Which lens best to rent?

[Freida]

Hello guys,

I'm going to visit Banff National Park in few weeks time and I wonder which lens should I bring with me.
I have only 85mm 1.8 lens which I use for portraits and thats it so I will have to rent one.
I have D750 so I was thinking to take 24-70 2.8 but wonder if you feel there might be a better one.
I kinda don't want to rent zillion options (due to cost and weight) so ideally 1 max 2 lenses.
24-70 is pretty versatile but I would rather check what you feel might be better.
Or 18mm and take 85 so I have kinda both things covered?
What do you think?

 

[mollyc]

I've never been to Banff, but I feel like you might want an ultra wide lens? Perhaps the 14-24 and then your 85mm.

The 24-70 is a great lens, I have it and often use it on vacation but feel it's a little boring (it's one of my oldest lenses, so most used, but I don't use it much anymore). If you really only want one lens, I'd go with the 24-70 and then if you need something wider you can just stitch some panoramas (use your camera in vertical orientation to maximize height if you go that route).

 

[kenoh]

I've never been to Banff, but I feel like you might want an ultra wide lens? Perhaps the 14-24 and then your 85mm.

The 24-70 is a great lens, I have it and often use it on vacation but feel it's a little boring (it's one of my oldest lenses, so most used, but I don't use it much anymore). If you really only want one lens, I'd go with the 24-70 and then if you need something wider you can just stitch some panoramas (use your camera in vertical orientation to maximize height if you go that route).

Great idea but if you do go the ultra wide route rent it early and practice using it before you go. Ultra wides are difficult to get a shot you like if you havent practised using the short focal lengths. Also remember that when shooting verticals keep the camera straight or you get wonky lines

 

[Freida]

I've never been to Banff, but I feel like you might want an ultra wide lens? Perhaps the 14-24 and then your 85mm.

The 24-70 is a great lens, I have it and often use it on vacation but feel it's a little boring (it's one of my oldest lenses, so most used, but I don't use it much anymore). If you really only want one lens, I'd go with the 24-70 and then if you need something wider you can just stitch some panoramas (use your camera in vertical orientation to maximize height if you go that route).

I have used 14-24 once for few pictures and I've found that although it covers huge amount of space, the distortion etc. is crazy. I couldn't frame anything outside of the center as it would distort it heavily so not really sure if its the right tool for me. Also, in some of the pictures people will be in it too so I would assume that 14-24 would distort them heavily also.
My experience is limited so maybe there is a trick to that lens. Not sure.
Other thinking was that I could rent just a prime like 18mm or 21mm (or which ever is around 20mm) and use that for landscape and 85mm for other stuff but not sure if that is too limiting.

Never owned 24-70 so can't say either how "boring" it is but I kinda expected it that it would cover both scenarios (some scenery and some candid moments with people).

 

[kenoh]

I have used 14-24 once for few pictures and I've found that although it covers huge amount of space, the distortion etc. is crazy. I couldn't frame anything outside of the center as it would distort it heavily so not really sure if its the right tool for me. Also, in some of the pictures people will be in it too so I would assume that 14-24 would distort them heavily also.
My experience is limited so maybe there is a trick to that lens. Not sure.
Other thinking was that I could rent just a prime like 18mm or 21mm (or which ever is around 20mm) and use that for landscape and 85mm for other stuff but not sure if that is too limiting.

Never owned 24-70 so can't say either how "boring" it is but I kinda expected it that it would cover both scenarios (some scenery and some candid moments with people).

You cant go wrong with a 24-70 IMHO it is the most versatile range for sure. 18mm or 21mm prime will also do the weird distortion thing.

