Need a cheap, lightweight general purpose zoom for backpacking..

[Destin]

Hey guys, I'm going to be doing lots of backpacking and long distance hiking this summer. A large part of this is going to be landscape photography, so I'm planning to pack out my D810, 20 1.8G, and a compact tripod. The 20mm is coming strictly to be my wide landscape lens and my fast, wide prime for astrophotography while on the trail.

Weight is at a premium, but so is image quality and price so I'm not ready to spend money on a lighter camera. What I do need however is a light general purpose zoom lens to carry for photos that need more reach than the 20mm.

This doesn't need to be anything super special; just reasonably sharp. The smaller and lighter the better, and the more zoom range the better. Doesn't need to have a fast max. aperture because I'm not going to be trying for background separation anyway and will be shooting at F/5.6 for so I'd imagine.

I was thinking of just bringing the 24-70; but it's way too large and heavy and I'd really like more reach than it offers anyway.

@Derrel you have a working knowledge of older Nikon film lenses and such.. do you have any recommendations for this? I don't really have any background regarding older or lower end full frame lenses.

I've looked at the 28-80 G and the 28-105 D. Some people claim to like them on the D800. Just looking for more opinions.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon's late film-era kit zoom, the Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5~5.6 AF-D stopped down to f/7.1 or f/8 is surprisingly sharp...I have been using one for over 10 years..it was fantastic on 12-MP DX Nikon...pretty good on 24MP FX, and at f/7.1 and f/8 on 36-MP FX Nikon it's surprisingly good. How can it be good? Diffraction! Diffraction cuts critical sharpness, but it also brings depth of field, and things that appear to be "in focus". 25 years ago,Popular Photography magazine tested "economy" zooms against "pro, f/2.8 zooms". The odd thing was that stopped down, the lower-to mid-priced lenses were very,very close in performance to the pro, f/2.8 zooms. They mentioned that yes, sharpness and contrast was very close, but they also mentioned that the "pro" type lenses were likely to last longer under rugged use, without getting decentered or otherwise affected by heavy use, or use over years and years. I never forgot that article, and so when digital came along, I started trying a lot of lenses, to see how they actually shot.

On landscape work, I'm usually at f/7.1 or f/8...at those smaller f/stops, diffraction seems to be more or less an equalizing force...almost ANY modern Nikkor is "decent" at those small, tripod- or flash-centric f/stops. I'e used the 28-80 AF-D for a lot of indoor flash work, and at events and parties...the high-end bodies can drive this lens to focus quite easily.

Small and light and SHARP? The 45mm f/2.8-P Nikkor prime is VERY compact...and extremely sharp, and quite beautiful in the way it renders. it's one of the smallest lenses Nikon has ever made. Tape two lens caps together, back-to-back, and it's super-easy to carry this little gem.

 

[Destin]

Nikon's late film-era kit zoom, the Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.5~5.6 AF-D stopped down to f/7.1 or f/8 is surprisingly sharp...I have been using one for over 10 years..it was fantastic on 12-MP DX Nikon...pretty good on 24MP FX, and at f/7.1 and f/8 on 36-MP FX Nikon it's surprisingly good. How can it be good? Diffraction! Diffraction cuts critical sharpness, but it also brings depth of field, and things that appear to be "in focus". 25 years ago,Popular Photography magazine tested "economy" zooms against "pro, f/2.8 zooms". The odd thing was that stopped down, the lower-to mid-priced lenses were very,very close in performance to the pro, f/2.8 zooms. They mentioned that yes, sharpness and contrast was very close, but they also mentioned that the "pro" type lenses were likely to last longer under rugged use, without getting decentered or otherwise affected by heavy use, or use over years and years. I never forgot that article, and so when digital came along, I started trying a lot of lenses, to see how they actually shot.

On landscape work, I'm usually at f/7.1 or f/8...at those smaller f/stops, diffraction seems to be more or less an equalizing force...almost ANY modern Nikkor is "decent" at those small, tripod- or flash-centric f/stops. I'e used the 28-80 AF-D for a lot of indoor flash work, and at events and parties...the high-end bodies can drive this lens to focus quite easily.

Small and light and SHARP? The 45mm f/2.8-P Nikkor prime is VERY compact...and extremely sharp, and quite beautiful in the way it renders. it's one of the smallest lenses Nikon has ever made. Tape two lens caps together, back-to-back, and it's super-easy to carry this little gem.

Thanks Derrel! That's exactly the kind of response I was looking for. This lens is mostly going to be used for taking photos of myself and my adventure buddies and maybe some more in depth landscapes.

I'm strongly leaning towards one of the 28-80 variants. They're small, light, sharp... and they're selling for well under $50 on eBay. Hard to complain about it at that price even if it sucks.

That 45mm sounds like a solid lens, but I've already got a 50mm that's relatively small so I can't see adding another very similar prime to my collection.

Thanks for the input!

