Looking For Help re: Nikon Lenses for a D70

[jim_fenton1]

I have ordered a Nikon D70 without a lense and as I'm just getting

back into photography after a long hiatus...I am looking for some

advice relative to lenses.

 

I will be sticking with Nikon lenses and at this time would like to

utilize the full range of exposure meetering which seems to leave me

the D and G series AF lenses.

 

My question is regarding focal lengths. To start out, I'd like to be

able to do some close up work but I will mainly use this for

landscapes and nature shots...with the typical family / people shots

as well.

 

According to reviews I've read, the D series was built more solidly,

yet the G series seems to focus faster and perhaps more sharply.

 

Do I want the new 18-70? A 28-200 af G IF? How about a 70-210?

 

Can anyone give an opinion as to which two lenses within the Nikon AF

group might provide the best all around coverage?

 

In the future I'm sure that I will expand into the higher end Nikon

lenses....finances dictate one step at a time for now :)

 

Thanks in advance....

 

Jim Fenton

soonipi1957@aol.com

[bill_schmidt]

With yor permission, I'd like to piggy-back on your question. I'm also thinking about getting a D70. Currently, my most frequent lens on my F3 is the 24mm F2.0 AIS that I bought 3 years ago (used) for under $300 USD. With what do I replace that on a D70?

[jim_fenton1]

Hi Bill...

Please feel free to jump on board :)

 

Jim

[bill_schmidt]

Gee, 5:30 PM EST and no answers. Oh-oh, maybe there ARE no answers!

[denis_baulsom1]

I have a Nikon D100 (good choice the D70 - I'll be getting one of those soon, once the frenzy is over).

 

When I got my D100 it came with a AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G. I'm glad it did, I use it nearly all the time.

 

I also, later, puchased a AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX IF-ED for wide-angle.

 

Given I have about 14 lenses now for my D100, (purchased off of ebay) - these are the 2 I use the most.

 

If I had a wish list, and the cash, I'd take advantage of Nikon's VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses and get a AF-S VR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G. I have a AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D and it's great, even hand-held. I'd also get a AF-S 12-24mm f/4G DX ED-IF.

 

(These are all serious money, but you only have to do it once).

 

Whatever you do, if you purchase lenses other than Nikons, (and why not, other manufacturers make great lenses at a fraction of the cost), - make sure they work in the camera. Take the camera to the store with you and try them. A couple of AF Tokinas and a Tamron I bought just plain didn't work at all.

 

I can't comment on the 18-70 which seems to come packaged with the D70, but I'll bet it's good. (But I've tried it and I like VR).

 

Hope you enjoy you D70 when you get it.

[denis_baulsom1]

Ooops!!

 

Forgot to direct you to Ken Rockwell's Nikon Lense reviews.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

 

Cheers

[eric_hagen1]

Well, I use the Fuji S2Pro. It's been over a year now and back then, the three options under $2500 were the Nikon D100, Canon 10D (and D60) and the Fuji S2Pro. The S2Pro is by far more suited to my style and in my opinion is all-around better in most areas (the slow 1/125 flash sync annoys me though).

 

Anyway, as I was ditching my Pentax setup in favor of Nikon and spending so much on the body, I opted to start with just one lens. If you can only carry one lens for a Nikon camera, it would HAVE to be the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 lens. From the reviews I've seen (and my experience), it's as sharp (except very close to 120mm wide open) as any of the Nikkor zoom lenses, including their high-end f/2.8 arrangements. I did not purchase the VR lens, mostly because I got a killer deal on the non-VR version of that lens.

 

My second lens was a 50mm f/1.4. A good, fast lens at 50mm is a "must have" and very inexpensive (the f/1.8 is usually under $100).

 

Next, I invested in the 80-200 ED f/2.8 zoom lens. On the digital body, this is a 120-300 f/2.8 which is absolutely amazing. The AF (non AF-S) lens is a steal now that the AF-S and AF-S VR lenses are available. If money is no object the SilentWave motor on the AF-S and the Vibration Reduction are both sweet features, but the optics are as good or better on the standard AF series. I don't recommend getting the "sliding zoom" version, since I've heard the mechanism tends to loosen over time and become unstable with age. The newer non AF-S lens has two rotating rings, one for focus and one for zoom and is supurb construction (tho very heavy). Again, if money is no object, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IF ED VR is an amazing lens (even heavier).

 

My next purchase was a Sigma 20mm 4/1.8 EX lens. At half the cost of the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 and with comparable quality (at f/2.8 and above) and the ability to go to f/1.8 in a pinch, this lens is a steal in my book.

 

I've been really eyeing the Sigma 12-24 lens for it's super-wide angle, which is hard to find for digital (1.5x crop) bodies. The 14mm f/2.8 prime lenses are too expensive for me and I don't really want a fisheye. The 12mm focal length is the widest non-fisheye focal length available anywhere (Nikon also makes one that's a "DG" [digital-only] lens and twice the cost).

 

I've considered the Tamron "pro" series 2x teleconverter. I've done lots of looking around and that seems to be the best quality 2xTC on the market and the only one that offers decent optical quality with my 80-200mm lens and still leaves CPU and AF functions intact. I wouldn't use a TC like this with a lens slower than f/2.8 though because I rely on the AF, especially with long lenses and lenses with very short focus-throw like the 80-200 (short throw makes for faster AF but tricky MF).

 

A very popular lens among pros at weddings and photojournalists (people who need versatile, fast, wide zoom lenses) is the 17-35 f/2.8 lens. That one goes for well over $1300 I believe so again, it's an expensive option. Personally, I've never seen a lens that can rival the economy of the 24-120 lens. That lens is as crisp as a wide-zoom lens can get and still reasonably fast at wide focus (f/3.5) and very inexpensive (usually under $500). The 28-200 is ok, but I would miss the 4mm on the wide-end after factoring the 1.5x crop. Also, at an effective 300mm on the wide end, the f/5.6 may become unweildy without VR (trying to maintain 1/300 shutter for handheld).

 

I've been eyeing an 85mm lens for portraits, but I also want a Macro lens and was hoping to get a two-for-one on that. Nikon only makes medium-telephoto Macro lenses at 105mm and 135mm, which with the 1.5x crop is a bit long for me to use for portraits. So... I've been considering the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro as a result, but I haven't decided yet what I really need.

 

I've also looked at the 10.5mm fisheye lens. Its 16mm effective length would be nice for very wide shots and the ability of the new Nikon NEF software to warp and crop the fisheye perspective to a rectilinear image in software could be very useful for many shots (it does reduce corner resolution a bit, but that may be ok for a 120 degree FOV)

 

Wow, I think that's it...

 

Hope it was useful,

Eric

[harry_pluta3]

Eric,

 

A nice option for your last lens is the Nikkor 85mm with a set of Kenko AF extension tubes. These work flawlessly on an F5, but I've not tested them yet on a digital body.

 

-harry