| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2006 09:14:00 PM · #1 |
I have a D70 with 3 different lenses. 60mm 2.8, the kit lens, and a 70-300mm 4.5 ED
I want to ebay the 70-300 and get this one.
I am far from an expert but I think it will suit me. What do you think?
Thanks,
KenSkid |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:15:49 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:19:47 PM · #3 |
What lens is the kit lens?
Do you want length or width?
Need a few more details.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:21:45 PM · #4 |
I don't really know what the optical quality of your 70-300 is, but honestly, unless it's a coke bottle, that particular Tamron is gonna be a step in the wrong direction. It's slower (f/6.3 @ 200mm, ick) and has less reach. The Nikon kit lens is sure to be better at the short end (it's a darn decent lens, actually).
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:26:32 PM · #5 |
The D70 kit lens is a moderatley fast 18-70.
Ditto kirbic: it's a pretty nice lens. Nice enough that even though I bought the body alone (and used my film era 28-80 for the first several months) I eventually went and bought the 'kit' lens to use as my primary lens.
I'd say stick with what you've got. If anything I'd get the 50 1.4 next.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:31:22 PM · #6 |
I don't have a dSLR, but I have been doing quite a bit of research since I will be buying one shortly. Anyways, that was one of the lenses (the Tamron 18-200mm) that I looked into getting as one of my first since it covers mostly everything. Most of the reviews I have read on that lens say it is a very soft lens because of the large zoom range. My friend also has it and judging by the images that come out of his camera and that lens, I would say that all who reviewed that lens were right. The only large zoom lens that I have seen that has received decent reviews is the Nikkor 18-200mm VR at $750. I may be wrong about all this, but just what I have read and heard.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:34:09 PM · #7 |
Thanks for the input. I think I'll wait on the lens. I was looking at the 1.4 also....I really want a lens with more "range" my 70-300 is good but not for close up work. My kit lens is 18-70 and very good but not very much "ZOOM".
I would like an lens in the area of 28-200 so I wouldn't have to keep switching when I'm out shooting.
Comments? |
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:43:18 PM · #8 |
You're not gonna be very happy with any of the consumer "hyperzooms." In order to get that zoom range, many optical sacrifices are made, and the resulting lens usually performs well only in good light (stopped down from an already slow aperture).
You're much better off with two better quality lenses. Trust me, been there, done that.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2006 09:59:43 PM · #9 |
I'd definatetly recommend a minimum of 2 lenses to cover the range you are after. With a previous SLR I went with a cheaper lens with a wide range like you are looking for. With my current camera I split the range into two zooms and an additional prime lens for higher quality purposes. I was frustrated far more often by the soft results and terribly slow f stops then I have ever been by switching lenses from my bag or pocket. You may miss one or two shots, but would they have been worth it if the final results would not have been as satisfying, or camera shake ruined the shot anyway cause you just couldn't hand hold in the available light with the fastest f stop (6.3!!!)?
Just my two cents - at the end of the day you have to look at what you are using it for, your budget, what you plan to do with the shots, etc. Happy lens hunting! |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 11:23:16 AM · #10 |
| What about the Nikon 18-200 3.4-5.6 VRII. It's been getting some nice words going for it? |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 11:57:52 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Refwhett:
What about the Nikon 18-200 3.4-5.6 VRII. It's been getting some nice words going for it? |
While reading this thread from the beginning, the Nikon 18-200 3.4-5.6 VRII was exactly the lens that I was going to suggest. You just beat me to it. |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 12:12:02 PM · #12 |
.....
Message edited by author 2006-04-22 12:15:36.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 12:18:08 PM · #13 |
18-200 is bad...save up and get an 80-200 2.8, 70-200 2.8, or even a 80-400/50-500
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 12:24:23 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I don't really know what the optical quality of your 70-300 is, but honestly, unless it's a coke bottle, that particular Tamron is gonna be a step in the wrong direction. .... |
I've tried actual Coke bottles as lenses in the past...they are way under rated! :D LOL |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 01:11:05 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by deapee:
18-200 is bad...save up and get an 80-200 2.8, 70-200 2.8, or even a 80-400/50-500 |
Which 18-200 is that, deapee? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 11:22:48 PM EDT.
