| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2005 12:45:07 AM · #1 |
First some background. Those with short attention spans or who are just skimming may want to skip down to the problem section, but I think this will help keep advice given relevant to my situation.
Background
My camera died a month or so ago -- don't quite know what is wrong with it, except the timing is all wrong. To give an example, if I use the flash the shutter will go open and close and then a couple of seconds later the flash fires. It's not consistent, every shot will either work properly or screw up in some way. Enough is enough -- it's time for a new camera. :D
I've decided to make the jump to dSLR. But which one? After reading (a lot) and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each, I went to the store and handled a Nikon D70s and a Canon 350D -- Nikon is hands down the winner, the Canon felt like a toy in comparison. I don't know that I could say exactly what it was about the Nikon that I liked, but it just felt more 'solid'. It is probably not the best way to choose a camera, but the decision is made so I moved on to the next task to overcome -- what package to buy?
I'll admit it, I have been avoiding the whole lens issue associated with SLRs. I reasoned, probably correctly, that even a cheap lens packaged with the camera will be so much better than what I'm use to with my little Olympus P&S that I won't notice if it was low quality or not. But looking at the packages, the D70 and D70s (BTW: am I missing the big difference, they look essentially the same to me) are both packaged with a 18-70mm DX Zoom Nikkor, and I've started wondering if I would be better off buying the body and picking my own lens from the start. That, if you haven't guessed by now, is where the problem starts. Which lens?
Problem
Is it better to buy the D70(s) kit or just the body and a lens of my choosing?
I have looked over the way I̢۪ve taken pictures before that I don̢۪t use the zoom capability of my Olympus much at all. It has the equivalent of a 50-600mm 35mm zoom, but I kept it at the 50mm end and moved closer when needed. Sure I would use the zoom from time to time, but on those occasions it was either to get a smaller DOF or to bring something closer that I couldn̢۪t walk to. Getting a shallow DOF is not as much of a problem with an SLR and on the occasions I needed the lens to get me closer it was never close enough.
Since I didn’t use the zoom before, I don’t see the point in having it now – so I’ve been looking at lenses to see if I can find one (or two) that I think will better suit the way I have shot in the past. Before I can make an informed decision on that I need to know one thing: what do the lens names mean.
The lens name̢۪s are in the format:
[focal length] [max aperture] [options] [type]
Taking each part in turn, and putting in what I̢۪ve been able to find for myself (please correct me if I̢۪ve understood wrong);
focal length
Given in mm (millimeters) is fairly self-explanatory. However, how does focal length equate to magnification?
max aperture
Again, fairly self explanatory – the value is given it is the largest the aperture can get. If a range is given, the largest varies from one end of the zoom to the other.
What does the letter after the aperture value mean? It is either a ‘D’, ‘G’, ‘P’, ‘N’ or nothing.
[options]
Here is where it gets really confusing. ;) There are a bunch of letters and I̢۪m sure each means something significant, but there is really not much information on the Nikon site. Ignoring the manual lenses for the time being, these are the different options that appear:
ED - ‘Extra-low Dispersion’, corrects chromatic aberrations.
ED-IF --
ED-IF II --
AF -- ‘Auto Focus’?
AF-S --
AF-S II --
DX – For the digital crop factor.
VR – ‘Vibration Reduction’, keeps the image stable even if I can’t.
[type]
Different types of lens, each apparently falling within a certain field of vision, but what?
Fisheye -
Wide --
Standard – 46 degree field of vision to approximate the human eye.
Telephoto --
Super Telephoto --
Micro – Nikon’s ‘macro’ lens line?
So that is where I sit – I’ve been looking at the 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor since it is the 50mm I’ve used so much and it is fast – and the number one problem I run into over and over again is that I simply don’t have enough light. Is the extra half a stop really worth the more than double cost?
I guess I̢۪m a little slow when I̢۪m confused, because I just realized the 50mm would be more like a 75mm on the D70(s), so would I be better off with the 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor to stay nearer the focal length I̢۪m use to (but I don̢۪t know how it compares in price)?
One last thing before I stop typing (yes, I know I’m long-winded) – Are there any non-Nikkor lenses to be recommended? I’ve heard several speak highly of a few Sigma lenses, but they were for Canons.
Thanks, I'm off to play some Tetravex to unnumb my mind. ;)
David
|
|
|
|
11/18/2005 01:30:27 AM · #2 |
well, the lens on a point and shoot is rated with the sensor size in mind. In reality, you may end up with a 10-120mm lens for your 50-600mm rating. so when you use the lens at "50" the focal length of the lens on that sensor is 50, but it's more like 10x5
Why does this matter? Becuase SLR lenses were made for film, but digital adds the crop factor after the fact. so a 50 on a Nikon d70 (1.5x crop factor) is really a 75.
What you may want then is a 35mm lens. This would be about 52.5mm or "normal" focal length.
the 50 1.4 is a good lens, but you can get the 50 1.8 for a very low price, and because it is a prime (single focal length) and normal (easiest lens to make), it's your best bang for the buck option.
After that, you could get the 35 if you still miss a 50mm length.
Just thoughts. I don't know Nikon well enough to decipher the lens types and what not with those markings.
Max |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 01:30:48 AM · #3 |
David - I might have misssed it but did you give a budget number?
I would not count out the 18-70 kit lens for a walk around. It would give you a range of 27-105 35mm equivalent and it is a fairly decent lens. IF you want to step up without busting the bank the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is well spoken of on these threads.
Once you shoot for awhile then you can decide on which lens next. And there will be a next.
