Nikon D70 Lenses - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/23/2004 04:37:22 PM · #1

Im thinking about forking the money over for a good lens. Now I have a problem with Nikon. After their DX series I dont feel like I want to trust another Nikon. Are there any good alternatives?

Morgan

Nikon D800

10/23/2004 04:45:58 PM · #2

Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:

Im thinking about forking the money over for a good lens. Now I have a problem with Nikon. After their DX series I dont feel like I want to trust another Nikon. Are there any good alternatives?

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

10/23/2004 05:02:47 PM · #3

What's wrong with their DX series? I don't have any DX lens and don't plan on buying any, just curious.

I think the best lenses for Nikon are made by Nikon, perhaps with a few exceptions. This is also an impression i got from a few sites with people's opinions, as well as sites with purely technical comparisons.

md8speed

Nikon D200

10/23/2004 05:07:47 PM · #4

I have had good luck with the Sigma lenses that I have tried. They are quite a bit cheaper than the Nikon alternatives, but still are good quality lenses in my opinion. I don't know what type of lense you are looking for, but I have the 105mm f/2.8 1:1 macro, and while the AF is slow, the lens is incredibly sharp. Also, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is excellent though I did just move up to the 100-300mm f/4 for a bit more reach for sports photography (though I haven't sold the 70-200mm yet, though I will). From what I have seen in terms of lens reviews, many of the sigma lenses are rated quite high, as long as you get an upper-end lense.

jgal76

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/23/2004 06:28:41 PM · #5

What lenses do you currently have, and what type of lenses are you looking for?

Thousands_Fall

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/23/2004 09:12:15 PM · #6

I have the 17-24(is it?) dx and I hate it. Its imposible to get into focus. I also have the cheepest possible nikon 24-70 f/4 and two sigma lenses. Nothing fancy. But I want a lens that will give me a small f/stop. Thats about my only concerns. Im just wondering in terms of how good the glass is and how good the images come out.

Flash

Nikon D700

10/23/2004 10:23:26 PM · #7

Thousands Fall,

Morgan above and this link (see below) are my 2 main sources for any info on lenses. Morgan is as up to date as anyone I know and the linked site has ratings for just about every Nikkor lens old or new.

When it comes to glass.....plan to spend serious dollars for excellence. Nikkor's 17-35 f/2.8 is a 1st rate professional lens. Approximately $1600 US. A single focal 50mm and an f/2.8 tele/zoom in the 80-200 range would make for a good starting stable. (Roughly 5 grand with the D70 body, a couple of CF cards, spare battery, tripod and a good head w/ detachable plates).

Good luck. //www.naturfotograf.com

If you are on a tight budget, then give long thought to picking up a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Best glass for the money anywhere.

Message edited by author 2004-10-23 22:33:31.

rscorp

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/23/2004 10:56:21 PM · #8

I'm sad to hear you're not happy with the DX 12-24mm, I was sort of hoping that would be my next lens. What is the problem with the focus? Does it take to long to get into focus for you? Or when it finally does say it is in focus, it really isn't?

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

10/23/2004 11:30:32 PM · #9

The advice to get a 50mm lens was sound. Everyone needs to have that one prime lens in their bag to remind them of how good a lens can be.

If you are on a tight budget, and/or inclined to challenges, you may want to try some of the older Nikkor lenses available on ebay. I'm talking about the old AI lenses that are manual everything... no autofocus, and no automatic metering on these new cameras (at least I don't think so). Still, if you can deal with the creative control of shooting in the full manual mode, there are some great bargains in prime lenses are out there.

Nikon MF 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS

10/24/2004 12:11:50 AM · #10

z

Message edited by author 2005-07-12 16:31:13.

mcmurma

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/24/2004 01:04:51 AM · #11

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

...i would also like to say that 60/2.8D micro may be a resonable alternative too. It's more expensive, yes, but it's an excellent piece of glass, and while being close in focal distance it also adds an ability to do 1:1 macro.

No arguement here. I believe Nikkor replaced the old 55/2.8 micro with the 60/2.8. If it's anything like the 55 then I'm sure it is an outstanding lens. When I was using Nikon the 55 micro was my "normal" lens most of the time because the macro ability made it so versatile.

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

And i am extremely dissatisfied with the two Sigma lens that i have, one was not even supposed to be good, because it's a cheap all around zoom, but the 15-30 i was hoping would be much better than it turned out to be. Trying to sell it and get nikon 18-35 (not the 17-35/2.8 mentioned above), which i love. Also on my wishlist is the 70-200VR.

I have never used the 15-30, and the reviews I have read are rather mixed. It seems to be one of those lenses where there is a lot of sample to sample variation. Some folks have it and seem to love it, while others are not nearly as pleased.

Sadly, sample to sample variation is a HUGE determining factor in lens quality, and most folks don't realize this. But the way lenses are mass produced, some just come off the line performing better than others. Buying the higher end lenses like Canon L or (usually) Sigma EX is your best assurance (apart fron cherry picking) of getting quality glass. But even then, there are always going to be some variations. Its just the way of things.

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

It all depends, though, on what type of pictures you would like to take, on the budget and a zillion of other things.

Pentax DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF

10/24/2004 01:18:42 AM · #12

Originally posted by mcmurma:

Sadly, sample to sample variation is a HUGE determining factor in lens quality, and most folks don't realize this. But the way lenses are mass produced, some just come off the line performing better than others. Buying the higher end lenses like Canon L or (usually) Sigma EX is your best assurance (apart fron cherry picking) of getting quality glass. But even then, there are always going to be some variations. Its just the way of things.

True, i don't really complain about the quality of the picture with it, although on very few occasions i found the image to be slightly soapy.

Main problems are weight, size, and most importantly, flare. If there is sun, moon (yes, moon!), or any other bright object anywhere in front of the camera, even if it's outside of the field of view, you get flare on 2 shots out of 3. Had most of my night shots at grand canyon rouined because of that...

faidoi

Pentax K10D

10/24/2004 01:21:04 AM · #13

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

Main problems are weight, size, and most importantly, flare. If there is sun, moon (yes, moon!), or any other bright object anywhere in front of the camera, even if it's outside of the field of view, you get flare on 2 shots out of 3. Had most of my night shots at grand canyon rouined because of that...

Would a lens hood not remedy this?

10/24/2004 01:32:57 AM · #14

Originally posted by faidoi:

Would a lens hood not remedy this?

Nope. Always have it on.

blemt

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

10/24/2004 07:38:02 AM · #15

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

Originally posted by faidoi:
Would a lens hood not remedy this?

Nope. Always have it on.

Is the lens element and filter clean? That's usually the prime cause of flare that I see at work.

Clara

blemt