Andrej V
(K=6693) - Comment Date 1/18/2005
|
Try Sigma or Tamron lenses. they have varity of them! For hiking and traveling when we are allways out of space probably 28-200mm is best possible option. otherwise you have to choose acording to your whises and lenses you allready have. However concerning quality with Sigma or Tamron you can't miss!
Andrej
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 1/18/2005
|
FYI - I have a 28mm - 70mm zoom, I'm looking for something that will scale upwards from 70 or 80mm to 300 or 450+ mm.
|
|
|
|
Eric Peterson
(K=4419) - Comment Date 1/19/2005
|
I don't have any personal experience with it but I have heard good reviews about the Sigma 50-500 if you don't need a fast lens. It's in their professional EX line and is an HSM lens. There are some good user reviews at the photographyreview website.
|
|
|
|
Kevin H
(K=22502) - Comment Date 1/19/2005
|
I agree with Eric Peterson, it has a good range, especially for wilderness shots. I only heard good things about that lens.
There's also:
- NIKON AF-S 12-24MM F4 G DX IF-ED 1500$can
- NIKON DX AF-S 17-55MM F2.8 IF ED 2000$Can
(covers your wide ends which is good for landscaping)
I would go with the second one or maybe keep the kit lens and get the sigma lens.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Daryl Hiebert
(K=61) - Comment Date 1/20/2005
|
If you're looking for something to complement the lens that came with your D70, you may want to check out the 70-300. There are a couple versions of this one -- the non-G one has an ED element and is less prone to colour fringing. It weighs in at 18.7 oz (530 grams) which is waaaayyyy lighter than my 300/4 (46.6 oz). I've borrowed one from a friend and it handles well and is compact enough to travel with.
|
|
|
|
C.A. Mikulice
(K=13300) - Comment Date 1/28/2005
|
I'd trend toward the wide angle, say the nikkor DX 12-24 for most landscapes. You indicate that you have $1500, which is a lot. You can get the AF 12-24 for about $900 US, and throw in a cheeper G series telephoto, I don't remember the range, but the high end is 300mm, for another $150.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 1/31/2005
|
Forget consumer lenses.
At your budget you should get the very best only. No consumer grade lens will do better than your kitlens!
Look towards a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX, Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 ATX or Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S.
Those 3 will really do your camera justice.
If you choose the Sigma or Tokina you'll have money left over to add a nice wideangle prime like a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX.
|
|
|
|
Lee Duer
(K=293) - Comment Date 2/11/2005
|
I got my Nikon AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED for my D70 from 17th St. photo and I absolutely LOVE IT !!
Go to http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm for a complete review.
|
|
|
|
Lee Duer
(K=293) - Comment Date 2/11/2005
|
I have a new D70 kit and wanted the same as you so I got a Nikon AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED fom 17th street photo and absolutely love it (because of the digital conversion it's actually 600mm). Go to Ken rockwell's forum for a test review on the lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm You will LOVE IT !!!
|
|
|
|
Kevin H
(K=22502) - Comment Date 2/16/2005
|
It's not a 600mm. A 400mm will always be a 400mm. You can't make a lens longer without adding more optical lenses. The 1.5x crop means that instead of having a normal print that you would normally get from a 35mm camera, you just end up cutting around the print (cutting about 2cm or so all the way around the print) and that's what you would get on a digital camera if you used the same lens.
|
|
|
|
Lee Duer
(K=293) - Comment Date 2/16/2005
|
WOW! This is controversial. I called my sales rep at 17th st photo and reivewed this with him. He said "Yes - it absolutely magnifies 1.5 times more and Canon gets 1.6x more". Not satisfied with that (because your answer made sense I called Nikon Tech Support and waited and waited and waited - finally a human replied.. He explained it this way. If you take a 400mm lens and place it on a 35mm camera you'll see the scene as you'll take the photo.Now imagine that the scene has a tree on the right and a tree on he left. Take the same 400mm lens and look at the same scene in the digital camera and you'll see that both trees have disappeared. In other words, the filed of view has been reduced.
Your response was excellent - but I really didn't understand it until now. Thanks very much for taking the time to help displace a widespread myth.
|
|
|
|
michaelle .
(K=3807) - Comment Date 2/20/2005
|
A lot have people have given great suggestions. I have the 28-70/2.8, and to complement it, I bought the 80-200/2.8. I know that it may be a bit shorter than you are looking for, but the images are incredible! It is the maximum zoom I personally would consider without worrying about loss of quality in the images. I have a 2x teleconverter that I use with it when I want "longer reach", and because it is a fixed 2.8, I don't loose much off of the shutter speed when I use the teleconverter (can still handhold in "normal" sunny/16 light).
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 3/26/2005
|
the 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor is a magnificent piece of glass. Bit slow to focus maybe with the light motors in the D70, making the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM a better option (at about the same price and quality).
For wide, I today picked up a 20mm f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor. Very nice lens indeed. Very sharp, extremely fast to focus (due to the very short travel of only about 2mm from minimum focus (25cm) to infinity), and small (for someone used to long teles :) ).
Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM is on my mind for the future.
|
|
|
|
Klaus Harms
(K=8) - Comment Date 4/6/2005
|
Michael, if you have the money..., there is for a Nikon digital camera only one lense to buy: NIKON AF-S DX 17-55 mm f 2.8 G IF-ED
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 4/6/2005
|
Klaus:
After seeing Patrick Di Fruscia's work on Usefilm I'm leaning toward the wider 12-24 since I got the 28 - 70 mm already covered:
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor
For the zoom I'm still thinking the Nikkor or Sigma 80 - 400 mm VR. When I do telephoto it is often of animals at sunset or the moon under lower light, but I can't buy a faster lens.
