Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lenses for D70 (amateur)

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:26:24 AM

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

I'm enjoying my D70 so much, I'd like to purchase a new lens. The
"outfit" came with this one:

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
ED 18-70mm
f/3.5-4.5G IF

I bought this based on its rave reviews, but as you may have guessed,
I'm a bit of an amateur so have mercy.

The Booklet tells me to get a G or D series Nikkor lens for best
results. I found a telephoto lens that's 70-300mm G series, so at first
glance this seems like a perfect compliment to my 18-70mm. It zooms
further, and had a good macro for taking close-ups. (I'm taking this
baby to the Bronx Zoo).

Here are the DX lenses I got from Nikon's website:

12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor
18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor **OWNED**
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!
17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!

I was thrown by the additional info that I should also be using a DX
lens. It seems the 70-300mm is not available as a DX lens.

Here is the info I have compiled on DX lenses:

*****
AF-S: Single Servo Auto Focus: Gives options for auto focusing on
subjects at variable lengths

ED: Glass elements that compensate for magnification and virtually
eliminate chromatic aberration

IF: Internal Focusing for smoother focusing and a better balanced
handling employing a Silent Wave Motor

f/3.5-4.5: maximum aperture setting: not sure what this means besides
the textbook definition of the amount of light allowed into the lens
*****

Any kind-hearted soul out there help me through a bit of this jargon,
and suggest a good telephoto/macro DX lens that will maximize the
features of the D70? I'm learning as I go...

-J

More about : lenses d70 amateur

Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:26:25 AM

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

"Reality Culture" <chaos@nospum.com> wrote in message
news:chaos-034349.21264021052005@news.verizon.net...
> I'm enjoying my D70 so much, I'd like to purchase a new lens. The
> "outfit" came with this one:
>
> AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
> ED 18-70mm
> f/3.5-4.5G IF
>
> I bought this based on its rave reviews, but as you may have guessed,
> I'm a bit of an amateur so have mercy.
>
> The Booklet tells me to get a G or D series Nikkor lens for best
> results. I found a telephoto lens that's 70-300mm G series, so at first
> glance this seems like a perfect compliment to my 18-70mm. It zooms
> further, and had a good macro for taking close-ups. (I'm taking this
> baby to the Bronx Zoo).
>
> Here are the DX lenses I got from Nikon's website:
>
> 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
> 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor
> 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor **OWNED**
> 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!
> 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
> 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW!
>
> I was thrown by the additional info that I should also be using a DX
> lens. It seems the 70-300mm is not available as a DX lens.
>
> Here is the info I have compiled on DX lenses:
>
> *****

I'll give it a shot:

> AF-S: Single Servo Auto Focus: Gives options for auto focusing on
> subjects at variable lengths

Auto focus with one motor in the lens. The motor is a "servo" type motor
which means it can be electronically controlled to go either direction and
stop at a predetermined point.

>
> ED: Glass elements that compensate for magnification and virtually
> eliminate chromatic aberration

A high-quality optical glass found primarily in apochromatic telescopes.
Many ED (extra-low dispersion) lenses have a high content of fluorite, which
reduces aberration. (Dictionary definition.)

>
> IF: Internal Focusing for smoother focusing and a better balanced
> handling employing a Silent Wave Motor

Instead of the lens focusing by moving in and out from the camera body, the
lens focuses internally, allowing the lens to stay balanced in your hands.
Silent wave motor just means it's very fast and quiet.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/03/
>
> f/3.5-4.5: maximum aperture setting: not sure what this means besides
> the textbook definition of the amount of light allowed into the lens

The maximum aperture on a zoom lens will change as the focul length changes,
which is the reason for the two figures.

Keep in mind that you can use just about any Nikkor lens from model AI and
up with your D70. However, older lenses will not have autofocus and will
not work with the built-in meter. Newer lenses will work with more
functions in the camera -- look at the chart in your manual.

The decision you have to make is do you want faster lenses? Do you want
lenses with wider apertures so you can work in low light with faster shutter
speeds? Do you want lenses with wider apertures for decreased depth of
field.

If I'm not mistaken the DX lenses are specially made for digital cameras,
since they don't have to cover the full-frame of a 35mm camera. So, you
"can't" use these with a Nikon 35mm camera, but you can use lenses made for
a 35mm camera on your D70. The image just gets cropped by a factor of 1.5.