 

[jz0309]

Been to Banff ~ 20years ago, on biz, no camera but I do remember the moose walking around, if I were to go now, I would definitely take my 100-400, but I also have a 24-105, so in your case, if landscape is your main objective, wide angle it is, for wildlife, it's a tele, you do not want to be close to a moose with your 85 ... my 2 cents

 

[mollyc]

I have used 14-24 once for few pictures and I've found that although it covers huge amount of space, the distortion etc. is crazy. I couldn't frame anything outside of the center as it would distort it heavily so not really sure if its the right tool for me. Also, in some of the pictures people will be in it too so I would assume that 14-24 would distort them heavily also.
My experience is limited so maybe there is a trick to that lens. Not sure.
Other thinking was that I could rent just a prime like 18mm or 21mm (or which ever is around 20mm) and use that for landscape and 85mm for other stuff but not sure if that is too limiting.

Never owned 24-70 so can't say either how "boring" it is but I kinda expected it that it would cover both scenarios (some scenery and some candid moments with people).

I think the 24-70 is boring from the standpoint that it's not really a wide angle or a telephoto. The aperture isn't really wide. It's an extremely versatile lens, and that's why I own it. I used it for many years when my kids were small and I wanted to deal with just one lens. If I were forced to choose only one lens for vacation it would likely be this one. But recently I choose my 35mm 1.8 over it for trips because it's so lightweight. Definitely does not make for a good portrait lens, and from what you describe, I think the 24-70 does fit your needs well. Unless, like the poster above me mentioned, you want to shoot some wildlife. Then you definitely need a longer lens altogether.

I hope you share some of your photos on the POTD thread when you get back.

 

[tizeye]

While the 14-24 is a great lens it is also bulky and heavy with a huge bulbous front element. I personally use a 16-35 f4 and is a phenomenal walk around lense and great for landscape. Yes, as noted earlier, all uwa lens - prime or zoom - are more difficult to use and not as intuitive as other lens. Turn on grid, not for rule of 3, but lines to reference horizonicals and verticles. Also to control edge distortion of known objects frame/crop them as viewer will know what is left off and mentally fill in. 24-70 is a great option with 24 minimal for landscape, however, I sold mine and go prime in that range.

 

[Freida]

While the 14-24 is a great lens it is also bulky and heavy with a huge bulbous front element. I personally use a 16-35 f4 and is a phenomenal walk around lense and great for landscape. Yes, as noted earlier, all uwa lens - prime or zoom - are more difficult to use and not as intuitive as other lens. Turn on grid, not for rule of 3, but lines to reference horizonicals and verticles. Also to control edge distortion of known objects frame/crop them as viewer will know what is left off and mentally fill in. 24-70 is a great option with 24 minimal for landscape, however, I sold mine and go prime in that range.

Hmm, 16-35 sounds interesting.

I'll look into it. I think if it requires learning then maybe I'll go for 24-70 as that would be easier to use but I need to investigate more. I looked into the rentals and can only afford to rent one lens (due to the high cost of deposit).
but 16-35 + my 85 could be decent combo too.

 

[robgendreau]

Hard to say without knowing what subjects you want to shoot.

Banff Nat Park has considerable wildlife, so as long as you can get for that.

Wide angles are nice for say the family standing at the shore of Lake Louise with mountains in the back, but the wider you go the more insignificant those background mountains are. For shooting say Mt Victoria from the same spot you might want to throw the 85mm on.

Best thing to do is go to Flickr and search images taken there on FF and see what lenses folks used. Of course there's some cropping going on, but you'll get an idea.

 

[mofunk]

If you go with the 24-70mm some of you images you will probably have to crop. Remember you are shooting full frame so 70mm is 70mm. You have to think about what focal range you would need most. 24mm or 70mm. Do you think you would go beyond the 70mm? I've used the 24-70mm for street photography and the 24mm sometimes wasn't wide enough. In my case I had limited space to shoot but you should be fine with the 24-70mm.

 

[mpfuchs]

16-35 and 100-400.

 

[Freida]

Hard to say without knowing what subjects you want to shoot.

Banff Nat Park has considerable wildlife, so as long as you can get for that.

