Was my dream lens for years, but after living with it for some months I realize it's not for me. I LOVE the pictures out of it, I love the FL, everything. Everything, but the size and weight of it. I can't transfer it without whining, I can't throw it around my shoulder, I can't bring it in public without being looked at as if I'm carrying a weapon. So, I'll probably trade it for a 24-85 and a couple of primes to compensate for IQ. I know I'll be regretting it a thousand times. But I most probably will trade it.
Anyone else been on this boat with this lens or am I alone?
You are not alone. I love that lens when I'm taking a full bag of equipment, but when I need to keep things lighter it's one of the first things that goes back onto the shelf in favor of a couple of primes.
No, you're not alone. Mine is clawing at my ankles begging, but it's not likely to survive another month. I plan to replace it with a 24-120/f4 and a 28/f1.8. (I already have a 50/f1.8 and I'm hoping not to really need an 85/f1.8.)
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
Ray and Brian don't you think the 24-120 asks more money than it deserves? Online reviews lead me to that conclusion, though never had the chance to test one myself. Hmmm... Thought it would be great to get away with the cheaper 24-85VR as a walk around lens and buy a couple of primes for more serious shooting. Already own a 85mm 1.8D which I absolutely I love, and a couple of more primes would fill the blanks. I'm also considering a micro, we'll see.
Sorry, I didn't provide a complete picture. I also have a 28-105/f3.5-4.5 AFD in inventory already; also I have a fairly complete set of Micro-Nikkors: 60 AFS, 105 AFD, 200 AFD. And I have fast telephoto primes: 135/f2 and 180/f2.8. So really all I need is a high quality VR zoom and a fast wide angle.
As far as the price of the 24-120/f4 vs its quality, the quality is good enough for my purposes. I know plenty of pros or serious amateurs that use the 24-120 (Jon for example!), and besides I'm of the opinion that sharpness is overrated anyway. There are very few situations where the 24-120/f4 isn't good enough AND the primes are not flexible enough, and very, very few of even that small set is actually addressed by the 24-70/f2.8. There are also few situations in which an f/4 with VR is not good enough low light, and in those cases I'm not willing to spend the extra $$$ and weight for the f/1.4 versions of the 24 and 85.
Would I go for the 24-85VR if I didn't already have a 28-105? Quite possibly, particularly at this moment when the 24-85 is about to suffer from a supply glut.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
>Ray and Brian don't you think the 24-120 asks more money than >it deserves? Online reviews lead me to that conclusion, though >never had the chance to test one myself. >Hmmm... >Thought it would be great to get away with the cheaper 24-85VR >as a walk around lens and buy a couple of primes for more >serious shooting. Already own a 85mm 1.8D which I absolutely I >love, and a couple of more primes would fill the blanks. >I'm also considering a micro, we'll see. > >Anyway,thanks all for your answers.
Hi Jeff, The thread has moved along a pace since you posted this and some very good opinions too.
For me I decided that agonising over the nth degree of IQ was secondary to me, I gave up 2.8 for 4.0 but gained to me very useful extra reach and VR. For me I was thinking walk around lens and 70mm long end was too short and VR is massive for me.
As it turns out, stopped down, there is no discernible difference in IQ anyway, plus I have 1.8 primes for times I need them. A 50mm prime is hard to beat sometimes.....
The 24-70 is of course legendary, I just found it way too limiting for me for walk around use.
I can't comment on the new 24-85mm as I've not tried one but the 24-120 4.0 VR is the most useful lens I own for FX for me
Sat 29-Dec-12 03:55 PM | edited Sat 29-Dec-12 04:00 PM by walkerr
As an owner of both, you definitely notice the difference in both size and weight. The 24-70mm weighs almost 35% more than the 24-120mm and coupled with the added length, it feels very different on the camera. Also keep in mind that the extra 50mm focal length of the 24-120mm can sometimes keep you free carrying an extra lens, so the practical weight savings can be even greater.
Despite all that, I wouldn't give up my 24-70mm. It's what I enjoy using for landscapes and any situation where size and weight aren't a concern. I like its control layout better than the 24-120mm or 24-85mm (I've never liked the reversed zoom and focus ring configuration), and it's definitely sharper than the latter.