Nikon makes some excellent lenses that can get very expensive. The zoom
lenses you are looking at would compliment your "kit" lens quite well, the
tradeoff being better lenses cost a lot more but would let you work in less
light.

When I got my D70 I had a bunch of older Nikkor 35mm lenses that work just
fine with my camera, so I'm all set. Being that you are just starting out,
and want a longer lens, the 70~300 zoom lens would probably be just fine and
the price is good. As far as cheap lenses from Nikon goes, the 18~70 kit
lens, which you already have, gets great reviews and is one hell of a
bargain.

I don't know where this thread will lead, but I would stick with lenses from
Nikon if other brands come up.

Just have fun.


> *****
>
> Any kind-hearted soul out there help me through a bit of this jargon,
> and suggest a good telephoto/macro DX lens that will maximize the
> features of the D70? I'm learning as I go...
>
> -J
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 5:26:25 AM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 01:26:24 GMT, Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com>
wrote:

>I was thrown by the additional info that I should also be using a DX
>lens. It seems the 70-300mm is not available as a DX lens.

I was told by the tech rep for Nikon in this local area that the DX
lenses are only important for focal lengths shorter than 46mm. I
regularly use an 80-400 VR lens when length and usable shutter speed
are important and swap that with an 80-200 f2.8.
The wider the lens (non DX) the more acute the angle the light is
striking the sensor and the more likely you are to have chromatic
aberration...I believe. The DX lenses are supposed to be somewhat
corrected for this.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:20:19 AM

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

In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

> If I'm not mistaken the DX lenses are specially made for digital cameras,
> since they don't have to cover the full-frame of a 35mm camera. So, you
> "can't" use these with a Nikon 35mm camera, but you can use lenses made for
> a 35mm camera on your D70. The image just gets cropped by a factor of 1.5.

A ha!!! Now I get it. You explain this so much better than the Nikon
booklet. :) 

> Nikon makes some excellent lenses that can get very expensive. The zoom
> lenses you are looking at would compliment your "kit" lens quite well, the
> tradeoff being better lenses cost a lot more but would let you work in less
> light.
>
> When I got my D70 I had a bunch of older Nikkor 35mm lenses that work just
> fine with my camera, so I'm all set. Being that you are just starting out,
> and want a longer lens, the 70~300 zoom lens would probably be just fine and
> the price is good. As far as cheap lenses from Nikon goes, the 18~70 kit
> lens, which you already have, gets great reviews and is one hell of a
> bargain.

That's for sure. It's a delight to use.

In all honesty, I just want the automatics like light, and focus to work
until I get better at the full range of features. If cropping occurs, I
guess I can compensate so long as I know it's happening. I'd hate to
come home with hundreds of poorly-cropped photos.

So, would the non-DX 70-300 lens be cropped by 1.5 then? It is a G
series lens, and Nikon states that it would "work" without getting into
further details.

-J
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:20:20 AM

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

In article <chaos-7F83B7.23203621052005@news.verizon.net>,
Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com> wrote:
>In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> When I got my D70 I had a bunch of older Nikkor 35mm lenses that work just
>> fine with my camera, so I'm all set. Being that you are just starting out,
>> and want a longer lens, the 70~300 zoom lens would probably be just fine and
>> the price is good. As far as cheap lenses from Nikon goes, the 18~70 kit
>> lens, which you already have, gets great reviews and is one hell of a
>> bargain.
>
>That's for sure. It's a delight to use.
>
>In all honesty, I just want the automatics like light, and focus to work
>until I get better at the full range of features. If cropping occurs, I
>guess I can compensate so long as I know it's happening. I'd hate to
>come home with hundreds of poorly-cropped photos.

That should not be a consideration. The viewfinder will show
you *exactly* what you will get on the CF card (film equivalent). That
is what SLRs are about -- showing you in the viewfinder exactly what you
will get in your photo -- film or digital. The cropping mentioned is in
comparison to a 35mm full-frame film camera, which uses a 24x36mm chunk
of film using the same lens. Because the sensor in the D70 (and in most
digital SLRs, with the exception of ones *way* beyond affordability for
most of us) is smaller than that film size, the image is cropped (from
what it could be on film) by the camera. In the D70, it is by a factor
of 1.5. That is, the 24x36 mm frame is cropped down to 16x24 mm. So --
what you would expect to get with that focal length on a film camera you
will only get a central part on the digital sensor.

