 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005Advice sought for Nikon lens choice.
Hi all I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range. I have narrowed the choice to three lenses. 1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200 range. It's very cheap. 2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens. 3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than the cost of a new D lens) I want a fast lens cause I like to shoot without flash and my main subjects are really just my twin girls. However I have a few specific questions. 1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Because it is specifically made for digital does that mean that it's optically more compatible? E.g Even though it's cheap because it's made for digital does that compensate any? Ultimately are the images I get going to be comparible with the faster much more expensive lenses as I would sacrifice the fast glass if optically they were the same. 2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the focusing that much faster? Any real world experience with either lens? Cheers Steve > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Cheers > Steve Out of all those listed, I would recommend the 80-200mm AF-S as being the best option. It's a pearl! I really wouldn't bother with a cheap telephoto - they just don't cut it. None of them.  SignatureLook. See. Click. Share. www.leica.co.za www.dallasdahms.com >>I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range. I've been very happy with the 80-200 AF-S, but I do recommend using a monopod at the longer lengths in the woods or in evening/morning light. The thing starts out heavy and it gets heavier fast... > Hi all > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Cheers > Steve TWIN girls have to fit in the frame with a 1.5X FOV factor? Are you photographing them across a football field? I think (based on having two girls that I often want in the same photo) you'll find something like the 28-105 or 24-120 far more useful. BTW--I have the 80-200 AF (non-D) f/2.8 and have never found it useful for photographing my kids except at school dance recitals and in marching band (literally across a football field). George >> Hi all >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > at school dance recitals and in marching band (literally across a football > field). I agree with you for the most part. But I was at a pool party photographing my teenagers, and I stood far away to avoid splashes (very active kids) and got good pics. The extra reach helps for something like this. Plus the kids don't want you right on top of them at that age too. The new Nikon 55-200 is in my opinion, having had the misfortune to buy one (and return it), the worst lens issued with a Nikon name badge. It is very light and small. There is nothing good to say about its mechanical or optical properties. The various 80-200 f2.8 Nikons are excellent lenses mechanically and optically. They are big and heavy. Very big and very heavy. The physical size of these lenses can make handholding the lens difficult for anything but faster shutter speeds. Fast autofocusing is problematic under some circumstances. I cannot believe I am going to recommend this but you may want to look into the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 mm digital zooms. They are actually very good performers, particularly at the tele end. I needed a light tele lens for a trip through Asia last summer and was so disappointed with the Nikon 55-200 I let a salesman talk me into buying the Sigma. It has a predictable amount of distortion at the very widest end/lowest focal length, easily corrected in CS2 if you even notice it. Apart from that it is sharp, high contrast, low flare and fast focusing. This may work better for pictures of children than a technically superior but larger and heavier lens. <snip> >> I cannot believe I am going to recommend this but you may want to >> look into the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 mm digital zooms. They are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> flare and fast focusing. This may work better for pictures of >> children than a technically superior but larger and heavier lens. I agree - I bought a Tamron Dii series digital zoom 18-200mm for use with my D70s..... It's an exceptionally good lens which produces sharp, high quality pictures with accurate color balance and an absence of imperfections and artifacts.....street price ~$350! PC > 1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200 > range. It's very cheap. I've heard nothing good about it, and lots of bad. > 2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens. > > 3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than > the cost of a new D lens) I'd go for option 3. Don't be afraid of buying used lenses; it's actually a really good idea as long as you know they're in good condition. > 1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Apparently not. I haven't used it, but those who have are saying it's basically crap. > 2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the > focusing that much faster? Yes, and yes. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.