 

[weepete]

I'd reccomend you try and cover the 28-50mm in any standard landscape zoom you buy. Recently there has been a big shift towards ultrawides, as you no doubt know but they suffer from compression of the verticals in the centre of the frame. Traditional focal lengths of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm are much better at rendering the perspective difference between near and far objects with height, with 50mm being very close to what your eye sees. These traditional focal lengths are very useful to have in your bag, particularly when you are around mountains or hills and the height and shape is important to retain.

 

[jeffW]

so I'm not ready to spend money on a lighter camera.

to be used for taking photos of myself and my adventure buddies

Have you looked at picking up a used Point n Shoot? It sure seems for long backpacking days having a point n shoot you can wear is so beneficial for all those fun pics that get missed if you have to take off your pack to get to the camera. Wearing a Dslr even on a nifty harness gets old quickly. Then have your dslr for all the at camp stuff. You could then skip the medium lens and pick up a longer lens for any animals.

 

[480sparky40 39]

Personally, I'd take 2 or 3 primes instead. But if you want a zoom, check out the classic 28-200/3.5-5.6 AF-D.

 

[Dave442]

With the 20 and 50mm I would look for one of the telephoto zoom lenses.
I would go with the new 70-300mm VR AFP. I have the 70-300mm VR and it is easy to cary on long hikes, the MTF curve looks better for the new AFP version and it is also lighter. On the cheap side - the older 70-300mm G with the focus ring at the front of the lens.

I usually find in hiking that I can walk over to anything that might require 80mm vs 50mm - so for that reason I would not carry the 28-80mm zoom.

 

[ronlane]

Here is a good article by Scott Kelby about some one lens options.

https://scottkelby.com/perfect-lens-travel-photography-crop-sensor-picks/

 

[Braineack]

my vote is the 28-105mm. I was going to buy one and take it to Greece with me, but then I said eff it and I'm planning to bring the 24-70 and 70-200

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

What about the 18-105? Super cheap and I don't remember it being heavy at all. I used that as my walk around lens for a while before I got the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (also a great lens, IMO).

 

[beagle100]

Hey guys, I'm going to be doing lots of backpacking and long distance hiking this summer. A large part of this is going to be landscape photography, so I'm planning to pack out my D810, 20 1.8G, and a compact tripod. The 20mm is coming strictly to be my wide landscape lens and my fast, wide prime for astrophotography while on the trail.

Weight is at a premium, but so is image quality and price so I'm not ready to spend money on a lighter camera. What I do need however is a light general purpose zoom lens to carry for photos that need more reach than the 20mm.
This doesn't need to be anything super special; just reasonably sharp. The smaller and lighter the better, and the more zoom range the better. Doesn't need to have a fast max. aperture because I'm not going to be trying for background separation anyway and will be shooting at F/5.6 for so I'd imagine.

I was thinking of just bringing the 24-70; but it's way too large and heavy and I'd really like more reach than it offers anyway.

@Derrel you have a working knowledge of older Nikon film lenses and such.. do you have any recommendations for this? I don't really have any background regarding older or lower end full frame lenses.

I've looked at the 28-80 G and the 28-105 D. Some people claim to like them on the D800. Just looking for more opinions.

dunno, I hike and bicycle with the small and light 55-250 telephoto zoom
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Destin]

What about the 18-105? Super cheap and I don't remember it being heavy at all. I used that as my walk around lens for a while before I got the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (also a great lens, IMO).

Used to have one and loved it, but it's a dx lens :/

 

[Destin]

Personally, I'd take 2 or 3 primes instead. But if you want a zoom, check out the classic 28-200/3.5-5.6 AF-D.

Normally I'd agree with you. And I may well end up just taking the 20mm and 50mm and calling it good. But I'd really like to have something more versatile for on the go photos.

I'll be shooting mostly at f/5.6 and above anyway I'd imagine, so I don't know that the primes would even have much advantage over a cheap zoom.

 

[Destin]

so I'm not ready to spend money on a lighter camera.

to be used for taking photos of myself and my adventure buddies

Have you looked at picking up a used Point n Shoot? It sure seems for long backpacking days having a point n shoot you can wear is so beneficial for all those fun pics that get missed if you have to take off your pack to get to the camera. Wearing a Dslr even on a nifty harness gets old quickly. Then have your dslr for all the at camp stuff. You could then skip the medium lens and pick up a longer lens for any animals.

I already have a waterproof Olympus point and shoot. I might consider taking it with me instead of a "normal" lens, but the D810 is going to be carried in a pouch on my chest anyway so it'll be super accessible and easy to get out. I don't trust it bouncing around in my backpack with my water bladder anyway.

Ideally I'd buy an m4/3 setup for backpacking but that just isn't in the budget right now. And I really wouldn't want to give up the D810 quality for my landscapes and astro work anyway.

 

[480sparky40 39]

What about the 18-105? Super cheap and I don't remember it being heavy at all. I used that as my walk around lens for a while before I got the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 (also a great lens, IMO).

Used to have one and loved it, but it's a dx lens :/

---------------