The effect -- at least in terms of how much of the image you
will get on the sensor compared to film -- is that your coverage is the
same as a lens with the crop factor multiplied by the focal length. If
you don't already have a habit of working with 35mm film SLRs, this need
not really matter to you -- the lens will give you what the viewfinder
shows. But -- if you are accustomed to working with the film SLRs, and
your experience tells you that you want a 135mm focal length lens, with
the D70 you will want a 90 mm focal length lens. (There are other
factors which are effected by the focal length which may change
differently -- things like depth of field or how much you need to boost
the shutter speed to get acceptable results hand-holding the camera and
lens.) Since your first consideration is for zoom lenses, you probably
won't be thinking of focal length at all -- you'll just rotate the zoom
collar until you get the size of image which you want -- as shown by the
viewfinder.

Note that while a crop factor of 1.5 is standard for the Nikon
DSLRs, other vendors may have other crop factors. The Cannon Rebel
series has a crop factor of 1.6. There is one top-end Cannon which has
a crop factor of 1.0 -- that is, it will give you exactly what the film
camera would with the same lens.

There are various reasons for the use of a smaller sensor, but
the major one is that the cost of a sensor goes up as a significant
factor of its size. A full 24x36 mm sensor is not simply 1.5 times the
cost of the 16x24 mm one which you have, but more likely a factor of
four or five times as much.

>So, would the non-DX 70-300 lens be cropped by 1.5 then? It is a G
>series lens, and Nikon states that it would "work" without getting into
>further details.

It will give you a coverage equivalent to a lens with a focal
length range of 105-450 mm on a film camera (the actual focal length
multiplied by the crop factor). If you like to zoom in tight the crop
factor is helping you. If you like to shoot wide angle, it is fighting
you. For *my* shooting habits, the crop factor helps, as I like to zoom
in tight, and would normally want a longer lens than my 28-105mm
f3.5-4.5 D (I already had that lens, so I did not get the kit lens, I
got the D70 body only). I do have other lenses, including a 50mm f1.4
with autofocus and the CPU so metering will work, and a 180mm f2.8 which
has been retrofitted with a CPU so it will meter, but which is still
manual focus.

Note that the only serious limitation on the DX lenses is that
you can't use them on a film body and get good behavior over the full
film area. The corners will be at least blurred, and probably vignetted
(fade out to nothing at the corners). And -- if Nikon ever decides to
make a DSLR with a full 24x36 mm sensor, you can't use it with that
either.

However -- the DX series lenses should be lighter and smaller
than the equivalent lenses for the full 24x36 mm film cameras -- and you
won't need as long an actual focal length to get the coverage.

I hope that this helps,
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 ---
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:20:20 AM

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

"Reality Culture" <chaos@nospum.com> wrote in message
news:chaos-7F83B7.23203621052005@news.verizon.net...
> In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>> If I'm not mistaken the DX lenses are specially made for digital cameras,
>> since they don't have to cover the full-frame of a 35mm camera. So, you
>> "can't" use these with a Nikon 35mm camera, but you can use lenses made
>> for
>> a 35mm camera on your D70. The image just gets cropped by a factor of
>> 1.5.
>
> A ha!!! Now I get it. You explain this so much better than the Nikon
> booklet. :) 
>
>> Nikon makes some excellent lenses that can get very expensive. The zoom
>> lenses you are looking at would compliment your "kit" lens quite well,
>> the
>> tradeoff being better lenses cost a lot more but would let you work in
>> less
>> light.
>>
>> When I got my D70 I had a bunch of older Nikkor 35mm lenses that work
>> just
>> fine with my camera, so I'm all set. Being that you are just starting
>> out,
>> and want a longer lens, the 70~300 zoom lens would probably be just fine
>> and
>> the price is good. As far as cheap lenses from Nikon goes, the 18~70 kit
>> lens, which you already have, gets great reviews and is one hell of a
>> bargain.
>
> That's for sure. It's a delight to use.
>
> In all honesty, I just want the automatics like light, and focus to work
> until I get better at the full range of features. If cropping occurs, I
> guess I can compensate so long as I know it's happening. I'd hate to
> come home with hundreds of poorly-cropped photos.
>
> So, would the non-DX 70-300 lens be cropped by 1.5 then? It is a G
> series lens, and Nikon states that it would "work" without getting into
> further details.
>
> -J

To put it simply, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless. It's just when you
put it on a 35mm camera it appears to be a "normal" 50mm lens as you know
it.