Wide angles are nice for say the family standing at the shore of Lake Louise with mountains in the back, but the wider you go the more insignificant those background mountains are. For shooting say Mt Victoria from the same spot you might want to throw the 85mm on.

Best thing to do is go to Flickr and search images taken there on FF and see what lenses folks used. Of course there's some cropping going on, but you'll get an idea.

That was actually good idea. I think by the looks of it I might just rent 24-70 and take 85 with me.
The 16-35 would probably be better but because I don't have experience with these distorted lenses I don't wanna screw it up and regret it later. Most of the pictures I liked on Flicker are easily within the 24-70 and some are obvious stiched panoramas with 24mm lens also so I guess that should suffice. Not into wildlife photography (yet) as I've never done it but my time there will be quite limited so probably the focus will be more like scenery with hopefully some candid photos. I might try to wake up early one day and do some portraiture etc. shots if my 'model' wakes up early too

 

[tcphoto1]

I don't know about Nikon but I recently bought a 16-35/4LIS and it's a fun lens. The combo of a wide zoom and 85 would give you options.

 

[tizeye]

Nothing wrong with the 24-70. A bit surprised you didn’t have a nifty fifty as the 1.8 D lens is so cheap. I actually still have mine after switching the Sony. In the Nikon world, while the 12-24 is the standard setter for the class across all brands, the 16-35 f4 is a go to lens, and arguably better than the older 17-35 and 18-?.

Would encourage you in your leisure after the trip to check out the 16-35. It is not really the distortion. It’s not like a fisheye, it is more that you have to think when using it - level pitch and yaw when composing. While other lens have the same issue, but not as apparent which introduces sloppiness. While I started with full manual match needle exposure and ground glass focusing, noticed the sloppiness when I went to the Canon AE1 and it started doing those things for me, speeding up the shots and didn’t have to think. The same exists today.

 

[Freida]

Nothing wrong with the 24-70. A bit surprised you didn’t have a nifty fifty as the 1.8 D lens is so cheap. I actually still have mine after switching the Sony. In the Nikon world, while the 12-24 is the standard setter for the class across all brands, the 16-35 f4 is a go to lens, and arguably better than the older 17-35 and 18-?.

Would encourage you in your leisure after the trip to check out the 16-35. It is not really the distortion. It’s not like a fisheye, it is more that you have to think when using it - level pitch and yaw when composing. While other lens have the same issue, but not as apparent which introduces sloppiness. While I started with full manual match needle exposure and ground glass focusing, noticed the sloppiness when I went to the Canon AE1 and it started doing those things for me, speeding up the shots and didn’t have to think. The same exists today.

Will do, thank you.

I think for now the 24-70 is a safe choice for me as i will be taking pics of people and I was told the 16-35 is not particularly aimed for people shooting. Will practice in september as I migth borrow it for a weekend and test it out
Thank you

 

[Apple fanboy]

Will do, thank you.

I think for now the 24-70 is a safe choice for me as i will be taking pics of people and I was told the 16-35 is not particularly aimed for people shooting. Will practice in september as I migth borrow it for a weekend and test it out
Thank you

If I only take one lens its the 24-70mm 2.8 all day long. 70-200mm or 105mm macro a close second. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens but none of my filters fit it (I went for the slightly cheaper 100mm Lee system).
Don't forget to post results.

 

[kenoh]

If I only take one lens its the 24-70mm 2.8 all day long. 70-200mm or 105mm macro a close second. The 14-24 is a beautiful lens but none of my filters fit it (I went for the slightly cheaper 100mm Lee system).
Don't forget to post results.

Wow, cool... First time I saw Lee 100mm and cheaper in the same sentence.... lol.... I know I know... Nisi and Kase are more expensive... but just never seen this written before...

 

[Apple fanboy]

Wow, cool... First time I saw Lee 100mm and cheaper in the same sentence.... lol.... I know I know... Nisi and Kase are more expensive... but just never seen this written before...

