Expensive lenses with D70?

[Philip Freedman]

I have a D70 with the packaged 18-70 zoom lens. I also have a couple

of prime lenses which I sometimes use since the 18-70, although

convenient, has a lot of distortion. I am thinking about getting a

not-too-long tele zoom to to use when the prime lenses are too short.

Is it worthwhile going for one of Nikon's more expensive zoom lenses

or would they be wasted on the 6mp resolution of the D70? For film,

people often advise you to go for the best lens and save money on the

camera (if your budget has limits) but I am not sure if that goes for

digital too. Any specific recommendations welcome. Philip.

[btmuir]

The lens is of paramount importance with digital as well as film. I shoot Nikon manual

focus so I can't recomment a good AF tele -zoom. Plus I'm sure you'll upgrade your D-70

at some point so you'd be well served to get the beat glass you can afford.

[btmuir]

Sorry, that should read "best glass".

[cabophoto]

Phil,

 

>>For film, people often advise you to go for the best lens and save money on the camera

 

this is also true for the D70. When I use the really good glass on mine (85/1.4 AF-D, 180/2.8 AF ED etc.) the difference to the 18-70 kit lens is very clearly visible.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[Rick Waller]

The quality of the glass is still, to my mind, the single most important factor in producing a photograph - regardless of whether you are making that image on film or digitally. The fact that the photographer uses film or a digital medium is of no consequence.

Does expensive glass automatically guarantee a better image? Of course not. Nor do "consumer grade" lenses prevent a great image. But, if everything else (the skill of the photographer, the lighting, the timing, etc) are equal, better glass will yield a better image.

 

The questions that a photographer should ask himself/herself when deciding such an issue are:

 

1. What do I plan to do with the photo? Will I be making my living from it?

 

2. How large do you plan to enlarge the photo? If you plan to seldom enlarge beyond 5x7 or 8x10, consumer lenses often are quite sufficient. Even though I own many Nikon "Pro" caliber lenses, I have 16x20 enlargements taken using a relatively inexpensive Nikon 80-300, f4-5.6 ED lens that are very sharp.

 

3. How much can I afford to spend? Paying $1,700 for the exceptional Nikon 70-200/2.8 lens as opposed to $300 for the lens mentioned in #2 above, may not be within your reach. Sure the 70-200/2.8 is optically "sharper", but can you afford it, and even if you can, do your photographic goals and needs warrant such an expense. For $1,700, one can buy a bagful of very decent and very useful "consumer" grade lenses and the excellent Nikon SB800 flash to accompany your D70.

 

There is no right answer to this one, except to say that in the THEORETICAL SENSE, better glass will always yield better images.

 

But, do you need this highest standard of excellence? That is what you really need to determine?

[vivek iyer]

If you want the highest possible quality lenses for your D70, here are couple of suggestions (none will meter but give the very best of the results- buy them used):

 

1. 75-150mm f/3.5 E-Series zoom (normally <$80)

 

2. 50-135mm f/3.5 Zoom Nikkor (about $150-$200)

 

If you use one of these you will realize how poor the image quality from the kit zoom is.

 

Another sharp lens that will meter: 50mm f/1.8 AF (used, <$70) or AF-D (new, $100).

 

And, yes better quality lenses do yield sharper/better quality images on the D70.

[ShunCheung]

If you shoot film, it is the same film regardless of whether you use a $2000 F6, a $200 F75/N75 or a 40-year-old Nikon F. Some film bodies may have faster AF or a superior light meter, but as long as your subject matter doesn't demand those features, the difference between high-end and low-end film bodies might not be apparent. In fact, there could be no difference if you shoot certain very still subjects. That is why in the film era, it makes more sense to invest in lenses first and bodies second.

 

That equation is drastically changed in digital. Now the sensor and electronics inside the body have a much larger impact in the quality of your final image. Therefore, it is more important to keep a better balance between lens and body. Having said that, even the D70 can give you very fine images. Unfortunately, Nikon has no "prosumer" DSLR at the moment. If you want to move up, the next step up that will make a clear difference in image quality is the D2X, whose price tag is also clearly different. Instead, if you move to a used D1X or D2H, you'll get much better AF and build quality, but the sensors are roughly at the same level as that of the D70.

[steve_dawson1]

If the way to get the "highest possible quality" out of a D70 is to equip it with an $80 E Series zoom, then many people are spending thousands of dollars in error (or just to get metering). The 18-70mm does indeed suffer from serious distortion. It will indeed be outperformed by the 50mm f1.8, or probably any top of the range Nikon lens, but the idea that it is inferior to a 1970's consumer lens is without merit.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 50-135/3.5 and 75-150/3.5 are quite famous lenses actually.

 

People also pay for AF-S, VR, faster max apertures in addition to metering. If you shoot moving subjects, a 70-200/2.8G AF-S VR is going to give a 10+ times better hit ratio than the manual focus zooms, my guess would be. However, for landscape photography it would make little difference.

[vivek iyer]

"..but the idea that it is inferior to a 1970's consumer lens is without merit."

 

Those who own both these lenses and have used them know. Some us have even taken the trouble to add a matrix chip to lenses like the 75-150 f/3.5 zoom so that they will meter with the D70.