When put that 50mm lens on a digital camera with a 1.5x factor (most DSLR's)
it now appears to be a 75mm lens when compared to the 35mm standard. You'll
note that when your kit lens is set to 18mm it no way resembles an 18mm lens
on a 35mm camera, which would be an extreme wide angle lens. So, we
multiply it by 1.5 and we get the equivalent of a 27mm lens as seen through
a 35mm camera. Still a wide angle lens, but not nearly as wide as an 18mm
would be on a real 35mm with a frame the size of 35mm film.

Much of the confusion revolves around the fact that most manufacturers use
the term "equivalent" to a 35mm camera, since most of us know what a 27mm
lens looks like on a 35mm. Few of us could afford an 18mm lens for our 35mm
cameras, almost a fisheye.

This becomes easier to understand when you start to play with medium format
cameras (2 1/4) and large format cameras (4x5 and 8x10). A 50mm lens is a
normal lens on 35mm, but a wide angle on a 2 1/4 and even wider on an 8x10.
On a Minox it would be a telephoto. Now, the problem is that the lens must
be manufactured to cover the entire image area on larger format cameras.
So, lenses made specifically for digital SLR's only have to cover the area
of the image sensor on that camera, which often makes them cheaper to
engineer and manufacture.

The only thing I don't like about the lenses you are looking at is the
focusing ring, which is almost nonexistent. I tend to use manual focus a
lot, and this is a negative for me since it's so small. But, if you want
autofocus, you would have to spend about a grand to get a better lens. Many
of my friends have the lens you are looking at and love it. For now, I'll
stick with my old 80~200 AI Nikkor zoom. I don't need to go much longer
than 300 (as compared to a 35mm camera using x1.5). I also have a 500
mirror lens which is now a 750 on my D70. Still, it's merely a 500mm lens
that becomes cropped by the smaller image sensor so it appears to be a 750.

Now that I've totally confused you buy that lens and go have some fun.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:21:07 PM

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

DoN. Nichols napisa³(a):
> That should not be a consideration. The viewfinder will show
> you *exactly*

are you sure my dear? what about magnification :p 
it surely won't show you the full scene but something arround 80%-95%
only few slrs have a 100% in viewfinder
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 11:21:08 PM

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

In article <d6qf3h$5jk$1@opal.futuro.pl>,
Marek M. \"rogus\" <rogus@pocztnijowy.totez.net> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols napisa³(a):
>> That should not be a consideration. The viewfinder will show
>> you *exactly*
>
>are you sure my dear? what about magnification :p 

As for *magnification* -- that can be matched by how large you
opt to show the image on your computer screen once it is downloaded. :-)

>it surely won't show you the full scene but something arround 80%-95%
>only few slrs have a 100% in viewfinder

O.K. Point conceded. My old Nikon F cameras showed 100% (which
was more than you would get in a mounted slide, unless you did glass
mounting.) Most others did some cropping in the viewfinder, so it was a
closer match to what the slide mount left exposed.

But -- if you were printing from negatives, the fact that you
saw it all was an aid to careful composition.

But with the 80%-95% range, you will at least get everything
into the image that you see in the viewfinder. I think that the
original poster was worrying about not getting things into the image
that he saw in the viewfinder.

The only example that I have of an SLR camera which shows *more*
in the finder than you will get in the image is my NC2000e/c -- a Nikon
N90s converted by Kodak to become a digital for the AP. The viewfinder
shows the entire frame, with a black border printed on the finder screen
to delimit what the sensor will actually capture.

And, of course, rangefinder cameras (off-topic here) often have
bright frames projected on the image to show what coverage you will get
with a given lens, while showing all the way out to what the widest lens
will capture.

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 ---
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:13 AM

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

On 22 May 2005 00:02:30 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:

>In article <chaos-7F83B7.23203621052005@news.verizon.net>,
>Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com> wrote:
>>In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
....
>
> The effect -- at least in terms of how much of the image you
>will get on the sensor compared to film -- is that your coverage is the
>same as a lens with the crop factor multiplied by the focal length. If
>you don't already have a habit of working with 35mm film SLRs, this need
>not really matter to you -- the lens will give you what the viewfinder
>shows. But -- if you are accustomed to working with the film SLRs, and
>your experience tells you that you want a 135mm focal length lens, with
>the D70 you will want a 90 mm focal length lens. (There are other
>factors which are effected by the focal length which may change
>differently -- things like depth of field or how much you need to boost
>the shutter speed to get acceptable results hand-holding the camera and
>lens.) Since your first consideration is for zoom lenses, you probably
>won't be thinking of focal length at all -- you'll just rotate the zoom
>collar until you get the size of image which you want -- as shown by the
>viewfinder.
>
Well, this is easy enough, but I found many discussions - which makes
me feel dumb - about a change in F value for these full-size lenses if
used at DSLRs.
Is there one or not?
If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?
So I need twice as much light for the same effect on the sensor?
My head is turning if I think about it too much (which I did in the
last days...).
Thanks,
wolfgang teschner
(wtr)
....
> I hope that this helps,
> DoN.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:14 AM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:12:13 +0200, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Teschner <wtr@wtresearch.de> wrote:

