Lens suggestion (for mtb)

molested_cow · Mar 12, 2017

Since a year ago I joined a group of new friends who explore mountain trails and river beds on mtb and we don't do it for the sake of riding these terrains, we spend lots of time taking photos as well. The trips are usually a day long, so we will be on our bikes for quite a few hours. Many of us mount our camera bags in the front for easy access. Since we also have to carry water, food and other supplies to last the day in our back packs, there's a limit on how much photography equipment we can carry. For tripod I carry a gorilla pod, which is mostly for resting on the ground with some angle adjustment. It can't really support the weight of my camera.

I now carry two lens with me on these trips. The F1.8G 20mm and F1.4 50mm. I choose prime lens because they are light, relatively compact with large aperture (lighting in the woods can be very tricky). The 20mm is critical because of landscape photography, and it's the most versatile for what I shoot. The 50mm for mid range shots, and shots that I need to have bokeh. However my front camera pack is quite limited. It's not easy and safe to be swapping lens in the wild and on the go. We were once exploring a rock river bed and my gloves were picking up sticky rock flakes that got onto the rear element of my lens. I had to carefully blow them away. So I am looking for a lens solution that will work in this conditions. Hopefully just one lens so I won't have to swap them.

So the criteria are:
- Light weight and compact ( I can't have too big of a back on my chest when riding)
- Covers wide to mid range focal length. A 24~70mm will be great, but the F2.8 versions are to bulky and heavy.
- Aperture large enough so I can rely less on high ISO. Currently I find myself using ISO1280 very often in the woods even on sunny days.
- FX lens since I am using the D750.
- Used/ old lens are welcome!

What I currently have:
- AF-D F3.5~5.6 35~70mm. This one is light weight and really compact, but the image quality is really bad. It was the kit lens for my dad's old F501. Not gonna use it again unless I am really desperate.

- AF-D F2.8 35~70mm. Great image quality, but 35mm is definitely not wide enough. Metal body, so it's a bit on the heavy side. Also, the push-pull mechanism is slow and not easy to manipulate if I need to shoot fast.

- AF-S 28~300mm. Image quality is questionable. Colors tend to be dull and lack saturation. I only use this for telephoto shots since I don't have any specialized telephoto lens. A bit on the bulky side though. Aperture is too small for what I need.

Any ideas? Thanks!

molested_cow · Mar 12, 2017

Most of the time we are dry, but when the dry season comes, this becomes a must-do trip!

Derrel · Mar 12, 2017

One of the 24-85mm AF-S versions, either the old one without VR from the early 2000's, or the newer VR one, the first kit zoom for the D600? Maybe the VR would help in dim lighting?

Light weight and small size are almost diametrically opposed to fast maximum aperture.

The very inexpensive 28-80mm AF-D-series is an FX lens: surprisingly okay at f/8! Plastic mount, feels flimsy, shoots much better than one would ever expect.

molested_cow · Mar 12, 2017

The 24-85mm AF-S seems like a great choice!

greybeard · Mar 13, 2017

Derrel said:
One of the 24-85mm AF-S versions, either the old one without VR from the early 2000's, or the newer VR one, the first kit zoom for the D600? Maybe the VR would help in dim lighting?

Light weight and small size are almost diametrically opposed to fast maximum aperture.

The very inexpensive 28-80mm AF-D-series is an FX lens: surprisingly okay at f/8! Plastic mount, feels flimsy, shoots much better than one would ever expect.

I have the 28-80 AF plastic mount. They can be had for around $50, light as a feather, and surprising good IQ.

Derrel · Mar 13, 2017

Yeah, I have the 28-80 plastic mount as well: I actually use it now and again! it's surprisingly GOOD at f/7.1 and f/8...by those apertures, if you have more than 10 megapixels, diffraction is already cutting into lens sharpness, and even the $$$ f/2.8 zooms look pretty close to this $50, 1990's kit zoom. A decade or so ago, Popular Photography magazine tested high-dollar f/2.8 pro zooms against consumer zooms, and the verdict was that there was not that much of a difference in sharpness or contrast at medium to small f/stops, and enlargements were almost indiscernable. Their conclusion was that the "pro" f/2.8 zooms were better built, and would likely last longer, and would likely take more daily use, and some abuse, than would the low-cost, consumer lenses. I bought the 28-80 AF-D as a Nikon refurb way back in 2003, back when it was $69 or so. It's been 13 years since I got it...still holding up under light, occasional use.

I actually did part of a shoot with it earlier this year, in February, just to have a SMALL zoom lens that was non-threatening. I've also used it for parties and family gatherings, when I want a SMALL, light lens that doesn't freak people out at close, indoor distances. And yes, it is FX-capable, and it shoots okay on 24MP FX and 12.2 MP DX Nikons.

Here it is at the 50mm setting, at f/10, with flash and one small softbox. I left the forehead un-softened, so you can see it can resolve pretty good detail.

molested_cow · Mar 13, 2017

Derrel, towards the top fringe of her hair, are those green dyed hair or chromatic abberation?

Derrel · Mar 13, 2017

molested_cow said:
Derrel, towards the top fringe of her hair, are those green dyed hair or chromatic abberation?

I'm not sure exactly what you're seeing, but I can see a hair extension peeking up a bit.

nickgillespie · Mar 13, 2017

I actually had a friend have a camera break from too much bouncing around in his pack. I have also had another friend dump his entire kit into a lake when he was kayaking, another have his underwater housing break while swimming with seals... etc etc. I am a huge proponent of getting out and doing cool stuff with a camera... just make sure it's insured.

molested_cow · Mar 14, 2017

nickgillespie said:
I actually had a friend have a camera break from too much bouncing around in his pack. I have also had another friend dump his entire kit into a lake when he was kayaking, another have his underwater housing break while swimming with seals... etc etc. I am a huge proponent of getting out and doing cool stuff with a camera... just make sure it's insured.

In our group, there's one guy who carries around a 5D4 around with some lens and a tripod, and another guy who mounts his also new 5D3 with 24~70 on the front strap of his back pack. I'm far from being the crazy guy.

We are quite conservative with what we do though, as in, when you have this much weight on you, you can't really do anything crazy on the bike. Our rides are just at casual speed, not time trial. I do think kayaking with a DSLR is a bit risky though, definitely much more so than biking.

molested_cow · Mar 16, 2017

Alright people, there was a big trip planning for this coming weekend and since I couldn't find a used one anywhere, I went ahead and got a new one. Just got it in mail and did a few quick shots... surprised by the distortion! The left are straight from the camera. The right are post processed (distortion/color correction etc). I'm surprised that the least distortion happens at 26mm and not in the middle, like 50mm or something. At 85mm it's quite severe. Although it's not something that can't be corrected with ACR, still bothers me a bit.

BTW the said big trip just got canceled due to bad weather. Sad!

Destin · Mar 17, 2017

molested_cow said:
I do think kayaking with a DSLR is a bit risky though, definitely much more so than biking.

For sure. I've been looking for a way around this but have yet to come up with anything that makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Especially since I'd want to bring my D500 and 150-600 lens so I could shoot wildlife.