Well, everything is relative, and to each his/her own. But all of the f2.8 glass is heavier than of slower glass. And in my case, a lot of the time I'm also enjoying the weight savings of the D800 versus the D3s. Together, I save over a pound — which handheld in summer sun for five hours is a lot!
But there's the right tool for the right job. Low light paid shoot is with the f/2.8 glass on the D3s!
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
Once I got my 24-120/f4 and got used to the terrific quality of images, the lighter weight and the greater range... I just stopped using the 24-70. I gave it to my son-in-law who was very happy to have it. I don't miss it.
Other than the size (and weaponry) I don't see how having to carry around another zoom and two primes buys anything. Now you have 3 lenses to carry and have to changes lens and possibility of missing shots. Now the 24-120 makes more sense to me.
Sat 29-Dec-12 06:54 PM | edited Sat 29-Dec-12 06:57 PM by jef_dk4
>Other than the size (and weaponry) I don't see how having to >carry around another zoom and two primes buys anything. Now >you have 3 lenses to carry and have to changes lens and >possibility of missing shots. Now the 24-120 makes more sense >to me.
You got me wrong on this one. What I want to do is replace the 24-70 with a much more easy to carry zoom like the 24-85. With the money I'll save from the trade though, I'm thinking of buying a couple of primes for different occasions. Say I want to go for some architectural shooting. I now own the 24-70 and a 85 1.8D, so I will shoot with the zoom. If trading for the 24-85 means I can afford a wide prime (which now I can't), why shoot with the zoom? Hope it makes more sense now, though you guys made me consider the 24-120 now, which I will have to give a try to soon somehow.
Sat 29-Dec-12 06:32 PM | edited Sat 29-Dec-12 06:36 PM by GiantTristan
Weight is certainly an issue. However, one has to consider the "system weight", i.e. camera plus lens. The D800 and the 24-70/2.8 both weigh about two lbs each. If you replace the 24-70 by a one lb lens, you get a weight saving of just 25%. I don't think you can significantly reduce the weight of a good f/2.8 zoom lens, and this is also true for top level f/1.4 prime lenses like the 24/1.4 or the 35/1.4. Similarly, size and weight of a DSLR are largely fixed by its basic construction.
To get a truly light weight kit one would have to abandon the DSLR concept and stay with f/1.8 or f/2 prime lenses.
You most certainly can save weight without abandoning the "DSLR concept". I typically shoot with a D7000, which is not really a heavy camera. I also have a D90 and a D50. They are all basically the same size and weight - so I just use the D7000 for everything. I bought my son a D3100 for Christmas this year, and have been taking snapshots with it during the holidays. For that purpose, it's wonderful,...so small, light and simple. At 24MP, it makes nicer crops than my D7000. With good lighting, and for anything that doesn't move, it's much more fun to use than the D7000. I know we're not talking about the same class of camera here, but there is clearly also bigger difference in weight between carrying a D600 and carrying a D4, than there is a difference in IQ.
I have resisted the siren song of big f2.8 zooms for years for that very reason. I can't imagine carrying/using them for anything other than the specialized circumstance when nothing else will get the job done. Those circumstances are just too few and far between to justify the expense.
I ended up selling all my zoom lenses for prime lenses. I like them much better. Bulkiness was not so much an issue as image quality. I think the quality of the primes are much better. They are also much faster lenses which is a big plus.
>I ended up selling all my zoom lenses for prime lenses. I >like them much better. Bulkiness was not so much an issue as >image quality. I think the quality of the primes are much >better. They are also much faster lenses which is a big plus.
I guess noone argues the primes give better IQ and speed. But, personally, I need a mid zoom. Have I been a tele shooter I guess I would find a tele zoom a must have too. A zoom is a compromise and all, I agree, but there are times I prefer a correct frame with medium IQ over a bad frame with high IQ. Maybe it's just me.
Still think the 24-120 asks too much for what it offers though. The longer end, on the other hand, is not bad. A test drive is a must have I guess.
The difference is down to 10% when you stick it on a body. Personally I notice the difference in the balance, of the two, I like the shorter barrel of the 24-120. If I were handed a body/lens combo on a strap, I don't think I could tell them apart without looking. I have both and love both, I will probably keep both for a long time.
