Starting my Xmas List...

[jay_blocksom]

[First, let me apologize in advance for being so long-winded here. I tried to edit this down; but I didn't want to excise any relevant information, since whatever recommendations other members might make would presumably be based on how *I* use the camera...]<p>

 

I've had my D70 (with the 18-70mm kit lens) for about a month now, and recently completed my second weekend of "serious" shooting with it; so it's time to make some semi-firm decisions about fleshing out the rest of the system -- particularly WRT to additional lenses.<p>

 

Background: I've been an on-again/off-again "moderately serious" amateur since my 'teens. Aside from the usual family and vacation shots (and one wedding where I was drafted by my in-laws as "semi-official photographer"; but I consider that an aberration), my primary area of interest is motorsports, especially (but not exclusively) road racing. Hence, fast handling, "lugability", and reliability under less-than-ideal conditions are of paramount importance.<p>

 

Until purchasing the D70, I've been using (and for most of the last 30 years, building up piece by piece) my film-SLR kit, based on the Konica Autoreflex series. By now, that old Konica system has been "fine tuned" to the point that my bag is a veritable marvel of compact (if somewhat heavy) completeness, ready for almost anything that comes up. And it is, as the saying goes, "as comfortable as an old shoe." BUT... There's just no getting around the fact that it's a 30-year-old "orphan" system, and repairs have become problematic -- so when both Konica bodies near-simultaneously became in need of a repair depot yet again (despite the fact that the FT-1 had been "thoroughly" overhauled only a couple of years before), the die was cast: I knew I had to make the jump to a "serious" digital camera; and the D70 was the obvious choice, given my intended usage.<p>

 

My original assumption when I bought the D70 was that I'd eventually (but probably sooner than later; after all, I no longer have 30 years to build up a camera system) add two of the better fast Nikkor primes (probably the 180mm f/2.8D AF ED-IF, plus either the 105mm f/2D AF DC or the 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor) to fill out the upper end of focal length range (which is my primary concern, at least for right now... I generally don't do all that much wide-angle stuff; and so far at least, the kit lens has sufficed for what little of that I've needed to deal with). Given how long these two lenses have been in production, I figured that with a little luck (and some patience), I could very probably find some nice clean used specimens at a reasonable cost.<p>

 

Now, this approach is still very much under consideration, BUT... The assumptions it was based on were in part due to my manual-focus/film-SLR prejudices; and over the past month I've come to realize that the DSLR is a very different beast in *many* ways. In particular, there's the matter of lens-swapping, especially under potentially "bad" conditions such as a dusty/rainy/muddy/whatever race track. My understanding is that this is a *MUCH* more serious concern with a DSLR than with a film camera, due to the risk of getting crap on the image sensor (and concomitantly, the difficulty in cleaning up the crap once it's there -- again, possibly under adverse conditions); but I don't yet know just *how* paranoid I should be about this.<p>

 

Then too, I've been pleasantly surprised by the general "usability" of the kit zoom: Specifically, the f/3.5-4.5 maximum aperture has not been anything like the sort of problem I expected it would be; the auto-focus system has generally not gotten in my way (for the most part -- but not *quite* always -- it even seems fast enough for the "action" shots I've tried so far); and the range of focal lengths available has turned out to be near-ideal for a general-purpose "grab shot" lens. And no, the fact that it is a "G"-series lens with no aperture ring hasn't bothered me -- probably because, after 30 years with a shutter-priority SLR, I'm not in the habit of using it anyway. Of course, I've not yet done any formal tests, so *maybe* there's an UNpleasant surprise lurking ahead; but so far at least, I don't regret getting the kit lens.<p>

 

All of which is to say, I'm now also strongly considering the idea of a single zoom lens to cover the longer-reach focal-length range (up to ~200mm or so). Unfortunately, in that context there seem to be a near-dizzying array of possible choices, apparently *none* of them exactly "perfect"...<p>

 

If I were to win the lottery tomorrow (tough to do, since I haven't bought a ticket), this would be nearly a no-brainer: The 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED VR Zoom looks to be pretty much ideal for my purposes, save for the relatively back-breaking price tag (and perhaps the size/weight; but that's really only an "on the camera" issue, since the two primes mentioned above would surely make the bag at least as heavy as the one zoom). At a fixed f/2.8, it's plenty fast for it's focal length; the VR feature seems like it could be very useful for hand-held or monopod-based panning shots at the race track (particularly if I deliberately slow down the shutter to blur the background, as I fairly often do in road-racing situations); and it covers the gamut of the focal length range I'd likely need. But the big bugaboo is that $1,500, especially shelled out all at once for a single lens, is probably not going to happen (well, it's not flat-out impossible; but it definitely gives me *serious* pause -- and apparently, this thing is enough of a monster to put a serious crimp into "walk around and grab shots as I find them"; so I'm guessing that eventually I'd *also* want something smaller/lighter in the short-telephoto range, thus driving the effective cost up still further).<p>

