 |
 | 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 / May 2007'Everyday Lens' to use with Nikon D200
Hello all, I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the 70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff, but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around. Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave on your camera for non-specific shooting. Thanks, BDW >Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave >on your camera for non-specific shooting. What does everyday shooting mean to you and what fl does that entail? The 18-70mm kit lens is a fine lens for the $$ on a the shorter side. Going shorter I found the Tokina AT-X 124 AF Pro DX 12-24mm f/4 to be a very good value.  SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the > 70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff, > but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday > shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around. Why, the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor of course. > Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave > on your camera for non-specific shooting. The 17-35/2.8 or the 28-70/2.8 Rita >> I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the >> 70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff, >> but would also like at least one other lens to use for everyday >> shooting...something a bit more manageable to lug around. > > Why, the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor of course. OMG, it's true, what they've been saying about your gender, Floyd. > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave > on your camera for non-specific shooting. I got the 18-70 kit lens for that; and then after about a year upgraded to the 17-55/2.8, and have been happy with that. > I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the > 70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave > on your camera for non-specific shooting. I'm not keen on having to cart about heavy lenses so use the Nikkor 35mm f/2 which only weighs 205g. I started off with the 18-70 kit zoom and upgraded to the 17-55 2.8 DX which certainly was top quality, but was very heavy at 755g, but if I *had* to have a zoom it would be this one. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk > I'm not keen on having to cart about heavy lenses so use the Nikkor > 35mm f/2 which only weighs 205g. I started off with the 18-70 kit > zoom and upgraded to the 17-55 2.8 DX which certainly was top > quality, but was very heavy at 755g, but if I *had* to have a zoom it > would be this one. Some people claim that the 18-200mm VR is really the only lens to have. They say they never take it off their camera. Rita I have one and I do take it off. Rita, you claimed a while back that the 18-200 at 200 was wider than it should be. I did a comparison with the 70-300VR (I don't have a 70-200) and found that the the 70-300 at 185 showed the same FOV as the 18-200 at 200. The comparison shots are on my flickr site if you wish to view them, just skip down past the mosaics I've just added. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Some people claim that the 18-200mm VR is really the only lens to have. : They say they never take it off their camera. : : Rita > I have one and I do take it off. Rita, you claimed a while back that > the 18-200 at 200 was wider than it should be. I did a comparison [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The comparison shots are on my flickr site if you wish to view them, > just skip down past the mosaics I've just added. You need to focus on something close. Focused at infinity, the fov at 200 will be about what it should be at 200. At close distance it will be wider. IF lenses are usually like that. The 70-200 and the 70-300 VR probably behave the same way. You'd need to measure actual FOV angles to see. Thanks, I'll have another play with it when I can. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : You need to focus on something close. Focused at infinity, the fov at : 200 will be about what it should be at 200. At close distance it will : be wider. IF lenses are usually like that. The 70-200 and the 70-300 VR : probably behave the same way. You'd need to measure actual FOV angles : to see. > I have one and I do take it off. Rita, you claimed a while back that > the 18-200 at 200 was wider than it should be. I did a comparison > with the 70-300VR (I don't have a 70-200) and found that the the > 70-300 at 185 showed the same FOV as the 18-200 at 200. Try shooting at closer focus as setting the lens at infinity will show a FoV closer to 200mm. The closer you get the wider the FoV gets. > The comparison shots are on my flickr site if you wish to view them, > just skip down past the mosaics I've just added. I like a lot of your shots. Nice work. Rita Thanks Rita. I'll try again when I have the time. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > I have one and I do take it off. Rita, you claimed a while back that : > the 18-200 at 200 was wider than it should be. I did a comparison [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : : Rita >> I'm not keen on having to cart about heavy lenses so use the Nikkor >> 35mm f/2 which only weighs 205g. I started off with the 18-70 kit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Rita it's heavier than the kit lens and the 55-200 VR put together - or so it seemed when I tried them in the store. Louise by 20g SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : it's heavier than the kit lens and the 55-200 VR put : together - or so it seemed when I tried them in the store. : : Louise >> I'll moving up to a D200 and will be setting up with at least the >> 70-200 2.8 VR lens to use primarily for shooting action/sports stuff, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to the 17-55 2.8 DX which certainly was top quality, but was very heavy at > 755g, but if I *had* to have a zoom it would be this one. I've used the 35/2 and the 24/2 certainly, but that's hardly getting to wideangle at all. My Tokina 12-24 is f/4. So the 17-55/2.8 tends to get a lot of play. > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks, > BDW I like the light weight and flexibility of the 18-200 mm VR, despite what the lens snobs say about it. If you can't put up with its minor faults, there are all the other lenses suggested, most of them much heavier and more expensive. If not that, the 18-70 mm DX lens is a good lens that does not suffer from the faults of its bigger and more expensive brother, other than being a tad slow. I don't use mid-range zooms for anything but portraiture, but if that is what I want, I almost invariably turn to the 17-55 mm f/2.8 DX. But then again, it is a heavy, expensive lens -- the DX version of the 28-70 mm f/2.8. Not what I would choose to walk around with for ordinary snapshots. Nikon is predicting a huge jump in lens sales this year. That could indicate a bunch of new lenses to be announced shortly. I personally would like to see a 35 mm f/1.8 AF-S. :-) That could become a rather permanent fixture on my camera. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Hello all, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Options are varied, but I'd love to hear what you find you just leave > on your camera for non-specific shooting. The holy trinity of zoom lenses are the lens you mention above, the 28-70 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8. For a large proportion of general shooting, the 28-70/80 f/2.8 can do most of the load. But, in the cropped sensor world of course,the 28-70 is a bit limited on the wide end, so you could consider the new 17-55 f/2.8 although quite expensive and has a reduced image circle which makes film use useless... and will leave a small gap from 55 to the 70 that you have. Probably no bigdeal. The new Nikkor 12-24 f/4 G can then be the "wide end" of the range (also cropped). Cheers, Alan Signature-- 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. I had someone suggest a lens I hadn't given much thought to, but now that I've read some reviews maybe it is worth getting more feedback about. The Sigma 120-300mm 2.8. I had been pretty much decided on the 70-200 VR, but should I be looking at the Sigma as being a worthy replacement, with the bonus of the extra focal length? For an everyday maybe the 18-200mm VR would handle most anything... That would be about $1500 or so I'd guess for the Sigma, then around $800 or so for the 18-200mm. Between the two I don't know what else I'd need other than a specialty type lens for Macro work or something that I do almost none of anyway. I keep trying to narrow this down...I don't want to wish I'd bought something else 6 months down the road. Further thoughts from anyone? BDW >> Hello all, >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Cheers, >Alan > That would be about $1500 or so I'd guess for the Sigma, then around > $800 or so for the 18-200mm. Between the two I don't know what else [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I keep trying to narrow this down...I don't want to wish I'd bought > something else 6 months down the road. Your first *real* lens should be the 70-700mm VR and work from there. You can fill in the wider gap with the 28-70/2.8 and the 17-35/2.8 for maximum performance and optical quality. If you want to only carry one lens in the range you can get the 17-55/2.8. Stay away from aftermarket lenses in this range. It's cheaper to buy good lenses the first time than it is to sort through a box of crappy ones. Rita >> That would be about $1500 or so I'd guess for the Sigma, then around >> $800 or so for the 18-200mm. Between the two I don't know what else [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Your first *real* lens should be the 70-700mm VR and work from there. Dang! I knew I was doing it wrong! Where do I get the 70-700 mm VR? Is it f/2.8? AF-S? SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor Rita will have one on the geocities web site shortly. :-) SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Dang! I knew I was doing it wrong! Where do I get the 70-700 mm VR? Is : it f/2.8? AF-S? > Rita will have one on the geocities web site shortly. :-) Well, I should hope so. I hope it doesn't look like some Sigma lens. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> Rita will have one on the geocities web site shortly. :-) > > Well, I should hope so. I hope it doesn't look like some Sigma lens. Even worse - you can get one that looks like a Canon L lens. >> Your first *real* lens should be the 70-700mm VR and work from there. > > Dang! I knew I was doing it wrong! Where do I get the 70-700 mm VR? Is > it f/2.8? AF-S? LOL! It was a typo! I meant to say 70-7000mm f/1.4. Now that would be the ultimate "kit" lens. But, the old 70-200mm VR is a killer lens that will have to hold me over till Nikon introduces a 100x zoom range DX lens. Rita Would you like to buy a 3? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : LOL! It was a typo! I meant to say 70-7000mm f/1.4. Now that would be the : ultimate "kit" lens. But, the old 70-200mm VR is a killer lens that will : have to hold me over till Nikon introduces a 100x zoom range DX lens. : : Rita >> Hello all, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Yeah, I went with the 17-55 f/2.8 and the 12-24 f/4 lenses to go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. The 17-55 is a good lens, no doubt about it, but it would have to be replaced with the 28-70 if Nikon ever brings out the D3x. I would order them at the same time. The 17-55 lens is set up so that you practically have to hold it pro style, with the hand underneath the lens. If you grab it from the side it is very awkward because the focus ring is right up against the camera body. I have heard of people using it on film cameras. Thom Hogan says that it is usable on film cameras from 26-55mm, but there is distinct vignetting at less than 26 mm. The 12-24 mm lens is one that I don't use as much as I expected. I really liked it when photographing the streets of Vigan in the Philippines; I set the tripod as low as it would go on cobblestones and shot down the street with an approaching horse-drawn calesa in the foreground. The FOV was perfect. However, I have not really liked it for wide angle landscapes. I have always preferred a more compressed FOV anyway -- bringing background mountains closer and so forth. I actually use the 10.5 mm fish eye more than the 12-24 mm lens. Would I get a 17-35 to replace this lens when the D3x comes out? Probably not right away -- it would be a low priority. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Would I > get a 17-35 to replace this lens when the D3x comes out? Probably not > right away -- it would be a low priority. You'd quickly find that you couldn't live without the old 17-35/2.8. Rita >> Would I >> get a 17-35 to replace this lens when the D3x comes out? Probably not >> right away -- it would be a low priority. > > You'd quickly find that you couldn't live without the old 17-35/2.8. So I am told. Except, as I said, I don't take all that many wide angle shots. 'Tain't my style. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
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
|
©2008 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.