>If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?

No, it will still be a 200 f/4. What will happen is the image is cropped
compared to the full frame image. Crop factor is ~1.5, so your frame is
only 66% of what it would be on a full frame camera.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:14 AM

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

In article <u5t19192k1sfe3rrf6vacmblk94v22f110@4ax.com>,
Wolfgang Teschner <wtr@wtresearch.de> wrote:
>On 22 May 2005 00:02:30 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <chaos-7F83B7.23203621052005@news.verizon.net>,
>>Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com> wrote:
>>>In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>...
>>
>> The effect -- at least in terms of how much of the image you
>>will get on the sensor compared to film -- is that your coverage is the
>>same as a lens with the crop factor multiplied by the focal length. If

[ ... ]

>Well, this is easy enough, but I found many discussions - which makes
>me feel dumb - about a change in F value for these full-size lenses if
>used at DSLRs.
>Is there one or not?

Any lens which has multiple specified apertures (e.g. my
28-105mm f3.5-4.5) will *change* the maximum aperture depending on where
in its zoom range it happens to be. (In the example above, at 28mm it
will go all the way to f3.5, but at 105mm it will only reach f4.5. I
don't know the precise curve as you go through the range.

But:

1) The camera body knows what is coming through the lens.

2) It behaves the same way on both film and DSLR bodies. It is
simply a trick in the manufacture which allows the lens to be a
bit wider at the shorter focal lengths. Other lenses have ways
to compensate for this -- but cost a lot more -- and they may be
accomplishing it by discarding possible maximum aperture values
at some points in their zoom range.

This -- like the crop factor using a lens from a film SLR on a
DSLR -- is not really a problem so much as a fact of optics. Don't
worry about it.

Now -- if you put the lens on extension tubes or a bellows, the
effective aperture decreases (numerically increases) as you move the
lens away from the body to allow closer focusing. Again -- this happens
on both film and digital bodies, and people with film bodies have
lived with it -- perhaps with the aid of charts -- when they wanted to
do extreme closeups.

>If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?

No! It will remain a 200 mm f4 -- but it will produce a full image
(as printed) the size that a 300 mm would on a full 35mm film frame.

Your f4 maximum aperture will remain the same.

>So I need twice as much light for the same effect on the sensor?
>My head is turning if I think about it too much (which I did in the
>last days...).

You are indeed thinking too much about it. Get the lens and
start taking photos. The camera will work with it, and the viewfinder
will tell you what coverage it will get. You change the zoom settings,
or back away or move closer to fill the visible frame with what you
want. The camera takes care of the aperture -- until you decide that
*you* want to control it for your own purposes. And, you get instant
feedback -- you can look at the display to see what you got, and if
things are not as you desired, you can try other ways. It is not like
the days when you had to wait for the film to be processed to see what
you got. (Of course, that once-in-a-lifetime shot will not re-occur, so
get lots of practice trying things (and discarding images if you so
desire) until you get a feel for what the camera will do for you, and
most things become totally automatic for *you* -- not just depending on
the automatics in the camera.

There are times when you want to turn off the auto-focus on the
D70, because it wants to focus on something other than you want. An
example was a small, nearly translucent bug on the outside of the
bathroom window. The camera wanted to focus on the trees, instead of
the closeup of the insect, so I switched to manual focus.

For similar reasons, you may wish to manually select the shutter
speed, or the aperture. The camera can help you with getting the
correct exposure, or you can set both shutter speed and aperture
manually, ignoring all of the camera's advice.

Another automatic feature -- turned off by default -- is auto
ISO selection. The camera defaults to 200 ISO, but if there is not
enough light to allow a reasonable shutter speed, it can be set to
automatically increase the ISO -- all the way up to 1600 ISO if
necessary, to allow an exposure. I generally have this turned on,
because I tend to shoot a lot in poor light. At the highest ISO
settings, you get a bit of noise (think of it as grain) in the image,
but it beats not getting that shot.