I guess I should also point out that since I've been hitting the gym a couple days a week since having a hernia repaired. I'm a happy camper now, I carrying my D3x and whatever's on it like it's a point and shoot... Thanks Tommy... I love Physioterrorpee.
Will shoot for fame...fun...food... a heck I'll shoot anytime anywhere.
This is a timely thread for me and is giving me important information when comparing the 24-70 v 24-120.
I have the 24-70mm which is perhaps my favourite lens and never considered giving it up, however I have been wondering for a while whether due to weight and no VR if the 24-120mm would be more practical. This in terms of both weight and flexibility.
I have some experience of this decision making between two lenses when I decided after much deliberation to change my 14-24mm for the 16-35mm f4. Weight was not a factor, but I wanted to use filters and anyway I often found the 14mm end too wide on FX. Once changed I have never missed my 14-24mm and find it far more flexible now I have a longer reach and can use filters.
This thread has now made me think seriously about swopping the 24-70 for the 24-120 f4. To be honest I am not a photographer who really pixel peeps or prints massive sizes, so am unlikely to be disadvantaged by the change.
I don't have nor unlikely will ever have this lens (cost) but I am planning to get an 80-200 f2.8 AF-D two ring and that is a heavy lens. I had it before. I don't get why you want to get rid of a quality pro lens. Like anything in life, you make adjustments. I plan to find a way to comfortably carry and use my heavy lens. I have a bad back, so I understand having to tote a heavy lens. But to me it is worth putting thought and effort into developing a sensible carry solution.
Just my 2 cents worth. I feel you will regret getting rid of it as I have regretted getting rid of my two ring. Spare yourself the pain!
A great element of truth in that. I have sorted my carrying and use Sun Sniper slings, so the weight is distributed over my shoulder and the camera sits comfortably on my hip. Originally I did this because I use a D800 + a mighty heavy Sigma 50-500mm OS, but soon adopted it onto my other heavy lenses as soon as I felt the benefits.
It is unlikely I'll sell my 24-70 f2.8, however I believe the 24-120mm f4 would be a close contender.
When I had my two ringer, I used my Black Rapid sling and I carried that heavy zoom on my D7000 on a hot summer afternoon in an impromptu model shoot. I happened across what I initially thought was a couple taking pictures of the local area. Turns out she was modeling for the guy, so I jumped in and started shooting. We went to several locations and I had no issues carrying my rig on my hip. I had a lot of fun and felt like a pro!
>I don't have nor unlikely will ever have this lens (cost) but >I am planning to get an 80-200 f2.8 AF-D two ring and that is >a heavy lens. I had it before. I don't get why you want to get >rid of a quality pro lens. Like anything in life, you make >adjustments. I plan to find a way to comfortably carry and use >my heavy lens. I have a bad back, so I understand having to >tote a heavy lens. But to me it is worth putting thought and >effort into developing a sensible carry solution. > >Just my 2 cents worth. I feel you will regret getting rid of >it as I have regretted getting rid of my two ring. Spare >yourself the pain!
Hey George, I've already thought about all that, I also feel I will regret getting rid of it. I really really like it I terms of IQ. But let me give you another view. I don't shoot just for fun. Half of my shots are family photos. For example, I went the other day with my son (1y4m) at a huge playground which was heavily Xmas themed. It was out of the question for me to carry the 24-70 in there (lots of people plus keeping an eye on a constantly running little devil). I used the 85 instead, which did a pretty decent job considering the FL limitations. I would have used the 24-85 if that was my mid zoom. Now, owning TWO zooms with the same length coverage, while owning a total of 4 lenses, now that would be a world's first, wouldn't it?
> >Hey George, I've already thought about all that, I also feel I >will regret getting rid of it. I really really like it I terms >of IQ. >But let me give you another view. I don't shoot just for fun. >Half of my shots are family photos. For example, I went the >other day with my son (1y4m) at a huge playground which was >heavily Xmas themed. It was out of the question for me to >carry the 24-70 in there (lots of people plus keeping an eye >on a constantly running little devil). I used the 85 instead, >which did a pretty decent job considering the FL limitations. >I would have used the 24-85 if that was my mid zoom. >Now, owning TWO zooms with the same length coverage, while >owning a total of 4 lenses, now that would be a world's first, >wouldn't it?