 

There's the 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S -- which certainly seems like a nice well-respected lens (some reviews have been positively glowing); but it's nearly as expensive (when you can find it) as the 70-200mm VR, even bigger/heavier, and I give up the Vibration Reduction feature. OTOH, this model's been around long enough that maybe a good used one can be found, thus easing the wallet pain somewhat; but so far, those pickings seem kind'a slim.<p>

 

Going another notch down, I can save a significant amount of money with the non- AF-S version (80-200mm f/2.8D AF ED) of this lens; but I'm concerned about focusing speed without the AF-S feature, especially at the race track. (In 20/20 hindsight, I suppose this is also a concern with the 105 & 180 primes mentioned above.) Also, I'm given to understand that this version is not "teleconverter-friendly"; and a TC-14E (or maybe one of the aftermarket converters) is a definite possibility for the future, as a cheap and lightweight way of gaining some more focal-length flexibility (at least, I don't think I want to write off the *option* of using a teleconverter; sure, it's a compromise -- but it's also a real nice thing to have in the bag when you *need* it).<p>

 

Other alternatives? Well...<p>

 

Ken Rockwell waxes euphoric over the long-discontinued 70-210mm f/4-5.6D AF at <http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/7021056.htm>; and from what I've seen so far, they generally go for well under $200 on the used gear market. So, I'm guessing -- and it's *only* a guess -- that as long as I can put up with the slow maximum aperture (which still makes me shudder a bit; but based on my experience with the kit lens, I suspect that wouldn't really be as much of a problem as I would have thought a month ago), this could be a potential bargain. But it also seems somewhat like "a pig in a poke": I know virtually nothing more about this lens other than what I've read at the above-cited URL -- and the fact that it is not an AF-S model, so focus speed may well be an issue (the KR review says that's not a problem; but then, that evaluation was based on an F100 body, which IIUC has a much more robust focus-drive mechanism as compared to the D70, so..?).<p>

 

Then there's third-party glass (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc.), which I'm definitely willing to consider *IF* there's a good reason to do so in any particular case. I've had mixed results with third-party lenses in the past; some were very nice special-purpose items which became among my favorite "play" pieces; some were outright junk that literally fell apart in my hands (which in one particular case I recall, was a blessing in disguise <~>). But this particular application isn't all that "special-purpose"; and because of that, I *do* need to count on this lens for reliability and performance. So, while I reject the simplistic and jingoistic "If it's not a Nikkor, it's worthless junk" mantra, any third-party lens would have to offer *something* tangible that I can't get with a Nikkor (even if that's only significantly more "bang for the buck") to make me go this route; but from what I've seen so far, the "better" third-party stuff now costs almost as much as the equivalent Nikkor, so... "Where's the beef"?<p>

 

One possible exception to the immediately foregoing that I've noted so far: the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM (specs, etc. at <http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/70_200_ex.htm>). In terms of features and general design, this lens seems approximately equivalent to the (now-discontinued) Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S. Cost new seems to be ~$800, depending on where I look (KEH had a used one listed at something like $569, but it seems to have disappeared as of today); which is MUCH more in line with what I'd hoped to spend than either of the similar AF-S Nikkors. And from what I've read so far, it's optical performance is at least "decent" (some say effectively equivalent to the Nikkors). So the big question is build quality. I fully expect that a Nikkor would be "better" in this respect; but as long as the Sigma is *reasonably* solid, my best guess is that (at least for my purposes) the HSM/AF-S focusing feature is more important than a *minor* difference in "drop-ability" -- but OTOH, if it's really crappy, I don't want it. So, can anyone here with first-hand experience with this lens provide a good comparison vis-a-vis the equivalent Nikkors?<p>

 

As a possible "stop-gap measure", there's the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S IF-ED VR zoom. It's definitely more reasonably priced than the bigger/faster zooms (especially considering the feature assortment); it's got the AF-S and VR gizmos; and given the much shorter low end of the focal-length range, it would be more likely to semi-permanently live on the camera for the duration of a race weekend (including close-range shots in the pits, etc.), thus easing dust-contamination worries (in effect, it would be more a replacement for the kit lens, than an augmentation of it). With the aid of a 1.4X teleconverter, this could give me nearly the same maximum "reach" as the other lenses under consideration. So at first blush anyway, this seems like a decent compromise. But we're back to a relatively slow maximum aperture (which would be made even slower by a teleconverter -- to the point that I'm not sure that's even a workable idea); and the user comments I've seen so far have been *very* mixed at best, tho' I've yet to see any hard-and-fast performance reports.<p>

