 |
 | 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 / December 2006help! decisions, decisions (Nikon lenses)
I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' 105 mm macro Nikon(non vr) 70-300 4-5.6 Nikon(cheapo lens) decent pictures, but would like longer lens at times. Have saved some money and want to purchase a new lens. Two thoughts, 70-200mm f2.8 vr, not really long enough (for wildlife etc), but fast and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. If I get this lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non vr) macro? or 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. Looked at 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range. Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. Dave M. >I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: > 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range. > Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. Have you looked at the nikkor 300/4? http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/300_4_afs I havn't used it but if you want a telephoto prime without spending 5x as much on the 300/2.8 then I'd say it's worth a look. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk >>I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: >> 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk Wait a couple of weeks and get the new 70-300 vr2. Looks very promising. > I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: > 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' This is probably one of the most economical and best "kit" lens you'll find from any manufacturer considering it is a "DX" lens. I recently acquired the dreaded 18-200mm VR and I must say that it is the biggest piece of $750 sh.t Nikon has ever made. > 105 mm macro Nikon(non vr) This is a superior macro lens for up to 1:1. Under no circumstances sell this lens. I have both the AF-D and VR versions of this lens and I prefer the AF-D. For 2.85:1 magnification just pop on a reversing ring and an old 50 and you're living the good life. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/macro_50.htm > 70-300 4-5.6 Nikon(cheapo lens) decent pictures, but would like longer > lens at times. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. If I get > this lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non vr) macro? The 70-200 is a great lens and is an absolute must have. It can be a little soft with a 2x TC, but it's not too bad. Again, NEVER SELL THE 105! If you do a lot of macro you will never use VR. You will be sorry if you sell this lens. Don't get sucked into the VR hype. Good technique will improve your VR and non-VR shots. > 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but > quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. > Looked at 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range. > Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. The 70-200 will be your best bet for fast focus and low light performance. Some say the 80-400 is a bit shaper at 400mm than the 20-200 with a 2x TC. I have the 70-200 and 2x TC and would never ever consider the 80-400. Rita >> I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: >> 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Rita Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on the sensor will be 2.85 times 'lifesize'????? >> the AF-D. For 2.85:1 magnification just pop on a reversing ring and an old ... >Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and >reversing ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, >i.e. the image on the sensor will be 2.85 times 'lifesize'????? It works as a diopter (closeup lense). The 50mm lense is achromatic and designed to focus relatively close to the "back end" of the lense (i.e., the film plane is close to the lense), hence it performs fairly well in that mode. A 50mm lense is a +20 diopter! When mounted on a 105mm lense it will slightly more than double the magnification. If you get 1:1 on a 35mm format camera, you'll get 2:1 using a +20 diopter. Other focal lengths, for diopters, are: focal length diopter 20mm +50 50mm +20 100mm +10 200mm + 5 500mm + 2 1000mm + 1 Almost any prime lense between 20mm and 100mm will give fairly good results when used in this fashion. The effects of a diopter are greater when the lense it is attached to is longer, so what ever combination you have, use the shorter one reversed for maximum effect. However, reversed lenses often cause vignetting, and of course all the other typical effects of high magnification exist too.  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > However, reversed lenses often cause vignetting, and of course > all the other typical effects of high magnification exist too. Actually, if you keep the 50/1.4 wide open you don't get vignetting. I experimented and stopped it a few notches and you can start seeing the blades. Rita >> However, reversed lenses often cause vignetting, and of course >> all the other typical effects of high magnification exist too. > >Actually, if you keep the 50/1.4 wide open you don't get >vignetting. I experimented and stopped it a few notches and you >can start seeing the blades. It also depends on the lense you mount it to. Regardless, using a 50/1.4 wide open is not the best idea. A 50mm f/1.8 lense would be a much better solution anyway, and they cost peanuts. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > It also depends on the lense you mount it to. Regardless, using > a 50/1.4 wide open is not the best idea. A 50mm f/1.8 lense > would be a much better solution anyway, and they cost peanuts. I don't have a 50/1.8 so I have to suffer with what I got. Rita >> However, reversed lenses often cause vignetting, and of course >> all the other typical effects of high magnification exist too. > > Actually, if you keep the 50/1.4 wide open you don't get vignetting. I > experimented and stopped it a few notches and you can start seeing the > blades. It's best if possible to stop down the front lens & keep the main lens wide open. I recall hearing this and tests proved it in this situation: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2006-11-19_105x2-28-macro> -sharpest results with the 105mm f/2.8 macro wide open and the 28mm f/2 at f/5.6. > Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing > ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on > the sensor will be 2.85 times 'lifesize'????? You guessed right. Yes, it adds a bit more magnification to the Micro Nikkor 105's 1:1 magnification for 2.85:1. Rita >> Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing >> ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on >> the sensor will be 2.85 times 'lifesize'????? > >You guessed right. Yes, it adds a bit more magnification to the >Micro Nikkor 105's 1:1 magnification for 2.85:1. Where is it you get this 2.85:1 ratio? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> You guessed right. Yes, it adds a bit more magnification to the >> Micro Nikkor 105's 1:1 magnification for 2.85:1. > > Where is it you get this 2.85:1 ratio? I did the math at the pixel level comparing two images. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it gets you in the ballpark. Rita >>>Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing >>>ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Where is it you get this 2.85:1 ratio? Photograph a mm scale is the easy way. I got 4:1 & 9:1 with a 2x TC: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2006-11-19_105x2-28-ma cro&PG=2&PIC=8> >>>>Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing >>>>ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Photograph a mm scale is the easy way. I got 4:1 & 9:1 with a 2x TC: ><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2006-11-19_105x2-28-ma cro&PG=2&PIC=8> If the Nikkor 105mm lens provides the stated 1:1 magnification, then adding a 50mm diopter lense will provide 105/50 times that, or 2.1:1 magnification. My question was not what the magnification actually is, but where did Rita come up with the bogus 2.85:1 number. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>>>>Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing >>>>>ring do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >My question was not what the magnification actually is, but where >did Rita come up with the bogus 2.85:1 number. Ouch. I think I just bit my foot. Wrong formula, it doesn't work out to 2.1x at all. More like 5.67x, which just happens to be twice the 2.85:1 figure... So now I do see where it came from. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: >18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. If I get this >lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non vr) macro? I make use of this a lot on a D70 and D200 with petty good results. You'll find most of my wildlife photos taken with this combo. >80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but >quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. Looked >at 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range. >Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. Take a look at the 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146 I picked up one of these this summer and am quite happy with it. Though for my use it's more limited that the above combo, as a lot of wildlife I shoot is done walking with the dog and the 200-400 is just too big for this type of use. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > Take a look at the 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor > http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146 > I picked up one of these this summer and am quite happy with it. > Though for my use it's more limited that the above combo, as a lot of > wildlife I shoot is done walking with the dog and the 200-400 is just > too big for this type of use. Has the thought of selling the 200-400 ever crossed your mind? Rita >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Has the thought of selling the 200-400 ever crossed your mind? Why? I bought it knowing this. I still use it when I can and the situation presents itself such at specific events. I had it with me last weekend when I finally got a full frame GBH shot: http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4585_800srgb.html Linked to full res image. I have to say I'm not your average dog walker and when I say walk the dog it mean 3+ mile daily walks on the shore of the James River, or the Yorktown waterfront or through the woods, not necessarily on any trail, around the Yorktown battlefields. So I get a real chuckle with Jeremy's statement of needing a trailer for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR as I often carry it on these walks, such as the just this afternoon. Still not enough light to get a good shot of the owl we passed in the woods, even at iso1600, but I gave it a shot. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> Has the thought of selling the 200-400 ever crossed your mind? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4585_800srgb.html > Linked to full res image. Well, I thought you might be sick of lugging it around and I could take it off your hands if the price is right. I didn't think you would part with it, but it never hurts to ask. I do have a stack of $100s with your name on it should you change your mind. I'm in no hurry. I love that GBH shot. I hope you are considering getting this printed? > I have to say I'm not your average dog walker and when I say walk the > dog it mean 3+ mile daily walks on the shore of the James River, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Still not enough light to get a good shot of the owl we passed in the > woods, even at iso1600, but I gave it a shot. I agree. I first hated lugging the 70-200 around when I first got it, but don't even know I have it now. I tend to take the hound out on long walks as well and have my backpack fully loaded with equipment. The 70-200 is a must have lens that is awesome at indoor events, weddings, and other gatherings. Rita >I love that GBH shot. I hope you are considering getting this printed? Of course, though after the holidays when things have settled down a bit. Got this one today with the 2X TC on the 200-400mm lens. That's really pushing things for a hand held shot. http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4617-01_800.html SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > Of course, though after the holidays when things have settled down a > bit. Got this one today with the 2X TC on the 200-400mm lens. That's > really pushing things for a hand held shot. > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4617-01_800.html Nice shot. It does look like you lost a lot of light and did some serious post noise reduction. I'm glad you are giving that wonderful lens a good exercising. Rita >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >post noise reduction. I'm glad you are giving that wonderful lens a good >exercising. I think more related to poor choices in raw conversion and post processing, as there was only light filtering using the NI plugin. Another, better I hope, take posted in it's place. I've been shooting with it and the TC many times. Just nothing worth writing home about in subject or image. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> Nice shot. It does look like you lost a lot of light and did some >> serious post noise reduction. I'm glad you are giving that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with it and the TC many times. Just nothing worth writing home about > in subject or image. Did you try the 1.4x TC on it? If so, how well did it work? Rita >Did you try the 1.4x TC on it? If so, how well did it work? I only own a 2x. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >>Did you try the 1.4x TC on it? If so, how well did it work? > > I only own a 2x. I got a used (banged up) TC 14E (early model) for $44 recently! It works great. >I got a used (banged up) TC 14E (early model) for $44 recently! It works >great. So now it's used by one more owner. care to part with it for $35? :-) SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > >I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: > >18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) > http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed, Those are some beautiful wildlife shots! I'm trying to learn to shoot that well. Practice, practice, practice, for me. That 200-400 lens is very sharp. > 70-200mm f2.8 vr, not really long enough (for wildlife etc), but fast > and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. This is a great lens, one of the very best. If you really need to go longer, look for a longer lens, not a teleconverter, though. A 2x converter will reduce quality and make the lens too slow for a lot of wildlife use. > If I get this lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non > vr) macro? Yes; macro. Also, the 70-200 VR is so big you'll need a special trailer to tow it behind your car, and there are times when you'll just need a smaller lens. Use it in public and people will stare. Point it at people and they may think it's a rocket launcher and run away. If you're trying to do wildlife, a 300mm fixed-length lens might be a good compromise. Zoom is not important for that kind of shooting, and 300mm is pretty much "just" long enough; you'll end up wishing for more, but you can make do -- and you'd be wishing for just a little bit more even if you had a 600mm lens. > or 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but > quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. This lens is in a different league entirely from the 70-200 VR. It might be decent, but it's probably not fast enough for wildlife. If you find that most of your wildlife shooting is actually okay with such a slow lens, it could be worth looking at, but I'd say you really don't need a zoom at all if you're looking for a wildlife lens. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >. Also, the 70-200 VR is so big you'll need a special trailer >to tow it behind your car, and there are times when you'll just need a >smaller lens. Please, a little restraint. The primes and the 200-400mm f/4 VR maybe, the 70-200 f/2.8? I carry it most of the time I walk the dog. > Use it in public and people will stare. Point it at >people and they may think it's a rocket launcher and run away. Not my experience and frankly who cares if they stare? I get more looks at my 95# white GSD I'm walking many times carrying this lens on my D70/D200. >If you're trying to do wildlife, a 300mm fixed-length lens might be a >good compromise. Zoom is not important for that kind of shooting, and >300mm is pretty much "just" long enough; you'll end up wishing for more, >but you can make do -- and you'd be wishing for just a little bit more >even if you had a 600mm lens. And you say the 70-200mm f/2.8 needs a trailer, come on, at least be logically consistent in your response. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote: > Please, a little restraint. The primes and the 200-400mm f/4 VR maybe, the > 70-200 f/2.8? I carry it most of the time I walk the dog. It's still enormous, and bringing it or not is a decision. >> Use it in public and people will stare. Point it at >> people and they may think it's a rocket launcher and run away. > > Not my experience and frankly who cares if they stare? I get more looks at > my 95# white GSD I'm walking many times carrying this lens on my D70/D200. I've gotten stares and verbal comments *every time* I've used it with people around. That's not even an exaggeration. > And you say the 70-200mm f/2.8 needs a trailer, come on, at least be > logically consistent in your response. My 300mm is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 VR. It's also slower, though. But if you're doing wildlife, you need big lenses; that's not the point. The point was that yes, there is a reason to have a 105mm macro if you also have a 70-200 VR. I have a 105mm non-macro, even, and find it very useful. For shooting wildlife you need the really big lenses. If that's *all* you're doing, then okay, you don't need that 105, but then you didn't need it in the first place. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote: > >> Please, a little restraint. The primes and the 200-400mm f/4 VR maybe, the >> 70-200 f/2.8? I carry it most of the time I walk the dog. > >It's still enormous, and bringing it or not is a decision. >My 300mm is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 VR. It's also slower, >though. What 300mm are you taking about? Looking at http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139 vs http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139 The 300mm f/4 has 77mm filter size objective and is (diameter x length - in.): 3.5 x 8.8 and weighs 50.2oz, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 has the same objective and is (Diameter x Length): Approx. 3.4 in x 8.5 in which is slightly small and weighs 3.2# or 51.2oz. Seems like a wash to me. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote: >> My 300mm is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 VR. It's also slower, >> though. > > What 300mm are you taking about? It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife, but it's also just long enough. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife, >but it's also just long enough. My guess is that you'll need a tripod if you want to use it on an APS-C format camera. In that case (and if you can carry it) a 300/2.8 and a TC-14 may provide more fun. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife, >>but it's also just long enough. > >My guess is that you'll need a tripod if you want to use it on an APS-C >format camera. In that case (and if you can carry it) a 300/2.8 and a TC-14 >may provide more fun. I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a TC-20 all the time at a combined ff/5.6 and find it works well in many situations handheld. That's the benefit of a VR lens. There are always situations when this isn't fast enough, but then there are always situations nothing is fast enough for. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 with a TC-20 all the time at a combined ff/5.6 > and find it works well in many situations handheld. That's the > benefit of a VR lens. There are always situations when this isn't > fast enough, but then there are always situations nothing is fast > enough for. You're not kidding. The 70-200 with the 2x TC really isn't bad. If you want slow, dull, and never fast enough you ought to buy the over hyped 18-200 VR. I was on a long wait list and finally got it a few days ago and I must say it sucks. VR doesn't help this piece of crap! Rita >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >18-200 VR. I was on a long wait list and finally got it a few days ago and >I must say it sucks. VR doesn't help this piece of crap! Wow, I remember back when I wasn't hot on the specs and the early reported build quality and you were defending it as not bad for the $$. