| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2006 12:07:06 AM · #1 |
I currently have Nikon AF 28-200 F3.5 - 5.6, Nikon 50 1.8, Nikon AF 50 1.8, AF 35-80/4 5.6. No new Digital lenses yet for the D70.
I am best at portaits (done quite a few weddings) but have a love of nature (but not been able to get many great nature shots except at the zoo).
Going to get a new lens but only have a budget for one lens (about $700 give or take a few hundred). I plan on getting back into weddings but want a lens for long nature as well (may sell 28-200 to get better quality if needed i.e. new asperical elements being added to todays zooms). Thinking about getting the 70-200 VR but I like sleeping in the house. Next year will get a second body but waiting a long as possible to get the newest.
I pretty much believe in staying with Nikon quality (really want to stay away from sigma/tokina/Tameron etc).
So here is my question. If you were stuck on an island with lots of wedding age folks, tons of micrsopic bugs, wild animals, flowers, sunrises, sunsets, a nice volcanic moutain, and in the raft you had to throw out all but one lens, what lens would you keep?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:11:20 AM · #2 |
| Hmm, one lense to do everything. Must be a 10mm-500mm F/1.2 out there somewhere... |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:12:23 AM · #3 |
Nikon has a 17-55 f/2.8 lens that I'd probably stick with. If I was stuck on a desert Island, I could always use coconut shells to make some sort of extension tube for macros... :)
It would give you a level of quality and the ability to use low light situations that is quite lacking in your current kit.
Aside from that (if you are happy with that lens kit), I'd look at the wide angle.
I was doing a bit of checking recently as to what lenses lengths people use the most. Dr Jones seems to do a lot with his 17-55 and it certainly does appear to be a fantastic range... Most of Librodos shots are done on a 60mm f/2.8 macro. That might be a nice second choice.
Of course the 17-55 can't do the macro as well, but it can certainly keep up with a very similar focal length at f/2.8, so I'd probably take the zoom.
Message edited by author 2006-09-16 00:14:16. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 01:29:52 AM · #4 |
Yes I am seriously considering that lens but have also thought of another option.
Trying to sell my 28-200 3.5-5.6D and buying the 18-135 ED IF AF-S DX zoon. That would get me back to a true 28 mm lens.
Then purchase the 105 VR 2.8 Micro. Many times I am with the kids and do not have a monopod or tripod. They are pulling on me ect.. and I have to get the shot off, so the VR lenses are very attractive.
Or buying a refubished 18-55 3.5-5.6 DX lens for about $100 keeping my 28-200 and get that monopod. Then putting my money into the 105 VR 2.8.
I would get the 70-200 VR but that negates a second body down the road which is critical for weddings.
The problem with the 17-55 VR 2.8 is that its great for group shots and outdoor landscapes but not much for the up close portaits. I am lacking a fast portait that does not put me inches from thier face.
If I get a slower 18-55 then I don't have the needed light for dark churches and maxing out my flash trying to get everone evenly lighted.
Perhaps I simply learn to work with really slow lenses.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 01:36:05 AM · #5 |
If I had the money it'd be the Canon 28-300L IS.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 01:37:25 AM · #6 |
I would want this one so I could see home. :D
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 02:20:32 AM · #7 |
Cool link. I saw a hassy/Zeiss link similar to that as well today but can't find it.
Oh, here is the other insane idea I had. Get the Zeiss 1.4 85 with the Nikon mount.
The other rather odd idea I had was to get the Sony R1 or Sony F828 instead of a new lens.
But then I get back to its not the equipment its the skill. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 02:55:43 AM · #8 |
i'd go with my camera cell phone and hope i get signal. even if it's roaming! ;p
Message edited by author 2006-09-16 02:56:13.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 03:13:37 AM · #9 |
I can't speak for you, of course, but if it was ME reduced to a single lens that would be my 10-22mm, and for my tastes your lens lineup is glaringly deficient on the wide end, so... That's what I'D do...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 03:23:46 AM · #10 |
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 does not appear to be a VR lens.
The Canon variant is IS, but costs only a little more.
Regardless, given the way that lens is used, I wouldn't take a slower lens with a greater range.
As to the 100mm Micro lens, put your lens on 100mm and see how you like shooting general purpose stuff with it.
I used an 85mm f/1.8 on my 30D for a bit and found it just plain too long for most stuff...
I would get one of those lenses, but I wouldn't be too worried about VR as I probably wouldn't use it for much outside of macro heavy situations.