I hope that this helps,
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 ---
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:14 AM

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

Wolfgang Teschner wrote:

> Well, this is easy enough, but I found many discussions - which makes
> me feel dumb - about a change in F value for these full-size lenses if
> used at DSLRs.

No. The focal length remains the same. Nothing magical or evil happens
to the lens.

(You appear to be confusing this with an extension tube).

With a digital cropped sensor, the area of the sensor is (D70) ~ 24mm x
16mm) instead of the 36mm x 24mm of the film camera. This is where the
1.5x crop factor comes from.

> Is there one or not?

The __cropping___ resutls in a clumislly called "equivalent focal
lenght". This means the angle of view of the image is tighter _like_ a
longer FL lens.

> If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?

Yes and No. The lens remains a 200 f/4, but the sensor is smaller
giving you an "equivalent focal lenght" that is longer. But the focal
length has not changed and nor has the aperture/FL ratio.

So the 200 f/4 becomes like a 300 f/4. Just as fast, but narrower field
of view at the sensor.

> So I need twice as much light for the same effect on the sensor?

No. The image is merely a crop of the larger film area. (eg: if the
film had a mask over it, reducing its surface area, the film sesnitivity
would not change.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:14 AM

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

Wolfgang Teschner wrote:
>
> Well, this is easy enough, but I found many discussions - which makes
> me feel dumb - about a change in F value for these full-size lenses if
> used at DSLRs.
> Is there one or not?
> If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?
> So I need twice as much light for the same effect on the sensor?


Heh, so many replies!

I'll just add that theoretically it would be possible to design a lens
that took advantage of that extra space around the edges to give wider
aperture on crop frame DSLRs but it's probably impractical. If you
designed a crop frame lens at the same sixe it should be able to do that
so it's a logical thought.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:12:15 AM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:13:03 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

> Heh, so many replies!

i agree
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:55:25 AM

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

"Wolfgang Teschner" <wtr@wtresearch.de> wrote in message
news:u5t19192k1sfe3rrf6vacmblk94v22f110@4ax.com...
> On 22 May 2005 00:02:30 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <chaos-7F83B7.23203621052005@news.verizon.net>,
>>Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com> wrote:
>>>In article <yMOdnTsEd60odxLfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
>>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
> ...
>>
>> The effect -- at least in terms of how much of the image you
>>will get on the sensor compared to film -- is that your coverage is the
>>same as a lens with the crop factor multiplied by the focal length. If
>>you don't already have a habit of working with 35mm film SLRs, this need
>>not really matter to you -- the lens will give you what the viewfinder
>>shows. But -- if you are accustomed to working with the film SLRs, and
>>your experience tells you that you want a 135mm focal length lens, with
>>the D70 you will want a 90 mm focal length lens. (There are other
>>factors which are effected by the focal length which may change
>>differently -- things like depth of field or how much you need to boost
>>the shutter speed to get acceptable results hand-holding the camera and
>>lens.) Since your first consideration is for zoom lenses, you probably
>>won't be thinking of focal length at all -- you'll just rotate the zoom
>>collar until you get the size of image which you want -- as shown by the
>>viewfinder.
>>
> Well, this is easy enough, but I found many discussions - which makes
> me feel dumb - about a change in F value for these full-size lenses if
> used at DSLRs.
> Is there one or not?
> If I have a fullframe 200/F4, will it become a 300/F5.6 at a D70?
> So I need twice as much light for the same effect on the sensor?
> My head is turning if I think about it too much (which I did in the
> last days...).
> Thanks,
> wolfgang teschner
> (wtr)
> ...
>> I hope that this helps,
>> DoN.
>

No. A 200/f4 will still be an f/4.

Tom
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 7:04:06 AM

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

In article <pan.2005.05.23.01.16.59.243445@rab.com>,
r <sales@rab.com> ×?לבומיה,×?לבו×?תמונות×?פשרות>
wrote:

> On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:13:03 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:
>
> > Heh, so many replies!
>
> i agree

No, I appreciate all the replies. I'm learning a lot here. Thanks,
all, for the help!

