Extra lenses for Nikon D70s

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

stenskell - 28 Dec 2006 23:01 GMT

Advice on lenses welcome as I have a D70s with an 18-70 kit lens.
Looking to extend this but as a novice what should I buy - a 70-200 or
a 70-300? Nikkor, tamron or sigma? or is a fixed length better and if
so what length? With about $US200-300 equivalent what are the options?
Thanks

Reply to this Message

Adrian Boliston - 28 Dec 2006 23:41 GMT

> Advice on lenses welcome as I have a D70s with an 18-70 kit lens.
> Looking to extend this but as a novice what should I buy - a 70-200 or
> a 70-300? Nikkor, tamron or sigma? or is a fixed length better and if
> so what length? With about $US200-300 equivalent what are the options?
> Thanks

What kind of use are you going to be putting it to? The 70-200 is
supposedly a "must have" if you want a tele zoom, but it is heavy & bulky
but if you want to shoot action in anything but perfect light you will need
the pro level f2.8 this lens gives. As far as fixed focal length is
concerned I have an 85/1.4 which is about as much tele that I need at the
moment, and it's compact & light compared with a zoom. You might want to
look at other Nikkor tele primes if you want to shoot low light action
without wanting to lug a 70-200 about.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Reply to this Message

stenskell - 28 Dec 2006 23:54 GMT

Thanks - was looking for zoom esp for daughter's soccer games as well
as group shots for work. I have seen ad for a Tamron AF 70-300mm LD
F4.5 Zoom (around $100US). I gather that this is lighter than older
models.

> > Advice on lenses welcome as I have a D70s with an 18-70 kit lens.
> > Looking to extend this but as a novice what should I buy - a 70-200 or
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Reply to this Message

Richard H. - 29 Dec 2006 00:20 GMT

> Thanks - was looking for zoom esp for daughter's soccer games as well
> as group shots for work. I have seen ad for a Tamron AF 70-300mm LD
> F4.5 Zoom (around $100US). I gather that this is lighter than older
> models.

As a first long zoom, this is an excellent model - it has Nikon's
premium ED glass, and it's a great value for the money (US$315):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=149607
&is=USA

This is the VR (vibration reduction) version of the same lens, which
should be well worth the premium (US$530), but is above your budget.
It's new and hard to get:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=449088
&is=USA

This version is similar, but plastic construction without the VR and ED
glass. Much less expensive at US$145.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=207359
&is=USA

The first lens above works fantastic for outdoor soccer in sunlight.
The second one will work better in lower light. The third one will
perform similar to the first one, with differences in its durability and
image quality. Your 18-70 kit lens will be better suited for group
shots at the office.

Cheers,
Richard

Reply to this Message

C J Campbell - 29 Dec 2006 01:47 GMT

You will know what lens to buy when you actually need it. I gather you want a
telephoto for some reason. What do you want to use it for?

Lenses are like other tools. There are basic toolkits, but beyond that most
people do not ask whether they should get a carpenter's framing hammer, a
smaller hammer, a tack hammer, a sledge hammer, or a ball-peen hammer first.
It all depends on what you want to do.

Reply to this Message

Savageduck - 29 Dec 2006 07:11 GMT

>> Advice on lenses welcome as I have a D70s with an 18-70 kit lens.
>> Looking to extend this but as a novice what should I buy - a 70-200 or
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> smaller hammer, a tack hammer, a sledge hammer, or a ball-peen hammer first.
> It all depends on what you want to do.

I am inclined to agree with all the recommendations, however of the 3
70-300s the 4.0-5.6 AD AF has worked well enough for me in ideal
situations, but is severely compromised when pushing speed and light.
You should find the newer 70-300 4.5-5.6 ED VR better suited to your
sports photography needs. You can check prices with a number of vendors
at
http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Nikon_70_300mm_f_4_5_5_6_G_AFS_ED_IF_VR_LENS,__24
239937/search=Nikon+Lenses

From what you are telling us you are not quite ready to spend big money
on prime lenses. However since you are looking at spending $200-$300 an
additional $200 would be a good investment in "better glass".
Here is a review for the 70-300 VR
http://www.filmlives.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=812
Good luck

Reply to this Message

Richard H. - 29 Dec 2006 16:24 GMT

> I am inclined to agree with all the recommendations, however of the 3
> 70-300s the 4.0-5.6 AD AF has worked well enough for me in ideal
> situations, but is severely compromised when pushing speed and light.

Agreed. The ED version (that's what you meant, isn't it?) is great for
outdoor soccer. Not so good on overcast days, or when shooting
high-speed motorsports. (The focus is quick enough, but f/5.6 is a bit
"slow".) For those times, the much pricier 70-200 f/2.8 is needed.

The ED 70-300 is also the cheapest (non-DX) ED lens in Nikon's line-up.
I'm glad to see they added IF (internal focus) to the VR version (easier
to use with circular polarizers).

If the OP would like the premium ED glass but stay on the low-end of the
cost, there's always the 55-200 DX. I recall folks aren't too keen on
its plastic construction, but it's very light and the very cheapest ED
lens Nikon makes. I'd recommend trying in a store to see if it focuses
fast enough for sports.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=381797
&is=USA

> You can check prices with a number of vendors at
> http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Nikon_70_300mm_f_4_5_5_6_G_AFS_ED_IF_VR_LENS,__24
239937/search=Nikon+Lenses

Beware of low-ball prices, as there are a lot of shady camera dealers
online. Check them out first at http://www.resellerratings.com/

Cheers,
Richard

Reply to this Message

Savageduck - 29 Dec 2006 17:05 GMT

> Agreed. The ED version (that's what you meant, isn't it?) is great for
> outdoor soccer. Not so good on overcast days, or when shooting
> high-speed motorsports. (The focus is quick enough, but f/5.6 is a bit
> "slow".) For those times, the much pricier 70-200 f/2.8 is needed.

Yes… ED not AD, typos, typos, typos.
I also agree the 70-200 f/2.8 would be more suitable (and desirable),
but I think this would be outside the OP's budget at this point in his
DSLR spending curve. Also his sport photography needs seem to be limited
to his daughter's soccer and I think the 70-300 VR would be the best
compromise.

> The ED 70-300 is also the cheapest (non-DX) ED lens in Nikon's line-up.
> I'm glad to see they added IF (internal focus) to the VR version (easier
> to use with circular polarizers).

Agreed !!

> If the OP would like the premium ED glass but stay on the low-end of the
> cost, there's always the 55-200 DX. I recall folks aren't too keen on
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Beware of low-ball prices, as there are a lot of shady camera dealers
> online. Check them out first at http://www.resellerratings.com/

I also agree with your warning here. I provided the link merely to
provide a comparison tool. It is always best to use reputable vendor
such as B&H. Also be wary of grey market products as warranties can be
questionable. some of those shady vendors will also bump final cost with
worthless or overpriced add-ons for the novice.

Leonard

Reply to this Message