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> You're not kidding. The 70-200 with the 2x TC really isn't bad. If >> you want slow, dull, and never fast enough you ought to buy the over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reported build quality and you were defending it as not bad for the > $$. Huh? The 18-200? I never defended that lens before since I never actually had one in my hands till recently. Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else or thinking about a different lens? I paid $750 delivered to the door for mine and I feel violated. The good news is it is going up on eBay for $900+. Rita > I paid $750 delivered to the door for mine and I feel violated. Honest question: did you really expect it to be good? And why? It's clearly a compromise lens for the "I really should have a P&S" crowd. > The good news is it is going up on eBay for $900+. That's the best thing, yes. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I paid $750 delivered to the door for mine and I feel violated. > > Honest question: did you really expect it to be good? And why? It's > clearly a compromise lens for the "I really should have a P&S" crowd. Not really since Ken Rockwell told me it was an excellent lens. Seriously, I really wasn't expecting much since the promised versatility as GP walk around is going to come at a cost. I knew this before going into it. That, and knowing that I'll make money if I don't like it. With all these compromises it has, I still felt it would give me better performance than a P&S and be the "ultimate walk around" lens. It simply takes a lot of light to get this lens to perform. Since I do a lot of natural and low light stuff this lens is all but useless to me. Bring several million candlepower and you got a winner. The final nail in its coffin was comparing a test shot against my 70-200 at 8'. The FoV of the 18-200 makes the final image a third smaller. Yep, I got a 135mm lens when I shoot a subject 8' away. You do get your 200mm equivalent until focused at infinity. I expected this to a smaller degree, but this is insane. The bottom line is this lens is over hyped. Its promised 11x zoom is conveniently tempting. >> The good news is it is going up on eBay for $900+. > > That's the best thing, yes. :) I'm rubbing Ben already! So, this is an awesome lens. Rita >Huh? The 18-200? I never defended that lens before since I never actually >had one in my hands till recently. Are you sure you are not confusing me >with someone else or thinking about a different lens? I paid $750 delivered >to the door for mine and I feel violated. The good news is it is going up >on eBay for $900+. I remember a thread where I criticized the build issues and someone said for the $$ it was ok. If it wasn't you, I apologize. Approaching 50 and have CRS these days. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> Huh? The 18-200? I never defended that lens before since I never >> actually had one in my hands till recently. Are you sure you are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > said for the $$ it was ok. If it wasn't you, I apologize. Approaching > 50 and have CRS these days. Rest assured it wasn't me; the one thing you'll never ever see me do is recommend a DX lens to anyone. Though the 17-55/2.8 DX is a decent lens I always recommend the 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 over it. The build and optical quality of the 17-55 is nowhere near these two legendary lenses. I have both and love em. But, I agree that it's very easy to confuse who did speak highly of the 18-200 since everyone is acting like that lens is the best thing since the invention of the seedless watermelon. Rita >> It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife, >> but it's also just long enough. > > My guess is that you'll need a tripod if you want to use it on an APS-C > format camera. I've used it mostly handheld (often braced against something) or on a monopod. Tripods are inconvenient for wildlife, as animals are rarely willing to pose. > In that case (and if you can carry it) a 300/2.8 and a TC-14 > may provide more fun. Oh, I'm sure it would, as would that nice 200-400. But, neither of those would cost less than $200, and since I have the opportunity to shoot wildlife maybe once a year, and have little other use for the lens, that does factor in. Every time I lust for the 200-400 I think to myself, "I'll almost never have any reason to use it," and that's that. The 300mm sits in my camera bag until I travel to somewhere it's useful; it's by far my least-used lens. If I lived somewhere with wildlife, well, that would probably change things a bit. A 300/4.5 is *just enough*, but you're always wishing for both longer and faster. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife, >>> but it's also just long enough. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >monopod. Tripods are inconvenient for wildlife, as animals are rarely >willing to pose. Usenet can be funny. In another thread it is claimed that true MLU is required (which obviously implies using a tripod)... >> In that case (and if you can carry it) a 300/2.8 and a TC-14 >> may provide more fun. