nikon d70 - what lens should I get?

Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Need some help choosing a lens :)

I recently got a d70 kit with the 18-70 mm ED lens,. thing is I would like to take shots of things like wildlife and need something with a better zoom,. like 200mm at least,. what are my options ? :)

Thanks!

Sil

PS, I don't want to spend much more than 1000$ (well that is really prolly too much already!)
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
Sorry I missed out on this one, are you still looking or have bought one already?
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Quadophile said:
Sorry I missed out on this one, are you still looking or have bought one already?

no worries,. I was hoping you would be able to offer advice as I noticed you use nikon :)

I think the lens will generally be used for wildlife,. after much reading recently I am thinking of something like the 70-200 VR 2.8 and then get a teleconverter (1.7 possibly)..

I guess I would like to spend less than 1500 quid (actually I'll get it in the US - but just as a guide)

thanks! :)

Sil
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
Well a teleconvertor is certainly an option but you will also in the process make the lens slower. If it suits you, fine, if not you may look at other options. I admit a zoom will give you the flexibility but a fixed aperture will surely give you a faster lens.

Teleconvertors are basically recommended for fixed lenses rather than zooms as it does contribute to loss in quality as well as making the lens slower.

You are spending a fair amount of money so you need to make sure you are really making the right decision. I am not at all trying to discourage you but this is what I would be thinking about before I jump in with my $1500 and make the purchase.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
yes - is a lot of money :\

I am hedging by getting a zoom I guess,. in that it should be more generally useful,. I realise the teleconv will spoil things a little but hopefully the end result will still be better than a cheaper zoom lens that has a longer reach..

any other lenses you could recommend I take a look at ? :)

Thanks! :)

Sil
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
Well, as far as other options is concerned, I would seriously give due consideration to a 75-300 without the teleconverter. Does it sound good to you? I believe there choices in 75-300 that Nikon has on offer, why not check it out and see if it suits you. Maybe a bit dearer than 70-200 but on the other hand you will not be spending on the teleconverter. :)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
they do 'cheap' 70-300s - one with ED glass and AIS (250 quid) and one without (120 quid) but both are quite dark F4-5.6 - I actually got the cheaper one and it's umm 'ok' but not great, the focusing is slow and it does hunt quite a lot when not in bright light (I only got it to tide me over till I can get one from the US)

after that (from nikon anyway) really it's the 70-200 as above or more bulky(?) AF VR 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 for
£1029 and AF-S VR 200-400mm F4 G IF-ED £4499 - but I don't have the kind of money for the 200-400 and I am guessing (hoping!) the 70-200 with teleconv will give me similar performance (not as good but only by a little) but I can take off the TC and have a really nice fast lens?

Sil
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
The 200-400 F4 IF-ED sounds oh soooo sweet but that means a truck load of cash :(

The cheap ones are no good, thats for sure.

Yes, I will agree your best bet in such a situation is to go for 70-200 and a teleconverter. Can you tell me which 70-200 you are thinking of? How about a link? Also, which teleconvertor?
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.cfm?photo/lenses/nikonlens.html - has listings

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/photo/lenstech/nikon/70200f28gifed.html is the one

I know nikon are going to bring out more 'dx' zoom lenses (digital only to match the 1.5 fov crop) which would be cheaper / lighter,. but in the perhaps unlikely event I get a film slr I can still use the lens (and I would expect the non-dx lenses to hold their prices better?)

some good reviews abt lenses and cameras,. - here's one abt the 70-200 http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS70200.htm - near the middle is a bit abt their comparable 400mm performace

no idea abt the TC stuff yet :)

Sil
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
As you know Nikon has two choices in 70-200( cheap as well as expensive) but practically none in 75-300 (the expensive kind is missing from the list) so I suppose they will eventually come out with an appropriate 75-300 one for the digital cameras. The problem however is 3x is more or less a defacto standard in zoom lenses and anything higher does not seem to attract enough enthusiats who are looking for quality. If they do come out with a 75-300 of high quality (at par with 70-200) it would be very expensive since 75-300 means a 4x lens.

I guess waiting for Nikon to come out with one would probably not change your decision, so a 70-200 sounds a pretty good bargain as it is.