-J
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:25:25 AM

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

Reality Culture <chaos@nospum.com> wrote in news:chaos-
034349.21264021052005@news.verizon.net:

> I'm enjoying my D70 so much, I'd like to purchase a new lens. The
>
> The Booklet tells me to get a G or D series Nikkor lens for best
> results. I found a telephoto lens that's 70-300mm G series, so at
first
>
> I was thrown by the additional info that I should also be using a DX
> lens. It seems the 70-300mm is not available as a DX lens.

For what it's worth, I can't recommend the 70-300mm G lens. The pictures
I got from it were pretty awful. Lots of very noticable fringing. But! I
went up to a 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED. It's $100 more, but at $300 list price
still very affordable. And I've been extremely pleased with the results.
Very sharp even at 300mm, and you can zoom the whole distance with a
quarter turn of the barrel.

I know some people say the D and the G are exactly the same optics, but
in my experience the D has /something/ extra going for it. Probably the
ED (dispersion cancelling, which would explain the fringing on the G). Or
maybe the G was defective.

So I'd say 70-300mm ED. You'll get an awful lot of lens for $300 (minus
rebates), and you definitely want a telephoto lens to go with your normal
range kit lens. And then maybe a wide angle after that...

See here for example of the 300mm at full zoom -
http://sizer99.com/photo/20041017-airshow/x.py?pic=DSC_...
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 7:16:22 AM

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

Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> So I'd say 70-300mm ED. You'll get an awful lot of lens for $300 (minus
> rebates), and you definitely want a telephoto lens to go with your normal
> range kit lens. And then maybe a wide angle after that...
>
> See here for example of the 300mm at full zoom -
> http://sizer99.com/photo/20041017-airshow/x.py?pic=DSC_...
>

I can second the 70-300mm ED. I took this picture (a snapshot really)
*handheld* with Kodak Professional 100UC film. The image is a scan from
the finisher.

http://www.veldy.net/~veldy/pictures/goosefam.html

Comments welcome. I took this and analyzed it afterword. I am very
much in need of improvement with my technique.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 2:19:32 PM

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

Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>For what it's worth, I can't recommend the 70-300mm G lens. The pictures
>I got from it were pretty awful. Lots of very noticable fringing. But! I
>went up to a 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED. It's $100 more, but at $300 list price
>still very affordable. And I've been extremely pleased with the results.
>Very sharp even at 300mm, and you can zoom the whole distance with a
>quarter turn of the barrel.
>
>I know some people say the D and the G are exactly the same optics, but
>in my experience the D has /something/ extra going for it. Probably the
>ED (dispersion cancelling, which would explain the fringing on the G). Or
>maybe the G was defective.


The G lens is very cheap, and produces good results for the price.
But the G and ED versions have totally different optics.

The ED version is vastly superior, offering almost pro levels of
optical performance between 70 and 200mm. Above that it gets soft, a
characteristic that is common to all 70-300mm consumer-grade lenses,
regardless of brand.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 3:19:36 PM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> The G lens is very cheap, and produces good results for the price.
> But the G and ED versions have totally different optics.
>

Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED) and the build
quality of the lens body itself is much better on the ED model.

> The ED version is vastly superior, offering almost pro levels of
> optical performance between 70 and 200mm. Above that it gets soft, a
> characteristic that is common to all 70-300mm consumer-grade lenses,
> regardless of brand.
>

This is actually true with both lenses. Still, I have taken quite sharp
results above 200mm and actually just shy of 300mm. A tripod always
helps up in this range anyway.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 4:32:44 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)


Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.

;-)
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:34:33 PM

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

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:32:44 +0100, Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

>"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)
>
>
>Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
>;-)

I pick up your resting case...

The optics are not TOTALLY different; the number and position of the lens
elements is exactly the same for both lenses. The difference is that the
material used in two of the elements is ED glass.

So; SLIGHTLY different. I re-rest your case. ;-)

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 5:38:48 PM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
> ;-)

Not totally different and they have the same optical formula which is
the defining factor for sharpness. ED only affects color abberation.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 8:21:40 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Not totally different and they have the same optical formula which is
>the defining factor for sharpness.

If two elements have ED glass, which have different coefficients of
refraction, or curvature, or both, the optical formula cannot be said
to be the same. It may not be totally different, but it is certainly
significantly different, which explains why the lenses produce such
different results.

The two lenses may have the same number of elements in the same number
of groups, but it is a gross mis-statement of the facts to claim that
they have the same optical formula. They don't.

>ED only affects color abberation.

Since when did chromatic aberration not affect sharpness?

