arnulfo_rosas

Why don't you try either: a) 24/2.8 + 50/2.8 (+-$250 used), b) 35-70mm 2.8 AFD (+-$250 used)or c) 35/2 + 85/1.8 (+-370 used). Any of them would be much cheaper than the 28-70 2.8 yielding the same high quality (or better!). In case you prefer a 24-85 zoom, my vote goes to the ED glass (...although I've heard this zoom is not any fantastic at 24 and 85, being very good at...35-70, which in turns takes you to the 35-70 2.8!...)

A decent performer with problems:

* when using the D70's built-in flash you will have a shadow cast in your pictures.

* big (=expensive) filters

* heavy for a small body like the D70 (especially when travelling)

if you think you these drawbacks are unimportant for you, buy it. I had one but sold it after a while for the above mentioned reasons.

Ths Sigma EX line is OK, but one thing almost everybody forgets to mention is that Nikon lenses are far superior to most brands when it comes to contrast; IMHO Nikon's is superb and this is the main reason to choose Nikon over other brands.

If you are willing to pay $300 for an average ED 300mm, why not pay ca $450 for a fantastic (used) 80-200 2.8 ED?. After all the 300mm are just nominal (in real life most zooms are below the nominal lenght making a 300mm close to 200mm!). If you are just a point-and shoot photographer, buy the $100 lens as it will give you decent results. If you think you are enthusiastic enough to grow as a photographer in the near future, then buy the best equipment once and for all, avoiding that boring game of buying-reselling-buying your consumer zooms.

I am well aware this lens is not the favorite of many reviewers and

users, however I am curious about how this lens could compare to the

18-70mm and 20mm AFD. It looks very attractive specially when you are

offered an EX++ condition @ US$350. I have read somewhere that this

lens compares favorably to the 20mm, but somewhere else I read the

contrary. I still use film cameras but in the near future I would

like to go digital as well, and the AF capability of this lens is

very attractive. On film bodies I could get spectacular wide angle

pictures whereas on digital bodies, a nice all-purpose 27mm lens. I

will appreciate your comments.

I would like you to tell me where I can buy spare parts for Nikon

cameras, in particular a display for a Nikon FA. I have been unable

to fin it in Mexico and I recently contacted KEH but they do not sell

spare parts on their own. I will appreciate if some of you can sell

me or indicate me where to find such display.

I would not bother buying any of them!. As per the consumer zooms, 3rd party lenses are crappy (...believe me, I once had a couple of Sigmas 70-300 & 28-300 and they were pretty awful). If money is not an issue you might be better off with a Nikon 180mm 2.8 ED-IF or a decent Nikon 70-300 ED. If your camera accepts MF lenses then a 105 2.5 + 200 4.0 will be unbeatable in terms of quality and price (ca $250 for both!).

Do yourself a favor: do not waste your money in 3rd party consumer zooms, you will regret it!

I have read several postings in the macro setup section regarding the

incredible results you can get with the 20mm 3.5 + K1 ring but have

not found any picture taken with this combination; the same applies

to the 24mm +PK11a. Could you please post some pictures to see how

different they can be?

Thanks a lot!

I support the suggestion of moving to D70, however if a film body is compulsory, I would choose a N90s (AA bateries; ca $200) over the N80 (a great camera but you cannot use MF lenses). An F100 is also great but in terms of price it is very close to the D70. Mirror lock up is not a big issue with the N90s; if MLU is compulsory, then move to the F4 (ca $350). My suggestion: do not invest more than $350 on a film body.

The macro capability of the Nikon may not be that great but it is still useful as it lets you focus at closer distance than a regular zoom; this is a good reason to pick the Nikon (1st hand experience). Although the Tamron may be a good choice, with zooms with such a huge range (24-135) the lower and upper ends are pretty useless as there are severe problems of distorsion and softness.

Do not rule out the 28-105mm with its decent macro capability, good sharpness and fair price (used $150). Since I do not have 1st hand expereince I will not comment on the the zooms on your list, although they have good reputation.

If you are decided to use AIS lenses, the FA could be an excellent choice as it is cheap and you can operate your manual lenses in A, M, P and S modes!. Or you can buy an F4 for ca $350 to have matrix metering (A & M modes only).

200 4 AI Price: ca $120

135 2.8 AI/AIS Price: ca $80

105 2.5 AI/AIS Price: ca $150

All of them superb lenses!

All of the above suggestions are great, but before making a choice, have a look at the 28mm 2.8 AIS and the 85mm 2.0 AI. They are superb & very useful lenses that you may find for under $300. The wide angle lets you shoot at 20cms making it a virtual macro and the 85mm is great for candids.

