Kodak DCS Pro SLR/NX - What lenses?

[carl chandler]

Have just purchased an upgraded Kodak DCS Pro SLR/N, it has the new

ciruit boards and sensor and now reads DCS Pro SLR/NX when it powers

up. My queston is, what is a good Nikon lens for this body, when

doing outdoors photography (Flowers-close up not macro) and

landscapes. I bought a second hand Vivitar Series 1 28-300 f/4.0-6.3

lens with it, and the lens in my opinion is poor quality. I'm

looking in getting a lens thats as good as a canon 70-200 f/2.8L

lens. What model of Nikon lenses for this body? Should I only stick

to the Nikon Digital lenses? My opinion is that this body deserves

good glass to show its full potential. Any insight would be

appreciated, im new to Nikon and need all the help I can get.

[lex_jenkins]

The 60mm f/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor is very reasonably priced and reportedly excellent up close (not so good toward infinity focus, a fairly common weakness among macro lenses).

 

The 105mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/4 Micro-Nikkors are standards for excellence. They're also a bit pricey. Some folks really appreciate the convenience of the 70-180mm AF Micro-Nikkor, which makes the other Micro-Nikkors seem reasonably priced by comparison.

 

Here are a couple of recent threads on the Nikon Forum discussing these Nikkors and some good third party macro lenses.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C0TP

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C00V

[Ed_Ingold]

A Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AF-S and a 28-70/2.8 AF-S will cover you for landscapes. With zooms you can compose in the viewfinder, and take full advantage of the still-limited resolution of digital. With zooms, you also minimize the number of lens changes, consequently the amount of dust on the sensor. You can't use DX lenses because the Kodak is a full-frame sensor and DX lenses would vignette.

 

The 28-70/2.8 has a useable macro range (down to 10" or so). Still, you should get a lens designed for close focus (<1:10). A Nikkor 200/4 Macro is one of the best for field work, since it has an ample working distance (front element to the subject) even at 1:1.

 

Thr Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF-S is one of the best zooms in this range, and is sharper than many primes. This lens has been discontinued, but the 70-200/2.8 VR is every bit as sharp, and is useable hand-held down to 1/15 second or so. The VR function seems to outperform the corresponding Canon version by about 1 stop.

 

This lineup is pretty pricy, but you did say you wanted the best glass. You get what you pay for.

[vivek iyer]

D2X outresolves everything. Dx2 is the best there is. D2X is the best value for money.. only nikon's own current wide angle and super wide lenses will not cover the angle they are capable of covering because of the APS-C sized sensor. Minor details...

[John Crowe]

The problem is the probability of small sensor demise over the next 4-8 years. All the money put into small format lenses could quite likely be wasted as serious photographers switch back to full frame systems. Canon users are closer to this reality than Nikon users at the moment.

 

 

While there may have been room for 35mm film and 120 film there will not be enough room for 15x23, 16x24, 18x27, and 24x36. It is only logical that the DSLR market will be reduced to simply 24x36 which the vast number of lenses in the world will work on, one way or the other. The small formats will be relegated to P&Ss where diminutive size is more important.

 

 

A used Nikon 80-200/2.8 should do you well. There are lots of them out there for very reasonable prices. Do your homework, there are approximately 4 different versions plus the very expensive new VR one.

[chiswick_john]

But now you are speculating on who would think what and say how :-)

[carl chandler]

Thank's for all the input especially from Edward Ingold, will be looking the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR, and something around 17-35mm.

[qdb]

Hi Carl,

 

I use a 14nx with various Nikkors.

 

Before I comment on them, let me say this (re earlier messages in this thread): much as I like a full-frame sensor for legacy lens reasons, the D2x is a fabulous camera, with resolution the equal of the Kodak or Canon 1Ds II. Went shooting with friends who own D2x's and this was my impression from the trip, backed up by reviews I have read. The APS sized sensor is simply not an issue (except perhaps in a positive sense, because edge sharpness is better) so far as resolution and image quality are concerned.

 

Back to the Kodak. I sold my 17-35mm F2.8 because it exhibits strong CA on the Kodak. I have replaced it with a Sigma 12-24mm, which has lower distortion and CA than the 17-35 Nikkor. It's a fraction less sharp, but in other respcts, a remarkable lens, when stopped down.

 

Others lenses I'd recommend include the Nikkor 80-400VR. I do not recommend the 70-200VR because of edge discoloration (the so called "Italian Flag" effect that affects some lens on the Kodaks).

 

The 85mm F1.4 works well as very sharp portrait lens, as do various Tamron and Sigma Macro lenses. The 50mm F1.4 is a nice lens on the Kodak. The 28-200G is a sharp, cheap, walk around lens that I use a lot and a better choice that the 24-120VR, whcih is soft.

 

Quentin

[patrick_yu2]

Quentin,

 

I wonder if you would have made your comment differently towards the D2X, had you spent the time to compare the "dynamic range" of each pixel in the Kodak, Canon, and Nikon cameras. Resolution is no substitue for "dynamic range" which probably equate to the "quality" of the pixel. I suspect that a lot of people like the Fuji S3Pro because it outputs pictures with finer granularity of colour (i.e. more colour depth). As both the Kodak Pro 14 and the Canon 1Ds Mark II use sensors with pixels of larger size each, these cameras should provide better dynamic range than those of the D2X. Of course, the software engineers from Nikon and the sensor engineers from Sony may be able to squeeze out a lot more from the D2X's sensor in the near future. But, the engineers can probably squeeze out relatively much more from the Canon's 1Ds Mark II sensor. Do a logical deduction and you can see the writings on the wall :) Since we are talking about digital equipments, there won't be much room for miracles.

[lex_jenkins]

D'oh!

 

I just realized Carl was specifically asking about lenses *other* than macros for close ups.

 

Oh, well. Carl, at least now you know what to look for when you get the itch for macrophotography as well. ;>

 

BTW, another vote for the 70-200/2.8 VR Nikkor. Tried one in a local shop recently. Outstanding lens and the VR really works. I havent' been able to handhold steadily in years but the VR lets me do this again. I got the 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR later that week from the same shop and have been enjoying the heck outta it for the past few weeks. Great action shooting lens.

[qdb]

Patrick,

 

I could see nothing wrong with the D2x dynamic range from the images I viewed. I have also not read any review - including the just published one by Thom Hogan - that raises this as an issue. A far bigger issue is edge sharpness, and its here that the D2x approach seems to trump the Canon 1Ds II approach (or Kodak for that matter).

 

Personally I'm with you in preferring the idea of "full-frame", but the problem we confront is in the legacy film-based design of current 35mm size dslrs. We need a new lens mount and maybe other changes so we don't have the edgde vignetting and sharpness issues that all 35mm size dslrs suffer from. The D2x is really a band aid solution for ageing technology, but tis better than the alternatives.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

Now aday zoom lens is as good as prime lens. If you are a commercial shooter, then I recommend Prime. If you a regular shooter just like many folks out there. go for fast zoom like many have listed above. Go for Nikon lens only. I know third party lens are great too, but the NIKON AFS will track focusing faster and sharper.

 

nikon 17-35 AFS2.8

nikon 28-70 AFS2.8

nikon 70/80-200 AFS2.8

 

what zoom range do you need?