D70 lens choices?

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

I'm planning to buy a Nikon D70 soon, and looking for the best
(legitimate) deal.

H1photo.com are offering the with-lens package for $992, which is
pretty good, but they offer the body for $757, and for lenses they
have:
Nikon 18-70 - $328 - presumably the same one as the kit -
http://store.h1photo.com/ni18fedifafd.html
Nikon 28-100 - $120 - http://store.h1photo.com/2136ncp.html

Obviously there's a reason the 28-100 is so much cheaper, but can
someone help me understand what the difference is?

Thanks,
Joe

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

cool! remember D70 is the old model....d70s just came out!
<google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:1115521399.610857.125150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm planning to buy a Nikon D70 soon, and looking for the best
> (legitimate) deal.
>
> H1photo.com are offering the with-lens package for $992, which is
> pretty good, but they offer the body for $757, and for lenses they
> have:
> Nikon 18-70 - $328 - presumably the same one as the kit -
> http://store.h1photo.com/ni18fedifafd.html
> Nikon 28-100 - $120 - http://store.h1photo.com/2136ncp.html
>
> Obviously there's a reason the 28-100 is so much cheaper, but can
> someone help me understand what the difference is?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>

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

In article <d5l89s$mc8$1@news01.versatel.de>,
Torsten Bahr <news-spam@bahr-net.de> wrote:
>google.20.jbloggs@xoxy.net schrieb:
>> I'm planning to buy a Nikon D70 soon, and looking for the best
>> (legitimate) deal.
>>
>> H1photo.com are offering the with-lens package for $992, which is
>> pretty good, but they offer the body for $757, and for lenses they
>> have:
>> Nikon 18-70 - $328 - presumably the same one as the kit -
>> http://store.h1photo.com/ni18fedifafd.html
>> Nikon 28-100 - $120 - http://store.h1photo.com/2136ncp.html
>
>remember, that 28mm on the D70 would be 42mm on a analog camera. (x1,5)
>So: no more wide angle!

True -- I'm using a 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D lens (which I already
had) with my D70 (bought "body only" ). For *my* shooting practices, it
works very well. I tend to crop in close, rather than widen to cover a
lot of scene -- but others obviously have other shooting practices. I
used to use a 135mm at least as often as the 50mm with my (now ancient)
Mirandas before I moved to the Nikons.

You need to make the choice based on how *you* like to shoot.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

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

Frederick <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:

>
>I would recommend that you avoid the 28-100, and if you are on a budget
>then look at the new 18-55, with view to possibly also getting the
>55-200 - or get the 18-70 DX ED lens, which is a bargain at the price
>you quote as part of a "kit".

It may not be such a good idea to recommend lenses that no one has had
their hands on yet. Not to say it's a bad lens but 18-55 seems to be
positioned as a budget lens for the cheapest camera. The 55-200 is
intriguing because of the size, fast focusing speed and zoom range,
but it's an f4-5.6 lens. Paired with the 18-55 f3.5-5.6. You've got
a pair of fairly slow lenses at ranges where you generally want more
light.

I use the older 28-105 f3.5-4.5 extensively on a D70 and have found it
to be a very good lens when you are doing things like portraiture or
need that extra bit of telephoto.


Scott Peterson

--
CAN'T: Definition, the same as CAN, but
much more expensive.

511/612

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

Scott Peterson wrote:

> Frederick <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I would recommend that you avoid the 28-100, and if you are on a budget
>>then look at the new 18-55, with view to possibly also getting the
>>55-200 - or get the 18-70 DX ED lens, which is a bargain at the price
>>you quote as part of a "kit".
>
>
> It may not be such a good idea to recommend lenses that no one has had
> their hands on yet. Not to say it's a bad lens but 18-55 seems to be
> positioned as a budget lens for the cheapest camera. The 55-200 is
> intriguing because of the size, fast focusing speed and zoom range,
> but it's an f4-5.6 lens. Paired with the 18-55 f3.5-5.6. You've got
> a pair of fairly slow lenses at ranges where you generally want more
> light.
>
> I use the older 28-105 f3.5-4.5 extensively on a D70 and have found it
> to be a very good lens when you are doing things like portraiture or
> need that extra bit of telephoto.
>
I agree not to buy before looking. But I would be surprised if the
optical performance of the 18-55 wasn't quite good. They are both
budget lenses. The 18-55 looks like (the only?) an inexpensive way into
wide angle shooting with a Nikon DSLR - and I'm confident that it'll be
better than a lens of similar specification (but minus ED glass) made by
someone else. As much as I would like a larger aperture zoom than the
55-200, there is something very appealing about the lens - it would fit
in my pocket, yet quite probably has better glass than my 70-210 AF
which is twice the size.