No harm in being first!
Ultimately it is you that you must please. That's how I look at it. It's good to have a lightweight alternative though, for instance I have a 55-200 AF-S VR DX for when I want to go light. It just comes down to affordability. Obviously if money was not the issue, we'd all have huge collections and who cares if there are multiple overlaps?
Well, the idea of a second affordable mid zoom is growing on me. I had a brief ebay search and found lots and lots of 90s and early 00s mid zooms (28-70,28-80,28-105 a.o.) at ridiculous prices. Heck, I can buy one even for fun. None of them is particularly fast, but wth, if it turns out to be at least decent in medium light, I might end up keeping the 24-70. What do you guys think?
I have 12 lenses. 5 of them cover 24mm; 3 cover 85mm; 3 cover 200mm. Each lens has a purpose. Selling a lens has generally resulted in buying it again so now I just keep the original lens if it doesn't make me unhappy. Retaining a lens for its special purpose is worth the happiness of having it when the need comes again.
If your only tool is a hammer then every problem is a nail. Sometimes it is nice to have a screwdriver too.
Slimming down the pack prior to the trip is always a challenge.
That's the truth, I'm on my 2nd copy of the 300mm AF-S f4! When I needed it, it wasn't there. Now, hell will freeze over before I sell it again. As someone said you never miss what's gone, until it's gone
>I have 12 lenses. 5 of them cover 24mm; 3 cover 85mm; 3 >cover 200mm. Each lens has a purpose. Selling a lens has >generally resulted in buying it again so now I just keep the >original lens if it doesn't make me unhappy. Retaining a lens >for its special purpose is worth the happiness of having it >when the need comes again. > >If your only tool is a hammer then every problem is a nail. >Sometimes it is nice to have a screwdriver too. > >Slimming down the pack prior to the trip is always a >challenge. > >Daniel McGowan >Visit my Nikonians gallery.
ITA! (I Totally Agree)
Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.
I would sure try one or two of them before I sold it. I have both the 28-70 and the 28-105 and I would suggest the 28-105 as it is a great lens, and takes great pictures I use all the time and even has Macro. Yes they are at a great price that is hard to believe. Check out KEH.com too.
Absolutely yes. I can think of two very experienced wedding pros on these boards that use the 24-120 f/4 (Mick and the gentleman that has the excellent flash tips blog IIRC). They both speak very highly of it! I'm sure there's others.
I have a 24-70 and 28-105 but I would like to add the 24-120 as a travel lens. I actually don't have a need to go light very often so I'll take my time, but it's on my someday list. Great discussion in this thread guys and I appreciate the post at the bottom comparing the 28-105 to the 24-120. I have been meaning to get down to my dealer to do that test myself.
Self-testing can be a very effective action because, as an alternative to web review sights, if you can see the difference yourself, there is no better authority to trust. I remember doing a Tamron 28-75 to Nikon 24-70 to Nikon 35-70. After that there was no question in my mind I needed to get the 24-70 because I could clearly see the difference in the results even after performing some extreme sharpening in post. So I ended up saving for 6 more months and got the big iron and it has always performed great for me.
I think Epicdan nailed it. Every lens has a purpose. There is no one right answer.
The "you" in the examples below is used in a generic sense.
If you are shooting low light action on a soccer pitch or football field, switching primes will not work very well. A fast zoom is probably best.
If you are on a hike in dusty conditions and shooting landscapes, overall range is a consideration. How often do you want to expose the inner parts of the camera and how many lenses plus tripod plus water plus food do you want to carry?
If you are in a studio shooting at pre determined distances, I doubt you can beat a fast prime.
... There are so many more scenarios. No need to list more of them.
To me, it's a balance of cost, the settings in which one shoots, the desired results, and personal preferences.
Dimitris, can you afford to keep the 24-70 while you try the 24-120 (or 24-85) and asses if the IQ measures up to your expectations and then decide on the need for primes and whether to sell the 24-70?