I used this lens for a while before I sold it to a friend. Considering the price quality ratio, I would say this is a very decent lens, as it is the only one 2.8 constant zoom under $400. I sold it simply because at 24mm it showed a softness and distortion that I did not like; another reason is that 70mm is not long enough to use it as a portrait lens. The build quality is above the average of consumer zooms and the autofocus is not impressive but OK. I have no 1st hand experience but I have read good reviews about the 28-70mm 2.8 EX that you may buy for under $300.

If you are decided to buy a zoom, the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 might be a better choice as you can use its 105mm for portraiture and its macro features. Although I prefer fixed focal lenses, this zoom is unbeatable for traveling lightweight.

If budget is a concern, do not rule out the 200 4.0 AI. It is a little bit slow but the results of this lens rival those of the 180 (a superb lens!), and you can get a nice one for as low as $70-80 (vs $300 of the 180).

As usual, there are pros & cons of zooms; as for me, I do not like the bulky 80-200 as you are forced to buy a grip for your camera.

I am curious about the above combinations as they seem pretty much

the same in terms of giving dramatic close-ups; however, it looks

like the PK-11a can be a better choice in terms AF compatibility and

easier macro-focusing compared to the K1 ring. I will appreciate your

comments to help me to decide between the two of them.

 

Thanks!

Same as above, but I would buy a 105mm (Nikon preferably but a Sigma is really good) instead of the 60mm (I know it is a superb but with insufficient working distance).

 

Zoom: 80-200 2.8 (expensive but worth every single $ spent on it), or

Fixed: 85 1.8 AFD and 180 2.8 EDIF AFD

 

in both combinations you spend about the same amount of $$$ for about the same quality; the only drawback of the zoom is that it is too heavy for your N80 (a MB-16 would be compulsory).

 

Regards

If you think you will become a pro or a serious amateur, then either D70 or N80/F100 are the best choices. However, if you are unsure about that and do not want to spend $$$, you might be better off chosing nice condition 2nd hand equipment such as:

N90s + 24/2.8 AI + 50/1.8 AF + 100/2.8 AIS + 200/4 AI for ca $600 or less. I swear the quality of this combination will be second to none. IMO any of AI-AIS lenses are at least equal to the AF versions but much cheaper.

I support the recommendations of the Nikon 18-35 and the 24 2.8 AF; however, since I once tried the Vivitar, I would say it is not a bad performer. If you have not decided the style you want to shoot, for $80-120 you can buy a 2nd-hand Vivitar; if you are already conviced this is the lens range you need, then go for any of the Nikkors.

I would sell/trade the Sigmas 28-80 & 28-200 simply because they are not any good in any respect, why?: I had both lenses years ago and did not like them at all, not only for their poor performance in the most evident areas like sharpness & contrast but also for the long focsuing distance of the 28-200. I will not comment on the 24mm as I do not have 1st hand experience.

Irrespective of your shotting style (it seems you are starting from scratch)the 50mm choice is not a bad idea: it is cheap ($100 brand new), it is superb and if you do not like it you can re-sell it at ca $70-80. Another good choice would be the 35mm 2.0 or not so expensive zooms like the Nikkor 28-105 or 24-85 (...and together w/the 70-300 you would cover most of your needs).

I already have a 105 2.5 non-AI but I am unsure about converting it

to use it on my N90s or buy the AIS version. I do not know if the

conversion is possible and if so, the cost of such operation. Could

you give me a hint on how to proceed?

Thanks a lot!

David,

could you please add some information about the K set extension tubes?, what are they meant for?, can I use them with any of my MF & AFD lenses or only with wide-angle lenses?.

 

Thanks for your reply!

I am planning to buy a second hand Nikon 20mm and after reading

several reviews and rankings it seems to me that the best choices are:

 

a. 20mm 2.8 AF or MF, price: +/- $300-350, ranking: 4/5 (general)

b. 20mm 3.5 MF, price: +/- $170-220, ranking: 3/5 (at infinity), 5/5

(close up)

c. 20mm 4.0 MF, price: +/- $150-200, ranking: same as b.

 

As I am interested in both landscape & close distance photography

(for dramatic effects) options b & c may not be as good as option a;

however, the performance at close distance may be superior (and the

price is tempting).

 

I will appreciate if you could share your experiences with any of

these lenses.

 

Thanks!

Someone is offering me an absolut mint condition Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AIS

at US$155 that I pretend to use in combination with a 1.8 AFD (the

former for low-light situations and the latter as a general purpose

lens), but I am not sure if an 1.4 AFD could be a better choice, as

the 1.2 reputation does not seem to be that good. I will appreciate

your comments.

According to several postings regarding this topic, it seems to me

that the winners would be the 85mm 1.4D AF and the 105mm 2.8 AF DC.

Assuming this is true, I am interested in a comparison between

lenses such as the 105mm 2.5 MF AI and the 85mm 1.8D AF as they look

like the best value for money.

 

I will appreciate your comments.