If chromatic aberration doesn't affect sharpness, why would any lens
manufacturer ever use expensive ED glass?
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 9:00:47 PM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually the G and ED lenses use the same optical formula. So, you
>>would be quite wrong with the above statement. The only difference is
>>glass quality in the optics (ED is better than no ED)
>
>
> Therefore the optics are totally different. I rest my case.
>
> ;-)

Only a single element in the ED version uses the ED glass and it's buried
in the middle of the lens. This was so they could use a smaller piece of
it to keep their costs down and still market it as 'ED'. CA is not a
problem with the 'G' version and the ED 'cure' is virtually undetectable.
Both lenses have poor contrast (which isn't terribly important for
digital users unless they are snapshooters with Photoshopophobia) and a
tendency to softness at full zoom. I've won competitions with 12x18
prints shot through the 'G' lens. I paid $99 for it at B&H.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 10:41:50 PM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> If chromatic aberration doesn't affect sharpness, why would any lens
> manufacturer ever use expensive ED glass?
>

Your text is clearly an attempt to keep from indicating that you are
wrong. People make mistakes, but only some admit to them. You know as
well as I what is meant by an identical optical formula and what that
means for the quality of image created by the lens.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 11:58:27 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Your text is clearly an attempt to keep from indicating that you are
>wrong.


That's because I am right.

;-)
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:25:03 AM

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

Definition of 'exactly the same' aside, I moved up from the G to the ED
specifically because the fringing was bugging the heck out of me. It might
not be a problem in non-bright conditions, but this is San Diego and I ran
into it a lot (photographing a bird against white stone, for instance). And
I don't get it with the ED. I guess the only way to know for sure for
yourself is to give it a try.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 12:30:02 AM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:42929c86$0$40901$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
> Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:
>> So I'd say 70-300mm ED. You'll get an awful lot of lens for $300
>> (minus rebates), and you definitely want a telephoto lens to go with
>
> I can second the 70-300mm ED. I took this picture (a snapshot really)
>
> http://www.veldy.net/~veldy/pictures/goosefam.html
> Comments welcome. I took this and analyzed it afterword. I am very
> much in need of improvement with my technique.

I think you pretty much covered it. The depth of field is a little low,
but considering the rush you were in (and that it was handheld), it might
not have been easily fixable. Or you could have opened up even further
and focused just on the mother goose's head, throwing the background way
out of focus and the goslings a bit more out of focus - that might have
been an interesting shot too. I like it, though - the only /real/
complaint is that your camera should have been slightly to the right so
as not to clip the last guy's tail off. But considering the time
problem...
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 5:21:05 PM

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

Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>Only a single element in the ED version uses the ED glass and it's buried
>in the middle of the lens. This was so they could use a smaller piece of
>it to keep their costs down and still market it as 'ED'. CA is not a
>problem with the 'G' version and the ED 'cure' is virtually undetectable.
>Both lenses have poor contrast (which isn't terribly important for
>digital users unless they are snapshooters with Photoshopophobia) and a
>tendency to softness at full zoom. I've won competitions with 12x18
>prints shot through the 'G' lens. I paid $99 for it at B&H.


Now I see where you're coming from. The G lens is junk.

Congratulations on winning prizes with it. You must be an outstanding
photographer.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 5:22:21 PM

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

Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>Definition of 'exactly the same' aside, I moved up from the G to the ED
>specifically because the fringing was bugging the heck out of me. It might
>not be a problem in non-bright conditions, but this is San Diego and I ran
>into it a lot (photographing a bird against white stone, for instance). And
>I don't get it with the ED. I guess the only way to know for sure for
>yourself is to give it a try.


The G lens is junk. But some people appear able to convince
themselves otherwise, and that expensive ED glass is of absolutely no
benefit whatsoever. It isn't ... to them.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 5:22:22 PM

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

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> The G lens is junk. But some people appear able to convince
> themselves otherwise, and that expensive ED glass is of absolutely no
> benefit whatsoever. It isn't ... to them.
>

Why? Because it is a G lens or because it is $99, or both? It seems to
me that since it can take good pictures, at least in many general
circumstances that it might indeed be an excellent value. To a pro,
yes, perhaps it is junk. Having said that, I do not use the G lens, as
I prefer at least some ED in the mix and a better build quality.

Still, your way of conveying an opinion as fact is rather disturbing.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 6:50:28 PM

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

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Why? Because it is a G lens or because it is $99, or both?


Neither. Optically, it is junk.

But if you're happy with it, that's just fine. Enjoy!
!