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom-Nikkor
So in the end I'll probably have a:
12-24
28-70
80-400
and I'll get a IR filter for the 28-70 "just because"...
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 6/22/2005
|
Group:
Another photographer let me use some lenses.
I finally ordered the Sigma 50 - 500 EX with a 2X teleadaptor to round it up to 100 - 1000 mm.
At the same time I ordered a Sigma 12 - 24 mm to complete the range with my existing 18 - 70 mm.
|
|
|
|
reeves maks
(K=107) - Comment Date 8/22/2005
|
A great combination would be : 12-24 paired with 24-120 vr
Both are small, leightweight and GOOD.
For travel photography i don't think you need a heavy telelens.
i agree with Daryl, if you already have the 18-70ed, then the 70-300ed would be a great asset. and you safe yourself a lot of money (for a nice 50mm 1,4 perhaps?)
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
Excellent choise Michael, though I doubt that TC will turn out to be a much-used accessoirie (the 50-500 is rather slow to be useful on it).
Now for a medium weight to heavy tripod (LowePro 190CLB or 055Pro with a 01 or 029 head) :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
Jeroen:
Good suggestions. Yeah - the teleconverter requires manual focusing, so it is pretty much not a good accessory for hiking. I forgot to mention I have a Bogen tripod with a ball mount head. It's a really solid aluminum model, a bit heavy at ~10 lbs, but I hike with it.
The tripod is a must, or a bean bag, for the 500 mm range on the telephoto.
The key to everything is getting the right technical hiking backpack. Once I got a really nice pack that fit my body I can carry the weight fairly easily now.
Just a matter I suppose of building the right set of muscles?
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
(K=14874) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
michael,
too bad i missed this thread earlier. it's too late now but i wanted to throw in my 2 cents. i usually carry the nikon 12-24, 17-55, and the 80-400. of these the 80-400 is my least favorite. it has great reach and the VR feature makes it very versatile but it's a bit off at the extremes of it's ranges. can't shoot it wide open or completely closed and i avoid using it outside the 100-300 range if at all possible. the 17-55 is a beautiful lens, very fast shutter (f/2.8 throughout the zoom range) and fast af. a great all-around lens. i mostly use it for non-landscape work. my workhorse though, is the 12-24. at f/4 it is not very fast, but then again i rarely shoot it at anything but f/22. it is simply outstanding in every way. you can't beat it as a landscape lens.
i'd love to hear of your experiences with your new lineup.
take care,
tom
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
(K=14874) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
i forgot to mention: check out the lowepro rover aw II backpack. this thing is sweet. not too big, about the size of a standard daypack. it's different because it's split into two parts. top and bottom with a zipper across the "belly" of the pack. the lower half holds your camera and lenses while the top half is an open bag which is great for accessories, snacks, etc. it also has all the fancy supports and straps more common in larger, more expensive bags. it's hard to explain in words. check it out and see what you think.
tom
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
Tom:
I feel the same for the Sigma versions. The 12-24 is great for landscapes as well, my only concern is that the lens does not take a threaded filter, so there is risk of scratching the element if you are a bit hard on the equipment (like me). I did chose it in the end because I realize in the future there will be a digital camera with a 35mm CCD and I need to buy a lens capabile at 35mm.
The workhorse is still the kit lens. 18-70. Wonderful and versitile. Nikon did well in my opinion. Great quality for the weight and compact.
The zoom is heavy as hell, but for the range it does a great job as far as I can tell. I don't have a huge pressing need to use it all the time, so that definitely went into my decision. Not a fast lens, would not suggest for sports or action photographs. Does a great job for my nature shots and will shoot wildlife. A good "get r done" lens, but not the best if you use telephoto all the time.
I basically invested where I use my lenses, and met my price point. As always the more money, the better the lens. Sigma seems to be a great lens for the money, and is as professional as I need.
In the end it enables me to be as good as I probably can get with my skills - a professional would probably need a better set, but I am still a hobbiest.
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
Tom:
Hilarious. I have to laugh. I bought an Eddie Bauer techincal daypack that looks almost EXACTLY like this, just not for camera gear. I even strap the tripod on the back like in the literature. Looks like my trip to Target resulted in the same solution, just with backpacking gear, not a real photo backpack.
Besides, I'm cheap... You will see me using a ziplock back full of bubble wrap or packing peanuts instead of using a real photo bean bag. My approach is not for everyone.
Convergence?
|
|
|
|
tom rumland
(K=14874) - Comment Date 8/24/2005
|
convergence? absolutely! great minds think alike ;^) btw, an old sweat-sock full of sand is free also ;^)
tom
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 9/12/2005
|
i have bought recently the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 through EX DG lens to use on my Nikon D2X camera and used it during my holiday in pattaya thailand, my personnel experince with this lens is great but again weight been a major problem for me and such lens also need in most of the cases used with a very stable tripod other wise on the long run could damgae the lens coupling of the camera.thansk alot and very best regards.
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 9/12/2005
|
Tom:
No wonder you have problems with grit in your lenses - you are laying them right on a sack full of it! =)
|
|
|
|
Orlando Oliveira
(K=587) - Comment Date 10/4/2005
|
new website check it out
www.photographybyorlando.com
|
|
|
|
Michael Kanemoto
(K=22115) - Comment Date 10/4/2005
|
Orlando:
Nice site - how does this relate to the zoom lens? Did you have some shots as examples using a travel lens?
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 2/22/2006
|
I go for the 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor which is an amazing lens.
|
|
|
|
