Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lens recommendation for Nikon D 70

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 2:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've just bought a D70 with the 18-70 zoom, and am now looking for a
complimentary tele-zoom - a digital equivalent of 70-210 in 35mm terms.
What would you recommend in terms of value for money - Nikkor, Sigma or
other independents?
Many thanks
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 7:01:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

This one http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

Gregor

"Bill Christie" <bill@christie22.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cn8q7a$jo1$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I've just bought a D70 with the 18-70 zoom, and am now looking for a
> complimentary tele-zoom - a digital equivalent of 70-210 in 35mm terms.
> What would you recommend in terms of value for money - Nikkor, Sigma or
> other independents?
> Many thanks
>
>
>
November 15, 2004 7:38:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:01:35 GMT, "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>This one http://www.bythom.com/70300lens.htm

For me the big drawback would be no tripod mount. 300 mm is not a
hand held lens, whether it's light or not. It *might* be for the
young and steady of hand, but 300 mm would definitely benefit from a
tripod mount. Other than that , I like the lens.

"For me" In the past I typically have carried a 40# backpack with at
least two cameras, film, lenses, collapsible tripod, spare change of
clothes, spare pair of shoes, hat, extra pair of sunglasses, weather
gear, and miscellaneous medications and bug repellent.

Taking that into consideration I do not consider the rather pricey 80
to 200 f-2.8 VR a heavy lens. With it I don't think my D70 weighs any
more than my F4S with the lens being reviewed.

OTOH those used to light weight cameras or the P & S would consider
then akin to boat anchors.

BTW With the D-70, I'd also carry at least one can of air for cleaning
the bugs out, "in-the-field". I hasten to add I consider the "canned
air", both essential and a very dangerous way to "blow out" the
interior of any camera, let alone a digital. One blast of liquid on
the CCD and I'd guess it'd be all done.

If you do much interior shooting, I really like the 12 to 24 which I
have found to be excellent.

I really miss the cable release on the D-70 though. I'd even settle
for a IR remote that would also work from the rear of the camera.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Gregor
>
>"Bill Christie" <bill@christie22.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cn8q7a$jo1$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I've just bought a D70 with the 18-70 zoom, and am now looking for a
>> complimentary tele-zoom - a digital equivalent of 70-210 in 35mm terms.
>> What would you recommend in terms of value for money - Nikkor, Sigma or
>> other independents?
>> Many thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 11:07:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Roger <Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:

> BTW With the D-70, I'd also carry at least one can of air for cleaning
> the bugs out, "in-the-field". I hasten to add I consider the "canned
> air", both essential and a very dangerous way to "blow out" the
> interior of any camera, let alone a digital. One blast of liquid on
> the CCD and I'd guess it'd be all done.

A blower that uses CO2 cartridges is much safer, though not 100% foolproof.
But you probably can't bring it on a plane, I dunno.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 12:40:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bill Christie" <bill@christie22.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<cn8q7a$jo1$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> I've just bought a D70 with the 18-70 zoom, and am now looking for a
> complimentary tele-zoom - a digital equivalent of 70-210 in 35mm terms.
> What would you recommend in terms of value for money - Nikkor, Sigma or
> other independents?


Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor. I don't have one (yet!)
but from what I've read, it looks like a terrific lens.
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 4:04:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If budget--not picture quality--is your top priority, go with a Nikon 70-210
G series lens (there is also a image stabilization version of the G lens,
but that's closer to $1500 US). This will cost less than $150 US. If picture
quality is the top priority, especially when shooting sports, go with the
80-200 f2.8 ED IF, which is what most newspaper photographers use. The
drawback: it will cost about $900-$1,000.

An intermediate option is the 70-300 f 4-5.6 ED, which has a ED (extra-low
dispersion) front element. you don't pick up the quality or light
transmission of the 80-200/ 2.8, but it's far better than the low end G.
Nikon lenses have a higher resale value and are far easier to unload when it
comes time to upgrade, so avoid the off-brands.

>>Dave Reynolds
former member National Press Photographers Assn.

"Bill Christie" <bill@christie22.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cn8q7a$jo1$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I've just bought a D70 with the 18-70 zoom, and am now looking for a
> complimentary tele-zoom - a digital equivalent of 70-210 in 35mm terms.
> What would you recommend in terms of value for money - Nikkor, Sigma or
> other independents?
> Many thanks
>
>
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 1:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David Reynolds <davereyn@verizon.net> wrote:

>If budget--not picture quality--is your top priority, go with a Nikon 70-210
>G series lens (there is also a image stabilization version of the G lens,
>but that's closer to $1500 US). This will cost less than $150 US.


Are you sure you mean 70-210? Do you mean the AF f4-5.6 version?
That is a "D" lens (and no longer made).

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
December 5, 2004 9:03:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As a new digital user, I understand that the D70 comes with an 18-70
lens made for digital photography. Do you see a new higher lenses say
a 70-200 being made for digital, or does in not make a difference? and
will they work fine , and are there any differences between a digital
lens and the standard nikon lenses that have been around forever.

Thanks, Steve
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 5:37:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <2f10d395.0412051803.31869518@posting.google.com>,
cooch@banet.net (Steve C) wrote:

> As a new digital user, I understand that the D70 comes with an 18-70
> lens made for digital photography. Do you see a new higher lenses say
> a 70-200 being made for digital, or does in not make a difference? and
> will they work fine , and are there any differences between a digital
> lens and the standard nikon lenses that have been around forever.
>
> Thanks, Steve


Because the sensor in a Nikon digital SLR camera is smaller than a
standard 35mm frame, the imaging circle of the lens can be smaller. That
means a lens designed specifically for a Nikon digital SLR can be made
smaller and lighter than a equivalent lens for a 35mm film camera.

Since the digital lens will not cover the full frame of a 35mm film
camera, if you use one on a film camera, although it will fit, it will
cause vignetting around the edges of the image.

On the other hand, there is no problem using Nikon lens designed for their
35mm film SLRs on their digital SLRs. Just keep in mind that because the
35mm frame is 1.5 times the size of the digital frame, the equivalent
focal length is 1.5 times longer for digital than for film. In other
words a 200mm focal length lens used on a Nikon digital camera will
produce an image that will be equivalent to a 300mm lens on a film camera.

Merritt
!