Well I might have had a discount

 

[Freida]

Wow, cool... First time I saw Lee 100mm and cheaper in the same sentence.... lol.... I know I know... Nisi and Kase are more expensive... but just never seen this written before...

had to google this thing and boy that crap is expensive. A small frame and piece of glass and its $100-$200
hehe

 

[baypharm]

You cant go wrong with a 24-70 IMHO it is the most versatile range for sure. 18mm or 21mm prime will also do the weird distortion thing.

Not if it’s a rectilinear lense design

 

[Apple fanboy]

had to google this thing and boy that crap is expensive. A small frame and piece of glass and its $100-$200
hehe

You can’t put a price on quality! That’s what I tell Mrs AFB anyway!

 

[kenoh]

You can’t put a price on quality! That’s what I tell Mrs AFB anyway!

Good! because if she could, you'd be listed on eBay mate....
[doublepost=1565338667][/doublepost]

had to google this thing and boy that crap is expensive. A small frame and piece of glass and its $100-$200
hehe

Yep... I had a laugh to myself a while back. I was out taking snaps and I was obsessing about protecting my lenses and making sure I didnt forget any of them.

It then dawned on me that actually, my filter pouch and its contents cost more than some of the lenses did!

Thing is, you start off buying one, then another creeps in and at a snacking price of £100 ish versus a big one time spend on a lens, you lose track of how much you have been spending!

I suppose this is why you shouldnt cheap out on filters because you dont want to have to go buy them all again.
[doublepost=1565338744][/doublepost]

Good! because if she could, you'd be listed on eBay mate....
[doublepost=1565338667][/doublepost]

Yep... I had a laugh to myself a while back. I was out taking snaps and I was obsessing about protecting my lenses and making sure I didnt forget any of them.

It then dawned on me that actually, my filter pouch and its contents cost more than some of the lenses did!

Thing is, you start off buying one, then another creeps in and at a snacking price of £100 ish versus a big one time spend on a lens, you lose track of how much you have been spending!

I suppose this is why you shouldnt cheap out on filters because you dont want to have to go buy them all again.

or those goddamn adapters! license to print money for the filter holder peeps.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Good! because if she could, you'd be listed on eBay mate....
[doublepost=1565338667][/doublepost]

Yep... I had a laugh to myself a while back. I was out taking snaps and I was obsessing about protecting my lenses and making sure I didnt forget any of them.

It then dawned on me that actually, my filter pouch and its contents cost more than some of the lenses did!

Thing is, you start off buying one, then another creeps in and at a snacking price of £100 ish versus a big one time spend on a lens, you lose track of how much you have been spending!

I suppose this is why you shouldnt cheap out on filters because you dont want to have to go buy them all again.
[doublepost=1565338744][/doublepost]

or those goddamn adapters! license to print money for the filter holder peeps.

That’s why I didn’t buy them for my 14-24mm. Cost a lot more. Plus the holder is much bigger.

 

[Freida]

I used to have a protective filter on my kit lens with D90 and that was about 60 pounds or so.
Now I have D750 and 85mm 1.8 and I'm not getting any of that. In those 7 years I had the D90 the lens was practically brand new and the filter was unscratched. Not wasting money ever again. Its just money down the drain.
I don't like these psychological products that count on human desire to be careful when something is expensive. Hence why most stores make money on the insurance itself rather than the product. So bad
So no, not getting into it.

Good! because if she could, you'd be listed on eBay mate....
[doublepost=1565338667][/doublepost]

Yep... I had a laugh to myself a while back. I was out taking snaps and I was obsessing about protecting my lenses and making sure I didnt forget any of them.

It then dawned on me that actually, my filter pouch and its contents cost more than some of the lenses did!

Thing is, you start off buying one, then another creeps in and at a snacking price of £100 ish versus a big one time spend on a lens, you lose track of how much you have been spending!

I suppose this is why you shouldnt cheap out on filters because you dont want to have to go buy them all again.
[doublepost=1565338744][/doublepost]

or those goddamn adapters! license to print money for the filter holder peeps.