Wed 02-Jan-13 10:33 AM | edited Wed 02-Jan-13 10:34 AM by jef_dk4
> Dimitris, can you afford to keep the 24-70 while you try the >24-120 (or 24-85) and asses if the IQ measures up to your >expectations and then decide on the need for primes and >whether to sell the 24-70?
That would be difficult, especially for the 24-120.
I decided to give a cheap D zoom a try, which would cost me close to nothing, and see if it can do the job in medium/bright light situations. If the test is successful, I will most probably keep the 24-70, and reevaluate the whole mid-zoom scenario once more funds become available.
Meanwhile, spending some more time with the 85mm and finding my ways around the somehow restricting FL, I might end up with a set of primes as an alternative to carrying the 24-70. That could happen if/when the aforementioned funds become available.
The resume is, I become more and more reluctant to get rid of the wonderful 24-70, at least before finding out if a cheap mid zoom will help me when carrying the beast is not a choice. I feel I need some more time to see what can work best for me, and the 85mm plus the cheap zoom can greatly contribute to the evaluation.
>Renting a 24-120 may be an option before you sell the 24-70.
The idea behind the 28-105 is keeping the 24-70 while having a light lens I can carry outdoors when absolute IQ is not a priority. If I do decide to part with the 24-70 then the options are endless, I have my eye on sigma and tamron altnatives too.
Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 NOT RECOMMENDED (one of Nikon's 10 worst lenses of all time). This is what KenRockwell says about this lense, interesting how different points of view could be found froom one click to the next.
>Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 NOT RECOMMENDED (one of Nikon's 10 >worst lenses of all time). This is what KenRockwell says about >this lense, interesting how different points of view could be >found froom one click to the next.
I believe everyone here is talking about the 24-120 f/4 which is a totally different lens.
When KR makes statements like that it should always be taken with a large pinch of salt He has a habit of saying the strangest things and often making inaccurate statements. There are many owners of that lens who would disagree.
>Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 NOT RECOMMENDED (one of Nikon's 10 >worst lenses of all time). This is what KenRockwell says about >this lense,
The 24-120 f4 is a totally different kettle of fish to the older versions. Nikon has had 3 versions of 24-120 over the years and this latest 24-120 is by far the best.
I have a 28-105 from my film shooting days and an 18-200VR from my DX days. Recently bought a 24-120 f4 to go on my D800 and ran a bunch of test shots with all three lenses on the D800.
In increasing order of IQ they rank 18-200, 28-105, 24-120 f4. The 28-105 is marginally better than the 18-200 in terms of contrast and has a slight edge in sharpness. the 24-120 is significantly sharper than both of the others, right across the range, including wide open and in the corners. It has signifcantly better bokeh than the others at same aperture due to softer edges on the out of focus highlights. I am finding I really have no further need for my two older midrange zooms.
Fri 01-Mar-13 10:47 AM | edited Fri 01-Mar-13 11:00 AM by dagoldst
>Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 NOT RECOMMENDED (one of Nikon's 10 >worst lenses of all time). This is what KenRockwell says about this lense,
I have one, it is fine - Rockwell never even tried the lens and made that statement.
I have compared it to my 24-85mm VR and they are very close. Since it goes to 120mm, it gives the added focal length range. They can be bought for super reasonable prices as well, especially when people like KR say uninformed things.
This image is from my D600 with this lens - shutter speed 1/40th of a second, f/5.6, ISO 800.
I completely agree with David. Apparently there was a fair amount of sample variation of the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, but if you get a good sample, it's a fine lens -- and a bargain at the price. It's one of my favorite lenses for track and field because of its versatile range of focal length. Here is a sample from a D3 at 58 mm, 1/400, f/5.6:
>The 24-70 spends the most time on my D300. Being a women >weighing 130 lbs., I think the image quality is worth it's >weight. One must be willing to suffer for their art.
I completely agree. I returned my 24-120 (the only lens I ever returned) because it was soft. The 24-70 isn't.
If I want light I'd buy a point and shoot, or use my cell phone. I want the best pictures I can possibly get, and the extra weight is just part of the cost. I've been spending a lot of time with primes lately in that same vein, especially night/indoor sports, because I can get a stop as well as great IQ.
>I completely agree. I returned my 24-120 (the only lens I >ever returned) because it was soft. The 24-70 isn't.
