Is an f/4 telephoto lens enough for outdoor daytime travel photography?
Asked 1/14/2013
2 views
2 answers
0
I'm new to photography and use a Nikon D3100 with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8 DX. I'm looking for a telephoto zoom, roughly in the 55-200mm or 70-300mm range, mainly for outdoor daytime travel photography, including landscapes, crowds, and general sightseeing.
I was considering whether I need a fast f/2.8 telephoto, or if an f/4 or slower lens would be sufficient in these conditions. The big price and weight difference between lenses like a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a consumer zoom such as a 55-200mm f/4-5.6 made me wonder what really matters here.
For this kind of use on a DX Nikon body, is f/4 enough, and when would f/2.8 actually be worth it?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
13
Absolutely. Even if price is not an issue, an F/4 lens offers an important saving in weight.
Now, it is important to understand that aperture is one difference but the most significant is image quality. A cheap 55-200mm is rather poor and you have to stop it down to F/8 or even F/11 to get decent results which is very restrictive.
Still you can get a high quality F/4 lens instead like the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm F/4G ED VR lens. It is cheaper ($1400 USD) and lighter than the F/2.8 version (850g vs 1.5kg). For travel photography this is an excellent option.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes — for outdoor daytime travel, landscapes, and crowds, f/4 is generally enough, and even f/4-5.6 can work well.
A faster f/2.8 telephoto is mainly useful when you need more light or faster shutter speeds, such as indoor shooting, low light, or some sports. For sunny-day travel photography, that advantage is often less important than cost, size, and weight.
The bigger differences between these lenses are not just aperture, but also build, image quality, and portability. A 70-200mm f/2.8 is much heavier and far more expensive. For travel, many people prefer lighter lenses because they are easier to carry all day.
A good compromise is an f/4 telephoto, or even a consumer zoom if your budget is limited. If you’re happy with your kit lens and mainly want more reach, a 70-300mm-type lens is often a strong value choice. If you buy the less expensive option and use it a lot, you’ll quickly learn whether you truly need the extra speed and quality of a pro f/2.8 lens.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What do ED, IF, and VR mean on Nikon 55-200mm lenses?
Is a Sigma 70-210mm f/4-5.6 suitable for beginner equine sports photography on a Canon 7D?
What makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 more expensive than a 70-200mm f/4, and how do 70-300mm zooms compare to a 200mm prime?
When is a 70-200mm f/2.8 worth the size, weight, and cost?
Which Nikon DX zoom is best for handheld indoor and general use: 18-200mm VR or a two-lens kit?