Got D70s, have 28-105, want to add a lens

[robcarson]

Well, I didn't fully do my homework when I bought a D70s last week,

because I didn't realize just how much the 28mm of my 28-105 would be

cut down. I need wider. I like to shoot outdoor landscapes.

 

So I'm wanting the Tokina 12-24mm and have read extensively about it

here and elsewhere. But I've also been reading about the Nikon 18-55mm

(the one that comes with the D50) and am tempted to get that b/c it's

so reasonably priced, but is it just too redundant to own that and the

28-105?

 

I'm thinking I'll save for the Tokina. Your thoughts?

[summitar]

May I suggest the Nikon 50mm F1.8? It is reputedly among the sharpest of all Nikon lenses and is a real bargain at about $100 for a brand new lens.

[fk319]

I have 2 normal lenses, and inside and an outside. My inside lens is 18-70/3.5-4.5 and my outside lens is an 24-120/3.5-5.6. I do have a Sigma 12-24, but it is not a complemnt lens, but more of a special purpose lenses. (I use it for very close quarters,ie caves, and extream wide angle, ie full room.)

 

Most landscapes I shoot in the telephoto range. Buildings may need the wide angle.

 

The 18-55 kit lens for the D50 is a cheap lens. It was made to be a full dSLR for under some magic dolar/yen price point. The D70(s) kit lens is a much better lens and is in this range.

 

The 50/1.8 lens mentioned above is an execelent lens for many reasons and should be considered, although it does not directly help you in the super wide range.

 

I would suggest thinking of a good quality lens that has a range of 18-35, instead if 12-24.

[dennismk]

Get the tokina it goes much wider, thats what Iam saving for.

[hash]

50/1.8 is a great lens but will not give you wide angle, it's more of a portrait lens on the D70. I hear good things about the 18-50/2.8 Sigma, even compared to much more expensive lenses. What's your budget?

[gstarene]

Do you really need a zoom for indoors?

 

I would rather have a 24mm cheaper or 20mm more $$ but first on my list.,, f2.8 nikon

[robcarson]

Frank -- You suggest the 18-7mm, thanks. Would that make my 28-105mm more or less obsolete, though?

 

And is the 12-24mm really too wide when you consider that it translates into 18-36mm? Seems like 36mm is pretty practical and not a fisheye by any means.

[robcarson]

Also, the 50/1.8 suggested above definitely sounds interesting. Would love to own one 1.8 just to see what it could do in lower light.

[fk319]

Rob, absolulty not. When I am outside I grab for my 24-120. This is a good range for 'me' and I will use most of the range. When I am inside, I shoot 18-70, and use mostly the lower half. I would hate to have to choose between one or the other for a perminate solution. I shot a dinner party last week, my 24-120 would not get wide enough to get the small groups.

 

There are 18-200 and 28-300 lenses, but these tend to be slow, have barrel distortion on the wide end and soft on the long end. Also do zooms replace prime lenses? of course not. A prime may be just as sharp, as a zoom, but they are often several stops faster.

[photo5]

I bought the D70 with the 18-70mm Nikon kit lens, and really liked that lens. I also had the same lens you have, the Nikon 28-105mm, which I also loved on my N70 then my F100. The 18-70 duplicates the 28-105mm focal length when you do the DX 1.5x conversion. Also the 18-70 focuses very quickly due to the silent wave motor inside it, and I also like the hood that comes with it.

 

It has a 67mm filter thread, which is pretty big, but not so bad. I found the lens to be sharp too. For a wider angle, consider a Sigma 14mm lens, it translates to a 21mm in the DX world. I find this lens excellent. I have the older f3.5 version. The newer f2.8 Sigma 14mm is supposed to be even better. And mounted on my F3HP, the Sigma 14mm can see around corners it's so wide.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[robcarson]

Dave,

Thanks for your comments. I would definitely want to own the 18-70mm, I think, if I didn't already own a 28-105mm. I think what I'm leaning toward is building a range around that existing lens. But the 18-55mm is tempting me just because it can be had for under $200, is light, and was reviewed well here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm.

 

I think I'll stop by the shop tonight and see if I can take a peek through a 12-24. In my mind, if I owned a 12-24mm plus my existing 28-105mm, I'd have a lot of bases covered.

[johninjapan2000]

Don't forget to consider the Sigma 10-20mm. I like mine a lot and that extra 2mm on the wide end comes in handy.

 

John

[johninjapan2000]

Oh, and be careful about Ken Rockwell. He has interesting things to say but his standards are different. His work doesn't rely so much on the beautiful rendering of detail as it does on deeply saturated colors. If your photography is not very similar to his, you may be disappointed. Just a thought.

 

John

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

If you're happy with your 28-105 images then you should definitely go to something like a 12-24. Nikonians.org has a good review of the four lens in this range (Nikkor, Tokina, Tamron, Sigma) and felt they were all good with different strengths. There's no need for you to overlap with someting like the 18-70 thoguh it's a great value. I've heard the 18-55 if very soft.

[salvatore.mele]

Rob, you might want to read this recent praise of the <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EtSD>20mm/2.8</a>

[stank]

I am leaning the same direction. I have the Nikon 28-105 which I use with my N8008s. I plan to buy a D70(s) or D200 some time soon and see the need to go wider than the 28mm. Since I plan to keep my N8008s, I am looking at the Tokina 12-24, Nikon 18-35 and some form Tamron and Sigma that will work on both formats. I don't mind some over lap with the 28-105 if it means less lens swapping (less chance to collect dust on sensor).

Stan