As for the D70 vs the D70s there is little difference other than the screen size. The firmware upgrade for the D70 gives you mcuh of what the D70 has. You might save a few bucks looking at the D70.
Good luck.
P.S. - I went to Nikon for the same reason, it just felt good. The second major reason is their lenses come with a five year warrantee instead of one. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 01:35:37 AM · #4 |
| Whoops, missed the light issue you mentioned. The kit lens is not fast as you know. YOu might want to look at the Tamron for the range it would give you and still be good in low light and buy the 50mm for extreme low light work. |
|
|
|
11/18/2005 03:13:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
David - I might have misssed it but did you give a budget number? |
I was looking at the difference in price between the body only and kit and wondering if the kit lens was the best choice for how I've taken pictures in the past. The difference looks to be about $300, but going over a bit would just mean saving for another week or two. For that price, the 35mm f2 or the 50mm f1.4. The extra stop of the 50mm is very tempting, I think I'll take my current camera and see if I can get it to work long enough to see the difference between 50mm and 75mm when taking pictures. If it's a difference I can live with I will probably go with the 50mm.
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
I would not count out the 18-70 kit lens for a walk around. It would give you a range of 27-105 35mm equivalent and it is a fairly decent lens. IF you want to step up without busting the bank the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is well spoken of on these threads.
Once you shoot for awhile then you can decide on which lens next. And there will be a next. |
Yeah, I know there will be a next -- the main point in even looking at something other than the kit lens is to see for myself if I would be better off starting with something different. I've seen a lot of threads that say the kit lens is good, but once they got some other lens (it varies) the kit stays in the bag. Fortunately there is still time for me to go back and forth on this for a while. ;)
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
As for the D70 vs the D70s there is little difference other than the screen size. The firmware upgrade for the D70 gives you mcuh of what the D70 has. You might save a few bucks looking at the D70.
Good luck. |
Thanks. I had almost decided the same thing about the D70, but there was the off chance I missed the secret decoder ring in the package or something. :P
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
P.S. - I went to Nikon for the same reason, it just felt good. The second major reason is their lenses come with a five year warrantee instead of one. |
Speaking of warranties -- while looking on B&H I noticed they offer a 7 year warranty on the lenses they sell. I am usually the sort to buy retail instead of white box, so I will not go grey market -- but I couldn't help notice the difference in price is less than the cost of this warranty, which even lasts longer. Any thoughts?
David
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 12:25:21 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Speaking of warranties -- while looking on B&H I noticed they offer a 7 year warranty on the lenses they sell. I am usually the sort to buy retail instead of white box, so I will not go grey market -- but I couldn't help notice the difference in price is less than the cost of this warranty, which even lasts longer. Any thoughts?
David |
I never saw the B&H warrantee 7 year warrantee. Likely I was not looking becasue the Nikon lenses come with a Nikon 5 year warratnee and the Tamron I own comes with a 6 year warrantee. Might be a good deal if the lens came with a one year warrantee like the Canon's though.
BTW - I bought most of my lenses from B&H. Great service as I'm sure you know. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 12:49:01 PM · #7 |
I bought my D70 with Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF. Thought this was a better range for me.
I have done thousands of shots with that lens and I am pretty happy with the results.
I didn't have a wide angle for digital at the time, but now I have a Sigma 10-20mm.
The only lens I am using now is Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
I am pretty happy with what can do using the 3 lenses.
I am also keeping an eye on the new 18-200 VR lens. I might make it my main lens if the results from it look good enough for what I do.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 01:09:41 PM · #8 |
Nikkor 18-70 DX = bargain. If you have a little bit of money to spare, get it in a kit. It is good and not expensive.
Unless you want something faster of course. In that case I would take a good look at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC (=DX). 18mm is a good start for a wideangle. When you choose 24 or 28mm as the lowest range you miss a lot of wideangle opportunities.
The Nikkor 35mm f/2 prime is a nice lens for its money, but if you want something faster: Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC. I have a very good copy of it with good sharpness, accurate AF and decent corner sharpness, but others are not as happy because of sample variation.
The main advantages of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 are
- faster
- better build
- smoother bokeh
- less flaring and ghosting
- sharper in the wide aperture ranges while the f/1.8 is sharper in the higher aperture ranges
I'm not sure if it is worth the money, because I don't use it so much. The 50mm is to tele, I prefer the 30mm f/1.4. The 50 is a nice portrait lens though.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 10:42:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by xion:
I am also keeping an eye on the new 18-200 VR lens. I might make it my main lens if the results from it look good enough for what I do. |
I with you here, can't wait to see the reviews. However, I do not hold out much hope that a 10x+ lens is going to be very good. But if it is at least decent it will make a great travel lens. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:06:15 PM · #10 |
As far as the light issue goes, the D70 will probably have a higher useable ISO than your current camera.
The Olympus C-720UZ goes up to ISO 400, with a f/2.8-f3.4 lens. Even ISO 1600 on the D70 may be better than ISO 400 on a P&S. So you may get better low-light performance with the kit lens, and will get a couple of stops better performance with one of the f/2.8 lenses.
The lens on the C-720UZ is a (35mm equiv) 40-320mm. A 26.7mm lens on a D70 would be about 40mm on a full-frame camera, so the 28-70 is about the same for the wide end (you can get a 24-70 f/2.8 from Sigma).
As far as the cost of 1.4 vs 1.8, its worth it if you absolutely need the speed, or want to have a shallow DOF.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 07:11:26 AM EDT.