For that, you may be able to save a few bucks with a third party variant.
I definitely feel that you have a good idea where it comes to getting rid of your slow glass with those wide, wide focal ranges.
You might be happier ditching the two inferior lenses and going with a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 (wow, that's one expensive peice of glass. check the Tamron version too. it's very good for half the price)
Bear came out and said what I hinted at above too. Check some of the wide lenses too...
There's a new fisheye zoom by Tokina on the way and a handful of options out there by Nikon and the other companies in the rectilinear field.
Tokina 12-24 f/4 is HIGHLY spoken of and gives the Nikon 12-24 a run for its money...
Message edited by author 2006-09-16 03:30:50. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 03:33:50 AM · #11 |
50mm 1.4 and nothing else.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 03:44:17 AM · #12 |
| 105 F/2.8 to catch all the macro shot on the island and also take a nice portrait of the fellow who rescues me. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 04:33:24 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Ennil:
50mm 1.4 and nothing else. |
yap
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 07:42:32 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by micknewton:
I would want this one so I could see home. :D |
That thing got a marco switch?????
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 08:31:33 AM · #15 |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 08:57:31 AM · #16 |
200mm micro / my current fav.
70-200mm vr that i don't have
to fit your budget 105mm vr
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 09:46:24 AM · #17 |
| I am surprized at how often I use my Nikon 12-24 at weddings. It's an awesome lens and stays on my camera alot of the time. I'm not sure how I got along without it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 09:52:15 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Elliottjms:
I pretty much believe in staying with Nikon quality (really want to stay away from sigma/tokina/Tameron etc). |
Why do you believe in limiting your options?
Of all my lenses, which include the Nikon 70-200VR and the Nikon 80-400VR, my favorite lens is the Tokina 12-24. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 10:13:53 AM · #19 |
Its always hard to discern the really good quality third party lenses from just an average lens. Apparently the Tokina 12-24 is excellent. I purchased the ProMaster (supposedly the same) 12-24 for $500 about three weeks ago, got all the way to the Outerbanks and realized it was defective (would not stop down below f4 even though its min aperature was f22). Not operator error it was truely a defective lens and I took it back. Really disappointing as I could not experiment to find its sweet spot.
I just believe it will probably be something I keep for years and years so I should get the highest quality I can.
In fact, I should wait until Zeiss builds the EF Nikon F mount lens. You can really tell the difference in optics. Which is why those old Sony F717 anf f828's are such great cameras in the right hands.
Lenses may not be kept for years and years anymore (since technology is changing everyday).
What I need to do is rent each lens I want for a few days but the rental market has dried up in Columbus. I used to rent Hassleblads for weddings but since Macalister left no one has a large rental departments in Columbus anymore.
Has anyone done rentals via online stores and had good experiences? I really have a hard time trusting a reviews, having the lens on the camera and actually trying it out is what I need to do.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 10:15:56 AM · #20 |
| LOL on the links, yes those are the lenses you would need to get off the island. That and a cell phone. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 10:34:06 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Elliottjms:
So here is my question. If you were stuck on an island with lots of wedding age folks, tons of micrsopic bugs, wild animals, flowers, sunrises, sunsets, a nice volcanic moutain, and in the raft you had to throw out all but one lens, what lens would you keep? |
For me personally that would leave me with the 24-70, I never leave it at home when I don´t know what I am going to be shooting specifically as it is the most all around lens I have known. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 10:41:23 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Larus:
Originally posted by Elliottjms:
So here is my question. If you were stuck on an island with lots of wedding age folks, tons of micrsopic bugs, wild animals, flowers, sunrises, sunsets, a nice volcanic moutain, and in the raft you had to throw out all but one lens, what lens would you keep? |
For me personally that would leave me with the 24-70, I never leave it at home when I don´t know what I am going to be shooting specifically as it is the most all around lens I have known. |
Ditto |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:08:21 PM · #23 |
Like the 24-70 option. Sigma has a nice option
Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D
Has the macro and price is a steal. At that price I could seach out a wider prime to add to the collection. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 12:17:19 PM · #24 |
75-300mm AF EF
it's a nice range, and you can start a fire with it. |
|
|
|
09/16/2006 07:35:05 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Hmm, one lense to do everything. Must be a 10mm-500mm F/1.2 out there somewhere... |
No, it's a 8-1200 F1.0 IS.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/08/2026 02:19:10 AM EST.