 

Going the other way, I just noticed (and started drooling over) the new 200mm f/2.0 AF-S VR prime lens, but it's way *way* *WAY* out of the budget range -- heck, while I'm dreaming, throw in a nice shiny D2X body, too. <~><p>

 

Well, folks... What hint do you suggest I plant in Santa's ear?<p>

 

<blockquote>Plan A: The 105mm and 180mm primes, probably bought one-at-a-time, and possibly bought used?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan B: One of the 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor zooms (and which one, and why)?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan C: The 70-210mm f/4-5.6D AF, if such can be found cheap (how cheap?)?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan D: The Sigma 70-200 noted above, along with the appropriate tithes and/or voodoo incantations to help ensure it won't do something nasty at exactly the wrong moment?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan E: The 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR *and* a TC-14E or similar (which, *IF* it would work, would be a "must" from the get-go with this lens, to bring it into line with the others in terms of focal length)?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan F: Break the bank and spring for the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED VR?</blockquote>

<blockquote>Plan G: Something else entirely? (In particular, any especially attractive third-party lens(es) that I might not know about?)</blockquote>

 

And of course, any other thoughts are most welcome.<p>

 

Postscript: After all this mental wrangling, it occurs to me that one reason I'm having trouble with this decision is that Nikon has a rather glaring "hole" in their lens line-up right where my "perfect" lens would live. Does anyone else think there would be a really good market for a solidly built 50-150mm zoom with, say, an f/2.8-4.0 max. aperture, and AF-S for fast focusing on the lower-end bodies? Sell it for about the same price as the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR (well, maybe a *little* more); but skip the VR and any other "whistles and bells" which add excessive cost. Put the savings into build quality and especially performance (and at a relatively modest 3:1 zoom ratio, it shouldn't be too difficult to keep the optical performance up there near the best of them). It strikes me that this would be pretty much an ideal complement for the 18-70mm kit lens on the D70: Enough overlap in focal length range to maintain some flexibility in choosing what lens to mount that day, but not so much as to be overly "wasteful"; good overall value ("bang for the buck"); and the size/weight would surely be much more "shoulder friendly" than the 70/80-200 f/2.8 zooms -- I would think that Nikon could sell a boatload of these just to all the newly minted D70 owners, let alone the film guys looking for a decent two-zoom "travel" solution. Optionally, add either one of the 300mm primes or the 200-400mm f/4 zoom for the really long-reach needs, and you're done. Hmmm... There *must* be something wrong with this theory, because it seems way too obviously a good idea. OK, I'll come back to Earth now. <~><p>

 

[vivek iyer]

After 5 minutes of reading, I lost interest. What were you saying there again? :)

[jorgeortega]

Follow plan F: Break the bank and spring for the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED VR

[jeffrey moore]

What the @#&$?

[ShunCheung]

Jay, I strongly suggest that you try to trim down your question. I can't speak for others, but I just don't feel like reading so much. I think your question could have been asked in 2, 3 paragraphs and within 500 words.

[Jerry_]

Be more concise. Go out and shoot film. Un-plug your computer.

[aeiffel]

Jorge wrote : <i>Follow plan F: Break the bank and spring for the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED VR</i><br><br>

+1. you won't be disappointed, and teleconverters give very good results with this lens.

[chris1664876655]

I bought a used 70-210mm f/4-5.6D AF because it was all I could afford. Two weeks ago,

one of the guys at the lab asked me what lens I had used because he said the shots were

incredibly sharp. We had a good laugh when I told him what lens it was. I have grown to

love it. It's not heavy, takes great shots and is cheap. I use it all the time. You should buy

one if money is an issue, even if it you use it temporarily until you can afford something

fancier. It's so inexpensive you really can't get hurt by it even if you found you didn't like it

and sell it.

[NetR]

Jay. It is great to see someone thinking for himself and doing his own research. But a lot of netters don't have a long attention span and probably haven't read anything that long since they were at school. Given you are using a D70 and don't want to change lenses very often, I'd say go for the 70-200 AFS or 80-200 with tripod mount. Second hand if your budget is tight. Regards, Ross

[dominic_.]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Take a few deep breaths, then go for a walk, taking your camera with you if you must.

[roland_vink]

Your are right, there is a 'hole' in the current Nikon AF lineup - it would be good to see a compact high quality alternative to the big f/2.8 telephoto zooms. Something like a 70-200/4 would be great, or even a 70-150/3.5 (an update of the classic manual focus series-E 75-150/3.5).