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that. The 300mm sits in my camera bag until I travel to somewhere >it's useful; it's by far my least-used lens. I have to admit, the 300/4.5 is a lens I'm willing to take with me even if I'm not sure I will need it. The 300/2.8 is bit to heavy for that. But when I know I need a 300, I take the 300/2.8 and a tripod (or a monopod). >If I lived somewhere with wildlife, well, that would probably change >things a bit. A 300/4.5 is *just enough*, but you're always wishing >for both longer and faster. There are places without wildlife? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> I've used it mostly handheld (often braced against something) or on a >> monopod. Tripods are inconvenient for wildlife, as animals are rarely >> willing to pose. > > Usenet can be funny. In another thread it is claimed that true MLU is > required (which obviously implies using a tripod)... I think it depends on what you're shooting, too. I did one "landscape" type shot with it, on a tripod, and I did feel that I needed to lock up the mirror even at something like 1/60th. But my subject was several miles away, not 20 feet as might be the case with an animal; the slightest camera shake was quite evident in the viewfinder. >> If I lived somewhere with wildlife, well, that would probably change >> things a bit. A 300/4.5 is *just enough*, but you're always wishing >> for both longer and faster. > > There are places without wildlife? Wildlife I'd be interested in shooting, at any rate. :) We do have squirrels, and birds, and such. Lots of people are into birds, but they don't particularly interest me, and 300mm is far from long enough for birds anyway. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com According to Wolfgang Schmittenhammer <tonguesten@sbcglobal.net>: > I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: > 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' I have this and very much like it. I alternate between that and the much heaver 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 as walk-around lenses. > 105 mm macro Nikon(non vr) I have heard very good reports of this lens, and hope to have one of these someday. > 70-300 4-5.6 Nikon(cheapo lens) decent pictures, but would like longer > lens at times. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. If I get this > lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non vr) macro? As others have said -- keep the 105mm macro -- unless you plan to *never* take any macro shots. > or > 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but Hmm ... IIRC, a 2X converter is also two stops slower on any given lens, so you would be down from f2.8 to f4.5 anyway using the TC and the 70-200mm f2.8 vr. This is a bit better than f5.6 at the long end of the zoom, but not that much better. > quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. Looked > at 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range. What about the prices for used lenses? The only two lenses on my D70 which I have purchased *new* were the 18-70mm kit lens and the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5. Everything else was purchased used at one time or another. I've also got a 500mm f8 Nikkor Cat lens which works on the D70 (of course without built-in metering). I've got a 300mm prime which I need to convert the aperture ring to AI to allow mounting on the D70 (and to allow metering on a future D200 whenever I get that. > Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. You have my thoughts above. Good luck, DoN. SignatureEmail: <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 --- > Hmm ... IIRC, a 2X converter is also two stops slower on any >given lens, so you would be down from f2.8 to f4.5 anyway using the TC >and the 70-200mm f2.8 vr. This is a bit better than f5.6 at the long >end of the zoom, but not that much better. No, it is f/5.6, but the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is an AF-S lens the 80-400 is not. you also have the lens by itself to use at f/2.8 which you never have with the 80-400. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses: > 18-70 Nikon 'kit lens' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated............. > Dave M. I suggest revising your expectations and shoot for a better lens, not longer. Already the 70-200 on a dSLR is a 35mm equivalent of 300mm. The only nice option for longer is a 300/4 as mentioned with 1.4x TC at 420mm. You might find with a sharper lens, you can crop and enlarge more. I'm not happy with the 2x on my 70-200 for sharpness... sometimes it's useful... but for the price of that TC??? Better really with 1.4x & that gets you a beautiful 280mm f/4. I did a lot of playing around with macro on the 70-200 with a Canon 77mm 2-element closeup lens 'filter' on the front and the 2x on the back. That's real handy for bees & butterflies but all those elements on the zoom just do not compare to a fixed length macro. I've got the 105 VR now & it's noticeably nicer for all sorts of closeups & long shots. That thing works nice with a 2x as a tele if your macro is compatible with the TC. |
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.