Recomem me Len for D70
- Thread starter Beachboy
- Start date
- Status
I have another ideal is if I buy the earlier release D70 (body only) then I choose the lens recommended by Sykestang 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 around $600+ , can this len product good quality picture ? for both wide and zoom ? (Good for me as I dun really like to carry lot of lens when I travel). Then I will buy the 18-70mm when it available in the store.
I have one question to ask, if I buy the D70 Body only in the early release, then after that I buy the 18-70mm lens separately Will this lens be more expensive then the body+ Lens kit?
As for the lens I am quite particular about the quality so I prefer to pay a bit more to get the quality product .
Sorry for my broken English.
I have one question to ask, if I buy the D70 Body only in the early release, then after that I buy the 18-70mm lens separately Will this lens be more expensive then the body+ Lens kit?
As for the lens I am quite particular about the quality so I prefer to pay a bit more to get the quality product .
Sorry for my broken English.
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Well, you may never know D70+lens kit could be sold together as a package once released. So it is still to early to guess which and which will arrive first and release in Singapore. Are you not considering buying a flash light ? :think:
Frankly speaking if the quality really matter to you, you should give a second thought on buying the 28-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens. I have a 24-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens the quality did not turns out as good as what I wanted, you will lose out in sharpness. Buy the 50mmf1.8 first as suggested earlier by many of the CSer.
Frankly speaking if the quality really matter to you, you should give a second thought on buying the 28-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens. I have a 24-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens the quality did not turns out as good as what I wanted, you will lose out in sharpness. Buy the 50mmf1.8 first as suggested earlier by many of the CSer.
sykestang
Senior Member
Beachboy said:
BeachBoy, I would not recommend you the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens. Personally I did ever own one but sold off 2 mth later with a loss of almost $200. This lens does not produce a very good image quality, maybe my expectation is a little on the high side
Futher information on this lens can be found here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm, please note the distortion at various focal length.
However I do not deny the fact that this is a very good travel lens, light weight, with a very good range from wide to tele.
The following are some of the lenses that I am going to guide you to cover a full range. However final decision lies on you and you should consider your budget and priority in getting them as well:
Wide angle for Archi/Landscape Shoot
AF-G 12-24 f/4 (cost ard $1650)
Std Lens for Street Shoot, always ready for most situation
AF-D 50 f/1.8 (cost ard $175)
Portrait Shoot
AF-D 85 f/1.8 (cost ard $640)
Nature, Birds, Tele-Lens (Choose one, can be use for Portrait as well)
AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 ED (cost ard $1580)
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR (cost ard $3100)
Objects, Flowers, Small inserts Macro-Shoot
AF-D 105 f/2.8 Macro (cost ard $1050)
Personally I do not recommend you to get any lens to cover the range from 28mm - 70mm as I find that it is not really important to have a tele lens of this range. However should you need to shoot and cover events, then you can consider to get the AF-S 24-120 f/3.5-5.6G VR which cost ard $950. But although I don't own this lens, but I think the image quality is not great as compared to the above recommended list. Buy it only if you're required to shoot events as this range would definitely cover you most of the important moments like weddings, D&D etc. Moreover with the VR on, it would help to compensate the loss of brightness due to its bulit f/3.5-5.6, but believe there would be a compromise on the image quality.
For your consideration.
KNIGHT ONG said:Well, you may never know D70+lens kit could be sold together as a package once released. So it is still to early to guess which and which will arrive first and release in Singapore. Are you not considering buying a flash light ? :think:
Frankly speaking if the quality really matter to you, you should give a second thought on buying the 28-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens. I have a 24-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens the quality did not turns out as good as what I wanted, you will lose out in sharpness. Buy the 50mmf1.8 first as suggested earlier by many of the CSer.
is the quality for 28-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens realy bad ?. if it compare to the normal digital camera like canon S400 will the picture quality worst that that ?.
guess i have to spend another 1k plus jus on the tele zoom lens
Beachboy said:is the quality for 28-200mmf3.5-5.6 lens realy bad ?. if it compare to the normal digital camera like canon S400 will the picture quality worst that that ?.
guess i have to spend another 1k plus jus on the tele zoom lens
I seriously do not recommend a 28-200mm, let alone other lens manufacturers' interpretation of it. With this kind of zoom range, it's very hard to get really really sharp image.
The 28mm end is not wide enough for 1.5x DSLR, while 200mm end is not sharp for telephoto. Unless you are desperate in this range, get the nikkor one.
I don't condemn 28-200 for nothing, as I came from Sigma 28-200, and Tamron 28-300.
I personally would recommend 24-120 VR. I have been shooting it with good results. You can check the samples at
http://weihui.instantlogic.com
Most of the photos taken after the album 24-120 VR were taken with the lens.
my 2cent.