[steve_dawson1]

Famous lenses, yes. But of their time surely? If you nostaligia guys take the view that that E Series short tele gets the absolute best quality out of a D70 (and if one is prepared to forego AF and metering) do you think that a modern 80-200 Nikkor offers no advantage (except it's a bit longer of course)?

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't know since I haven't been able to get a good copy of either of the 3.5 zooms. However, the primes give much better image quality on a test bench than the 80-200/2.8 zooms on the D70 so the 3.5 zooms would also have be much better than the 2.8 zooms.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>people often advise you to go for the best

lens and save money on the camera (if your budget has limits) but

I am not sure if that goes for digital too. --Philip

Freedman<br>

</em><br>

Im not one of those people. I recommend the best cameras

one can afford and the best glass. When you turn the lens and the

bayonet locks its one unit, one system. The weakest link

will limit what you can achieve.<br>

<br>

Now 6MP is plenty to work with and if you can effectively exploit

the lenses you are thinking of with the D70(s) then go right

ahead and buy these lenses. I see nothing lacking in the D70s

image quality. It would be a particularly good idea to buy an AF-S

lens because the D70s AF motor is rather weak.<br>

<br>

The D70 is kind of small so you dont get as good leverage

with the body as you would with a D2H or D2X but you have the D70

so work with it. A larger body does make handling large lenses

easier. The D70 has other limitations compared to the pro bodies

but this is not going to be your last DSLR so plan for the future.<br>

<br>

Now if you are one of those people who switch system often forget

it. Youll just lose more money when you sell your system.<br>

<br>

To some it up: plan for the future and buy the lenses you will

want to own in two, three, five or ten years. I know Im

somewhat unusual but I still have lenses I bought back in 1979

and use them with my D2H which I bought in 2005 and hay! Ive

only got 4.1MP to work with.<br>

<br>

Best, not the other stuff,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ShunCheung]

Guys, if you want to compare the optical quality of lenses, please show us some results from A/B head-to-head comparisons, as I did a number of times, e.g. between 70-200 VR w/ TC and 300mm lenses. Otherwise, all the talking is meaningless.

 

Since I have neither those Series E lenses nor the 18-70 DX kit lens, I cannot carry out the test myself.

[vivek iyer]

"you nostaligia guys " ?!? If in doubt, try it for yourself!

 

 

 

Philip, You asked for the best lenses within a budget. The 75-150mm f/3.5 zoom out resolves the D70 sensor's resolution. I am sure it will do swell on a D2X also, in case you buy that in the future. Look for Eric~'s test shots. He will beposting them shortly (D2X plus 75-150).

[david_h._hartman]

<em>If you nostaligia guys take the view --Steve

Dawson<br>

</em><br>

Come on, cut the pettiness. A lens stands or falls on its own

merits. It doesnt matter if the lens is 40 years old or

brand new. Some lenses I bought 25 to 30 years ago give great

image quality on my D2H and some much newer designs only give

fair quality.<br>

<br>

Once more: a lens stands or falls on its own merits.<br>

<br>

The lenses that really show a great improvement are the expensive

lenses like the AF-S 17~35/2.8D ED-IF, AF-S 17~55/2.8G ED-IF DX,

AF-S 28~70/2.8D ED-IF and others. These are also the lenses that

benefit most from Super Integrated Coatings.<br>

<br>

I have a 25~50/4.0 AIS Nikkor that produces very clean images

with no chromatic aberation from 25 to about 40 millimeters then

there is just visible trace of CA at 50mm. It was not an

inexpensive lens in its day and its not cheap now but to beat its

image quality you need to buy one of the expensive lenses listed

in the paragraph above.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Philip,<br>

<br>

Its not an exciting focal length range but the AF-S 17~55/2.8G

ED-IF has a very useful range and its a bread and butter

lens for many pros. For marked improvement in most of your

photography this might be your best buy.<br>

<br>

I must say I do not own this lens but Im trusting the

advice and reviews of Bj�rn R�rslett. Here is a link to his

site. For the best reviews Ive found on the net click this

link and then Lenses on the start page...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new"><u>http://www.naturfotograf.com/</u></a>

<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[steve_dawson1]

David, you don't need to be defensive about me using the word 'nostalgic'. Nothing petty about nostalgia, it just isn't what it used to be. Half the stuff I've got around here is as old as I am, and I don't tell anyone how old I am these days! I agree: a lens is as good as it is regardless of its age. I'm perfectly happy with forty year old primes. But there is a thing called progress as well. Technological improvements mean that things become possible - at an affordable price - that weren't previously. Some lenses from decades ago have passed the test of time, others have been improved upon by newer designs.

[steve_muntz]

Little bit of trivia, that second-rate 75-150 Series E that Vivek mentions was used by Galen Rowell to take his most famous photograph, Rainbow over Potala Palace. I think the last print of it sold for about the price of a Volkswagen. They were big prints, too - 16x24 I think.

[vivek iyer]

I got my first sample of the 75-150 f/3.5 a few years ago by chance. It came with a lot that included a 50-300 f/4.5 ED (my main interest was this one). I had no idea about its history or fame. Only after I went through a roll on my FM2n, I got curious and looked for the details and background of this lens. Little did I know how well it would match up with a D70 later. Stunning performer on the D70, optically and also in terms of its compact, light weight size.

 

The 50-135 f/3.5, 75-150 f/3.5 and the 50-300 f/4.5 all perform splendidly on D70.