cliburn

24-85mm

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Totally agree with this.
A FF camera and 24mm is quite wide and 120mm is a good short telephoto.
I have the 24-105 and find the 24-120 would be even more desirable as an all around carry lens.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

Go back to basics, use a 50mm.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I suggested that one too, but for his purposes and if he’s really looking for weight savings then the 28-80mm G lens would be perfect. It only weighs about 6 and 1/2 ounces and can be found for less than $40.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

A real PITA.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Why?

User ID

Grab a ruler. Find the 4” and 6” markings. Draw a 4x6 rectangle.

Prints that size have special dispensation from the Pope (the Photo Pope natcherly). Lenses faults are no issue. Rest easy. A D850 is a D200 in this application.

User ID

Looks like can’t lose, win-win.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

105mm.

lightyear

I own the 24-85 VR and the 24-120 F 4. VR. Most of the time I use the 24-120 which is more versatile and also sharper. With the newer cameras, raising the ISO to 400 or 800 creates no problem so that the slower F 4.0 lens is no problem.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Let me offer an alternative solution. First the D850 plus the 24-70 f2.8 weighs ~4.3 lbs.

The D850 weighs just over 2 lbs and the 16-80 dB weighs 1.1. The result is a 3+Lb 20 MP camera with an aperture of f2.8-f4. The lens sells for $1,069.

A “nifty 50” weighs 6.6 oz and the resulting system weighs 2.4 lbs and delivers 46 MP, up to 2+ stops faster and the lens costs $199. Or you can go with a 50, f1.4, which adds another 3 ounces, give you up to 3 stops faster and costs $399. Note that those extra stops can help isolate subjects from the background (always handy for family snapshots that often take place in relatively cluttered surroundings), or can obviate the need for a flash, which adds more weight and complexity for those quick family candids.

But the best answer, if weight is the problem, is a completely different solution. For $500 , the OP can buy a used Fuji X-E2 with the 18-55 zoom which weighs half what the Nikon with the equivalent zoom, is much smaller and delivers the same MP as the dx zoom for half the price. Or for the price of the dx zoom, you could upgrade to an X-T2 or similar and maybe even squeeze in the 16-50 f2.8. This was the solution a friend of mine who is a pro and shoots Nikon adopted, and it has slowly propagated to several of his friends (including me) who shoot FF for demanding work, but have come to love the size, weight, performance, convenience and general unobtrusiveness of the little crop Fuji for day to day use.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes just buy a small light camera.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Autofocuses well at that also.

I’m not sure of the weight, but I think it’s under a pound.

Aspherical, not ED, but typical NIKKOR sharpness and contrast.

Overall my favorite film lens, I don’t own a FF DSLR but it should perform similarly and more than adequate for snapshots and plenty fast enough.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Indoors in a house, I agree.

Sneaker zoom outside or in museums is good exercise.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Try it at the edge of the Grand Canyon.