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Yup, consider this lens if you are on travel and shooting for fun. I own the 24-200mm just becoz it is light weight and easy to carry around. When it come for serious works, I wud use my 70-200mmf2.8 VR.
Check out this link using the 24-200mmf3.5-f5.6 lens
http://www.pbase.com/knightong/guinness
Check out this link using the 24-200mmf3.5-f5.6 lens
http://www.pbase.com/knightong/guinness
sykestang
Senior Member
Beachboy said:
Personally although I do own a Nikkor 300 f/4 lens, I still don't find this range good enough to shoot bird... a brand new 300 f/4 lens would cost you ard. $1900. I believe most of the 'Bird Shooter' here will tell you so.
For your budget of $600, only the 70-300D f/4.5-5.6 lens can fit in. But as for image quality, all I can say is "What more you want to ask for from a $600 lens"
sykestang said:Personally although I do own a Nikkor 300 f/4 lens, I still don't find this range good enough to shoot bird... a brand new 300 f/4 lens would cost you ard. $1900. I believe most of the 'Bird Shooter' here will tell you so.
For your budget of $600, only the 70-300D f/4.5-5.6 lens can fit in. But as for image quality, all I can say is "What more you want to ask for from a $600 lens"
With 300mm F4 you probably need a TC14E. I have seen 300mm F4 with 1.4x with good results. You need a sturdy tripod though.
Hi sykestangsykestang said:BeachBoy, I would not recommend you the 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens. Personally I did ever own one but sold off 2 mth later with a loss of almost $200. This lens does not produce a very good image quality, maybe my expectation is a little on the high side
Futher information on this lens can be found here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm, please note the distortion at various focal length.
However I do not deny the fact that this is a very good travel lens, light weight, with a very good range from wide to tele.
The following are some of the lenses that I am going to guide you to cover a full range. However final decision lies on you and you should consider your budget and priority in getting them as well:
Wide angle for Archi/Landscape Shoot
AF-G 12-24 f/4 (cost ard $1650)
Std Lens for Street Shoot, always ready for most situation
AF-D 50 f/1.8 (cost ard $175)
Portrait Shoot
AF-D 85 f/1.8 (cost ard $640)
Nature, Birds, Tele-Lens (Choose one, can be use for Portrait as well)
AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 ED (cost ard $1580)
AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR (cost ard $3100)
Objects, Flowers, Small inserts Macro-Shoot
AF-D 105 f/2.8 Macro (cost ard $1050)
Personally I do not recommend you to get any lens to cover the range from 28mm - 70mm as I find that it is not really important to have a tele lens of this range. However should you need to shoot and cover events, then you can consider to get the AF-S 24-120 f/3.5-5.6G VR which cost ard $950. But although I don't own this lens, but I think the image quality is not great as compared to the above recommended list. Buy it only if you're required to shoot events as this range would definitely cover you most of the important moments like weddings, D&D etc. Moreover with the VR on, it would help to compensate the loss of brightness due to its bulit f/3.5-5.6, but believe there would be a compromise on the image quality.
For your consideration.
i very new in this photographic hobby after look at your recommendation it help me alot.If i only have about 1k to spare .which type of lens would recommend to me for shooting nature and bird etc for dslr. Actually i also aiming for the D70 ha ha :sweatsm:
Is it true that zoom lens is not as sharp ?
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Yup, just brought my 70-200mmf2.8G VR lens. Still testing out the quality and it looks really that good, got to get used to it bulky body and weight.
The other lens I own 24-200mmf4-f5.6 the quality cannot match the a/m lens, but find it very handy to carry around for fun shooting.
If you intends to buy the 70-300mm, be prepared to accept the image results that produced by the lens.
The other lens I own 24-200mmf4-f5.6 the quality cannot match the a/m lens, but find it very handy to carry around for fun shooting.
If you intends to buy the 70-300mm, be prepared to accept the image results that produced by the lens.
KNIGHT ONG said:Yup, just brought my 70-200mmf2.8G VR lens. Still testing out the quality and it looks really that good, got to get used to it bulky body and weight.
The other lens I own 24-200mmf4-f5.6 the quality cannot match the a/m lens, but find it very handy to carry around for fun shooting.