The prices however across the pond are very tempting.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
yeah - am pretty well decided on the 70-200 I think,. there are of course lots of nice prime lenses but dont really fit my budget :lol:

then there's 3rd party lenses which I haven't really investigated at all..

btw,. I notice you mention you were waiting for the sucessor to the d100/d70.. well just to say the d70 is v nice and Ive used the 300d canon an it's way better (has more functions to play with like 3 modes of AF selection and easy selection between contineous / single focusing - and a better 'kit' lens) and it's cheaper (650 inc cashback).. also note that the d70 has better AF system than the d100 - most ppl consider the d70 to be a better camera :)

Sil
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
Very nice looking piece of kit! :) Actually you have me droooooling there ;)

Nice pictures, especially no 12 of the lady, she looks very composed and has a good expression on her face. The shallow depth of field gives me an indication that the lens is set almost at the extreme end of the focal length range, say somewhere between 170 - 200, is that so? Post more if you can I enjoy looking at creative pictures. :)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
thanks :)

I am amazed by the quality to be honest,. perhaps my judgment is clouded because I spent so much on the lens,. but to my eyes the raw images the colour depth looks like side film (or I am mis-remebering what slide film looks like!)

they were all mostly taken near the 200mm length and @ 2.8 appat,. really was more trying to see what the lens could do than really getting out an being serious,. (actually it was raining a little and I was shooting from the car) :lol

the thing is heavy to hold for any extended period is the only drawback (that and the cost!) but I love the image quality and the shallow depth of field (check the blur on the pic of the kid)

will get out an take some more - it's the kind of thing that makes you want to go out and take more pictures :)

Sil
 

crazylegs

Member Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
64
Depth of field looks great on pic 16 with the swaying long grass, with just enough focus blur to catch the eye..


I must say that lense looks scrummy, and you have given me the kick up the bum to get out there and take some shots tonight..

My favourite area is sunsets and scenery where i like to be creative with filters most of the time...;)

Anyway thanks for sharing your pics and all the best with the new 70-200
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
thanks :)

yep - get out and take some pics,. that's one of the best things abt taking photos is it forces you to get and enjoy what's around :)

Sil
 

crazylegs

Member Extraordinaire
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
64
Also love the pic of the Swan on the water you have caught her really nice...;)

And the Glass panelling, very creative..

Sorry i'm a nosey sod looking through your dorset albums..:p
 

Quadophile

Hon. Acoustical Engineer
Moderator
Joined
Mar 16, 2002
Messages
6,641
Reaction score
566
I know what you exactly mean when you say you are amazed about the quality.

I was almost going to buy the 80-200 ED 2.8 lens for myself to go with my Nkon film SLR back in 2002. I did shoot about a roll of film using that lens borrowed from my friend but I decided against it since I just could not bear to hold even just for an hour of shooting, the thing was so heavvvvvy that my wrist started aching after a while. If I had to carry it in the field for a day if would be more like torture. These lenses are best used for a purpose and WITH a tripod even though you have a fast lens like 2.8.

I am linking two of the pictures here for you to see how it looks, mind you the lens was set somewhere at 100 mm for my daughters head and shoulder shot in the pool and another one where my son and daughter are messing about in the pool is more like 70-100 mm from a distance. What I found amazing was the saturation of colours, the difference in the lens compared to an ordinary lens costing less than $300 with the ED one costing over a $1000 was same as the difference between negative and transparency.!

Mariah head and shoulder shot

AA and Mariah messing in the pool

Both the shots were taken in the early evening and I was using the SB-24 flash with the camera

Here is a shot of my daughter taken late in the afternoon (but still having plenty of light)

Mariah and the new car
 

Becky

Webmistress
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
7,424
Reaction score
1,511
crazylegs said:
Sorry i'm a nosey sod looking through your dorset albums..:p

Me too, sorry :blush: Although - Silver, you are a very impressive photographer! :)
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
thanks for your kind comments,. the neat thing abt digital is the amount of shots you can take,. I have a very high throw away to keep ratio ,,. if I was using film the amount of pics I liked would be a very small number! :)

I only put ones up I don't mind people seeing so please feel free :)

@ Quadophile,, I liked the first and the last pics, the colours are good in the first two and the last one could be an advertising shot, I don't spect scanning them in an shown at that size does them justice :)

Sil
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top