Its pretty brutal and I can't say I exactly enjoy myself but I'm not there to enjoy myself. I'm working and being paid and humping that gear up and down every fairway is part of the gig.
But I don't think many in this, not the OP at least, is talking about being on assignments. I think its more about when your taking a trip for leisure and if people still take their big heavy kits. Obviously far more people that working photographers own stuff like the 14-24, but still is an interesting question of when its taken with them and why.