 

As for your situation, I suggestion you try a used 70-210/4-5.6 D, or even a 70-300/4-5.5 ED. Optically they are pretty equivalent. They are relatively compact and light weight so are easy to carry around. If you can, try them out in a shop to see if you will be happy with the speed and AF performance. Even if you buy one and later find it's not suitable, you haven't spent too much. You'd still have the option of buying a faster lens - again handle any lens before you buy to see how it handles and whether the size/weight is ok for you. Good luck!

[klix]

YOu have the D70 and kit lens. If you won the lotto, you'd buy the 70-200mm AFS VR, but you haven't so what should you get. That about sum it up?

 

OPTION 1 - DO not compromise -- save up/bite the bullet, and get your dream lens. I have this lens and it IS worth it.

 

OPTION 2 - 80-200mm/2.8 AFD 2-touch - you can still get it new, or is widely available used. I have this, and recommend it if the 70-200mm is out of the question.

 

OPTION 3 - 80-200mm AFS - You can get it used. Also comes highly recommended.

[beno_t_marchal]

<p>For the application you have in mind, it's clear that anything but the 70-200 is a

compromise.

<p>What *I* do in such cases is evaluate whether I can break the bank. If I can, I do.

You seem to have researched the topic and it's unlikely you'll be disapointed by the

70-200.

<p>If I can't break the bank right away, I look for the cheapest lens, even heavily

compromised, to wait until I can afford the lens I want. I recently bought a Vivitar

100mm macro lens because I wanted a macro lens but I could not afford a Nikkor.

The lens is very lightweight but sharp and it is sooo cheap, it does not impact my

ability to save for the real thing.

<p>Another suggestion is to see if Nikon runs a road show in your area. I went to

one recently and I had a chance to handle the 70-200. Seems like a fantastic lens. I

have a different application in mind (theatre photography) but I was impressed with

the lens.

<p>I have started saving.

<p>Another alternative is to find a good dealer that stock the lenses you are

interested into, both new and old. It may require travelling but again it gives you a

chance to experiment first end. Or see if you can rent them for a week-end.

<p>I recently had a chance to stop at Gray's of Westminster. I was looking for a used

wide-angle and the selection was fantastic. I could try the lenses myself and it helped

me make up my mind.

<p>BTW yes the post was long but it was well written, clear and well organized. I

enjoyed reading it.

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com">marchal.com</a>

[jim_gifford]

Jay, you want either Plan C or Plan 9 From Outer Space.

 

Save the others for when the economic picture is clearer.

 

Be well,

[terry_rory]

Get a mint, used 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 AFN maybe? And a 180mm f/2.8 AF prime.

 

Or get another D-70 and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 ED AF-D and leave it permanently attached (little or no sensor cleaning) and you will still have a pile of budget left over comnpared to the price of some of the glass you list. This lens is good to 200mm (300mm effective on D70) and the edge distortion apparent at 300mm (450mm) on the 35mm format will not be so noticeable on the D70 images due to the edges not being on use. If f5.6 is a problem use a monopod and ISO 800 (still clean on a D-70)

[gsbhasin]

dude this is such a long post, whatever happened to <i>Brevity is the wit of the soul</i> ?

[jeff h.]

If your Xmas list is this much angst, I'd hate to see how you'd deal with eight nights of Hannukah! Why not try the fairly decent 70-300 lens choices that are available? They are not particularly fast lenses, but they do have a little more reach than the other lenses you are talking about, and perform rather well at 200mm; they are light enough that they are walk-about lenses. Maybe you could do some analysis of lens aperature, shutter speed, and ISO settings for a while to really narrow your quest down. Good luck.

[cnhoff]

My girlfriend usually gets mad with me, when i tell her about my goals in the EOS world in that detail ;)

[armando_roldan]

isn't there some kind of word limit for posting?

 

being long winded is one thing, to be a hurricane is another.

[chuck]

It sounds like you know exactly what you want to do, but feels more than a little guilty for wanting to do it, and hope throw the issue to us in the hopes that we can relieve your guilt and help you stop second guessing yourself.

[msitaraman]

I did read all of your post, Jay.

 

Break the bank and buy a used 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S IF-ED VR in perfect condition, if you can. If buyer's remorse fails to fade away in time, you can always sell it. Also if proves to be an ungainly beast, for your purposes.

 

You could try the same approach with a 180/2.8 AF lens, and see if it suffices for your purposes.

 

Fortunately, Nikon lenses, unlike perhaps your Autoreflex Ts, have a large resale market; you will not suffer greatly if you buy and sell used lenses. Photo.net is a good source; used with caution and fiscal prudence, so is Ebay.

 

A very different way to go is to get one of the long discontinued, but very very good, and very compact manual focus 75-150/3.5 Nikon E series lens on the used market, and get it "chipped" for another $100 or so. Search here for "Roland Elliot". With the focusing indicator on your D70, it will be usable to some degree. Its cheap ($100-150), very sharp and contrasty, and small.