If you intends to buy the 70-300mm, be prepared to accept the image results that produced by the lens.
wow the price of that VR lens is around 3k++ ler
i realy cant take out that much of money
KNIGHT ONG
Senior Member
Well you got to make an afford to save lor ... I cant really give my cilent lousy quality pictures rite. Keep the business going .... 
sykestang
Senior Member
Yes, a zoom lens is normally not as sharp as compared to a prime lens. However, it is more difficult to use a prime lens for a beginner cos you'll need to move a lot.burnaway said:
The following is 2 package that you might want to consider:
Package A
- D70 Body (Cost ard $1900)
- AFS 70-200VR f/2.8 (Cost ard $3000)
- TC20EII 2x Tele-convertor (Cost ard $560)
- AF50 f/1.8D (Cost ard $180) to cover your normal shoot
Total Investment abt $5640
Package B
- D70 Body (Cost ard $1900)
- AF 80-200D f/2.8 (Cost ard $1580)
- Kenko Pro 2X TC (Cost ard $350)
- AF50 f/1.8D (Cost ard $180) to cover your normal shoot
Total Investment abt $4010
The only different is the 70-200VR and the 80-200 lens. Frankly I find the 80-200 lens is much better in optics quality as compared to the 70-200. As the 80-200 lens is already out in the market for a long period, Nikon as modified and retified all the known problems that this lens have. Thus the current version, the AFD-N 80-200 f/2.8 2-touch version is almost flawless. It produces good sharp images throughout all focal length compared with the primes. As for the current well-known 70-200VR-G, although I don't own any, it is prone to flare according to some review. And images at 200 is not as sharp as the 80-200 version. Herewith is the summarised advantages & disadvantages between the 70-200VR and the 80-200D:
AF70-200VR f/2.8 G
- Better built, slimmer and easier to hold for asian hands.
- VR option can help a lot, if your hands is not steady
- AFS very fast in focusing
- Prone to lens flare even with hood at certain angle
- VR option takes more battery power to operate
- Lighter in weight
- Not compatible with older manual camera bodies cos without aperture ring
AF80-200 f/2.8D
- Better built, full metal body, crinkle finishes (nicer)
- AF abt 70% of the AFS
- Heavier and bigger in dia, more for Ang-Mo hands
- Well design optics, almost no lens flare, hood may not be necessary
- Compatible with old manual camera bodies
- No VR, need a steady hands but is managable
- Good sharp images at all focal length from 80-200, comparable to the primes
Personally I own the AF80-200D f/2.8 and I love it very much. I became my work-horse lens for most of my shoot.
I personally do not see the need to pay double the price for a VR and AFS which I may not need it afterall.
Tell you what, if you guys really need to discuss it out, I might want to take it off thread here before I gets 'bombard' from the owners of the 70-200VR or the 80-200 AFS version... Can PM me your contact and we'll find a time to meet up for a coffee. For most Nikon guys in CS here who knows me, I always hangs out at Spinelli (Peninsula Hotel beside Ruby Photo) after office hours, and we can meet there.
PS: Please do not talk or ask me abt Canon products during the meet up... I hate CANON and bias against it!!!
After following thru the thread, I notice that the original thread starter has a budget issue, it's almost impossible to get a good lens with supreme quality like the AF-D 80-200 or the AF-S 70-200VR. Although a cheap lens like the 28-200 covers an extensive range, the quality of the image suffers.
In simple terms, you pay for what you get. Zoom lens compared with primes definitely lose out on quality, $600 for a shoot bird lens is way too little. Even the 70-200VR is not even an ideal lens to shoot bird.
The two zoom lens sykestang has recommended is very ideal for the zoom and image quality, have seen the images myself and used the 70-200VR for some bird shots too. Usable is the word, but ultimately will you be satisfied with the image quality & sharpness is all up to you.
You can get the Nikkor 70-300mm stack a TC to get 600 and still get your shot, but the image & sharpness will be all due to your heart's contentment, if you can get past it, that's all that matters
For the kit lense, I wouln't term it kit lense, as my dictionary for kit lens means low end lenses for very very basic usages, I believe the 18-70 is more then just kit lense. If you're on a budget strain, the AF-S 24-85 and the AF-S 24-120VR are two ideal lens to own. The AF-S 24-85 can be had for $600 2nd hand.
I'm not pushing you to buy expensive lens, but just trying to tell you that contentment on image and sharpness begins within your own mind & heart
In simple terms, you pay for what you get. Zoom lens compared with primes definitely lose out on quality, $600 for a shoot bird lens is way too little. Even the 70-200VR is not even an ideal lens to shoot bird.
The two zoom lens sykestang has recommended is very ideal for the zoom and image quality, have seen the images myself and used the 70-200VR for some bird shots too. Usable is the word, but ultimately will you be satisfied with the image quality & sharpness is all up to you.
You can get the Nikkor 70-300mm stack a TC to get 600 and still get your shot, but the image & sharpness will be all due to your heart's contentment, if you can get past it, that's all that matters
For the kit lense, I wouln't term it kit lense, as my dictionary for kit lens means low end lenses for very very basic usages, I believe the 18-70 is more then just kit lense.
If you're on a budget strain, the AF-S 24-85 and the AF-S 24-120VR are two ideal lens to own. The AF-S 24-85 can be had for $600 2nd hand.I'm not pushing you to buy expensive lens, but just trying to tell you that contentment on image and sharpness begins within your own mind & heart
- Status
Similar threads