How sharp is your 24-70 at 120mm?
Ultimate sharpness, contrast and color of a lens aren't always the principal issues. A lens that will allow me to frame and focus on a scene properly is of more use to me than one that won't, even if the IQ of the latter is a little better. The main reason I prefer the 24-120 to the 24-70 for track and field (I've used both) is the extra reach of the 24-120. When I have to cover events all over the field, the stand-off distance of the 24-120 comes in quite handy. Without it, I end up carrying two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the other with a 70-200, which is a little more "suffering for my art" than I prefer, particularly when the art isn't that much better.
It's good that we have these choices, because our photographic needs vary quite a bit. No one lens or set of lenses fits all needs. (Which is why I have a shelf groaning under the weight of all the lenses I've bought!)
>If I want light I'd buy a point and shoot, or use my cell >phone.
That seems rather dismissive of a lot of very good lenses that Nikon makes that are not in the "fast and heavy lens" price range - I have gotten pro quality shots with many of these "light" lenses as well, so I don't follow your logic.
>I've been spending a lot of time with primes lately in that same vein,
A lot of primes are pretty light weight. My 35mm f/2 D, my 50mm f/1.8D, they are quite light. I am going to buy a 85mm f/1.8G before long, not all that heavy.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " - Carl Sagan
Sat 02-Mar-13 02:56 PM | edited Sat 02-Mar-13 02:58 PM by jgould2
I am with you and David. I have an excellent copy of the 3.5-5.6. However the f/4 version is quite superior and I have an excellent copy of that one as well. I have never owned the 24-70 because I already had the 28-70.
Jim, I'm sure if I were in the market for a 24-120 now I'd be getting the f/4. But I have to ask myself whether it's worth it for my uses of the lens, and right now it's not. Or maybe that's just a way of saying I have a lot of other stuff I want to get first!
When I first acquired the 24-120 f/4 I wasn't sure how much I would be using it. Now it is my most used lens. For landscape photography I used to carry my 17-35 f/2.8 and my 28-70 f/2.8, each on its own body(D700 & D3s), with my 70-200 f/2.8 in reserve. Now I carry my Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 24-120 with the 70-200 in reserve (I also have my 17-35 along in case I find that once-in-a-lifetime shot). If I might be encountering some wildlife I substitute the D300 and Sigma 8-16 so I will have more 'reach' with my 70-200.
For general walk-around photography I always use the 24-120 f/4.
For shooting people at gatherings I have moved from the 28-70 to the 24-120 for the VR. My 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 while quite good was never as good as the f/4 version is.
I'm off to New Zealand in the not too distant future, and had concerns about lugging the 24-70 around for 3 weeks. I know how great it is, but I also know how heavy it is.
I picked up a 24-120 and couldn't believe how much lighter it felt on the D700. The specs say there's about 200g difference, but it just feels like so much more.
As for IQ, there's barely a difference in everyday photography, I find. The trip is a holiday, not a working job, so whatever minor IQ drop there may be, I can certainly live with for the convenience of both the weight drop and the extra reach. Losing the stop is easily offset with the VR and being able to push the ISO on the D700 (which would be even more significant on the D800).
I'm even now seriously considering leaving the 70-200 VR at home. I don't really envisage it getting too much use (until, of course, the time comes when I wish I had it!), and might just go with the 24-120 and nothing longer.
I don't recall the last time I made trip with just two lenses, but the 24-120 might break that habit when coupled with the Tokina 12-24 DX.
Hi Paul, I agree, when touring I'll have my 18-200 on my camera. IQ is remarkably good, and I've even been able to use some of the images for stock. When I need a shot to consistently stand up to 100% view scrutiny the 24-70 is what I'll use. Everyone's needs are different, no right or wrong here.
I also have the Tokina 12-24, IQ is very nice on that as well.
You're certainly not alone. I recently sold my 24-70 for exactly the same reasons. IQ was great, but it's big, it's clunky (the lens hood is almost bigger than the lens) and it's heavy. The reality was that I was getting equally acceptable images (for my needs) using the 24-120 f/4 with the D700. I also invested in 2 primes for those rare situations when I need the wide aperture in extremely low light. As I get older, I put a huge premium on traveling light. I have no regrets.