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

To my understanding the DX designation means that the lens has a
smaller coverage area than a normal non-DX lens. The coverage area of
the DX lens is optimized for a 23mm CCD of a digital camera like the
D70 whereas a non-DX lens' coverage area is big enough for a 35mm film.
If you put a lens like the 18-70mm DX on a F5, you'd get major
vignetting since the image will never cover the full 35mm film.

This leads me to believe that a 18-70mm DX lens on a D70 would be
equivalent to a 18-70mm non-DX (if one exists) on a F5. On the other
hand, the 18-70mm non-DX (yet again, if one exists) lens on the D70
would equate to something like 27-105mm on a 35mm film camera.

I hope this makes sense. If there is an error in my logic, please tell
me.

bH

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

Tom Scales wrote:
> "bH" <hein.dejager@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115971753.431976.250300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > It depends whether the 28-100 is a DX lens or not. DX is made
> > specifically for the 22-23mm CCD size, so the 1.5x factor doesn't
> > apply... The same goes for the 18-70mm.
> >
>
> What do you mean, doesn't apply. The 18-70 still requires the 1.5x
crop
> factor for the 24-105 35mm equivalent. All the DX lenses do. For
example,
> the 12-24 is equivalent to an 18-36 on a 35mm film camera.
>
> Tom

To my understanding the DX designation means that the lens has a
smaller coverage area than a normal non-DX lens. The coverage area of
the DX lens is optimized for a 23mm CCD of a digital camera like the
D70 whereas a non-DX lens' coverage area is big enough for a 35mm film.
If you put a lens like the 18-70mm DX on a F5, you'd get major
vignetting since the image will never cover the full 35mm film.

This leads me to believe that a 18-70mm DX lens on a D70 would be
equivalent to a 18-70mm non-DX (if one exists) on a F5. On the other
hand, the 18-70mm non-DX (yet again, if one exists) lens on the D70
would equate to something like 27-105mm on a 35mm film camera.

I hope this makes sense. If there is an error in my logic, please tell
me.

bH

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

Tom Scales wrote:
> "bH" <hein.dejager@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115971753.431976.250300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > It depends whether the 28-100 is a DX lens or not. DX is made
> > specifically for the 22-23mm CCD size, so the 1.5x factor doesn't
> > apply... The same goes for the 18-70mm.
> >
>
> What do you mean, doesn't apply. The 18-70 still requires the 1.5x
crop
> factor for the 24-105 35mm equivalent. All the DX lenses do. For
example,
> the 12-24 is equivalent to an 18-36 on a 35mm film camera.
>
> Tom


To my understanding the DX designation means that the lens has a
smaller coverage area than a normal non-DX lens. The coverage area of
the DX lens is optimized for a 23mm CCD of a digital camera like the
D70 whereas a non-DX lens' coverage area is big enough for a 35mm film.
If you put a lens like the 18-70mm DX on a F5, you'd get major
vignetting since the image will never cover the full 35mm film.

This leads me to believe that a 18-70mm DX lens on a D70 would be
equivalent to a 18-70mm non-DX (if one exists) on a F5. On the other
hand, the 18-70mm non-DX (yet again, if one exists) lens on the D70
would equate to something like 27-105mm on a 35mm film camera.

I hope this makes sense. If there is an error in my logic, please tell
me.

bH

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

"bH" <hein.dejager@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115990017.754315.150540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> To my understanding the DX designation means that the lens has a
> smaller coverage area than a normal non-DX lens. The coverage area of
> the DX lens is optimized for a 23mm CCD of a digital camera like the
> D70 whereas a non-DX lens' coverage area is big enough for a 35mm film.
> If you put a lens like the 18-70mm DX on a F5, you'd get major
> vignetting since the image will never cover the full 35mm film.
>
> This leads me to believe that a 18-70mm DX lens on a D70 would be
> equivalent to a 18-70mm non-DX (if one exists) on a F5. On the other
> hand, the 18-70mm non-DX (yet again, if one exists) lens on the D70
> would equate to something like 27-105mm on a 35mm film camera.
>
> I hope this makes sense. If there is an error in my logic, please tell
> me.
>
> bH
>

Part right, part wrong.

DX only covers an APS size sensor, but 18mm is 18mm and the 1.5x crop factor
still applies, so it is equivalent to a 27 to 105 on a 35mm film camera.

I am quite confident in my answer, as I own both the 18-70DX and the 12-24DX
and use them on my D100, D70 and D2X.

Tom