help! decisions, decisions (Nikon lenses)

I have a Nikon D-70 with the following lenses:
18-70 Nikon 'kit lens'
105 mm macro Nikon(non vr)
70-300 4-5.6 Nikon(cheapo lens) decent pictures, but would like longer
lens at times.
Have saved some money and want to purchase a new lens.
Two thoughts,

70-200mm f2.8 vr, not really long enough (for wildlife etc), but fast
and good all around so would probably get a 2x converter. If I get this
lens, would there be any reason to keep the 105mm (non vr) macro?
or
80-400mm f4.5-5.6 vr not as fast (reviews also say slow focusing) but
quite a bit cheaper, especially since I won't need 2x converter. Looked
at 400mm prime lens, but price is out of my range.
Any thoughts/feedback greatly appreciated.............
Dave M.

 

Have you looked at the nikkor 300/4?

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/300_4_afs

I havn't used it but if you want a telephoto prime without spending 5x as
much on the 300/2.8 then I'd say it's worth a look.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

 

Wait a couple of weeks and get the new 70-300 vr2.
Looks very promising.

 

This is probably one of the most economical and best "kit" lens you'll find
from any manufacturer considering it is a "DX" lens. I recently acquired
the dreaded 18-200mm VR and I must say that it is the biggest piece of $750
shit Nikon has ever made.

This is a superior macro lens for up to 1:1. Under no circumstances sell
this lens. I have both the AF-D and VR versions of this lens and I prefer
the AF-D. For 2.85:1 magnification just pop on a reversing ring and an old
50 and you're living the good life.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/macro_50.htm

The 70-200 is a great lens and is an absolute must have. It can be a little
soft with a 2x TC, but it's not too bad. Again, NEVER SELL THE 105! If you
do a lot of macro you will never use VR. You will be sorry if you sell this
lens. Don't get sucked into the VR hype. Good technique will improve your
VR and non-VR shots.

The 70-200 will be your best bet for fast focus and low light performance.
Some say the 80-400 is a bit shaper at 400mm than the 20-200 with a 2x TC.
I have the 70-200 and 2x TC and would never ever consider the 80-400.







Rita

 

I make use of this a lot on a D70 and D200 with petty good results. You'll
find most of my wildlife photos taken with this combo.

Take a look at the 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2146
I picked up one of these this summer and am quite happy with it. Though for
my use it's more limited that the above combo, as a lot of wildlife I shoot
is done walking with the dog and the 200-400 is just too big for this type
of use.

 

Has the thought of selling the 200-400 ever crossed your mind?






Rita

 

This is a great lens, one of the very best. If you really need to go
longer, look for a longer lens, not a teleconverter, though. A 2x
converter will reduce quality and make the lens too slow for a lot
of wildlife use.

Yes; macro. Also, the 70-200 VR is so big you'll need a special trailer
to tow it behind your car, and there are times when you'll just need a
smaller lens. Use it in public and people will stare. Point it at
people and they may think it's a rocket launcher and run away.

If you're trying to do wildlife, a 300mm fixed-length lens might be a
good compromise. Zoom is not important for that kind of shooting, and
300mm is pretty much "just" long enough; you'll end up wishing for more,
but you can make do -- and you'd be wishing for just a little bit more
even if you had a 600mm lens.

This lens is in a different league entirely from the 70-200 VR. It might
be decent, but it's probably not fast enough for wildlife. If you find
that most of your wildlife shooting is actually okay with such a slow
lens, it could be worth looking at, but I'd say you really don't need a
zoom at all if you're looking for a wildlife lens.

 

I have this and very much like it. I alternate between that and
the much heaver 35-135mm f3.5-4.5 as walk-around lenses.

I have heard very good reports of this lens, and hope to have
one of these someday.

As others have said -- keep the 105mm macro -- unless you plan
to *never* take any macro shots.

Hmm ... IIRC, a 2X converter is also two stops slower on any
given lens, so you would be down from f2.8 to f4.5 anyway using the TC
and the 70-200mm f2.8 vr. This is a bit better than f5.6 at the long
end of the zoom, but not that much better.

What about the prices for used lenses? The only two lenses on
my D70 which I have purchased *new* were the 18-70mm kit lens and the
28-105mm f3.5-4.5. Everything else was purchased used at one time or
another.

I've also got a 500mm f8 Nikkor Cat lens which works on the D70
(of course without built-in metering). I've got a 300mm prime which I
need to convert the aperture ring to AI to allow mounting on the D70
(and to allow metering on a future D200 whenever I get that.

You have my thoughts above.

Good luck,
DoN.

 

Why? I bought it knowing this. I still use it when I can and the situation
presents itself such at specific events. I had it with me last weekend when
I finally got a full frame GBH shot:
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4585_800srgb.html
Linked to full res image.

I have to say I'm not your average dog walker and when I say walk the dog
it mean 3+ mile daily walks on the shore of the James River, or the
Yorktown waterfront or through the woods, not necessarily on any trail,
around the Yorktown battlefields. So I get a real chuckle with Jeremy's
statement of needing a trailer for the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR as I often carry
it on these walks, such as the just this afternoon. Still not enough light
to get a good shot of the owl we passed in the woods, even at iso1600, but
I gave it a shot.

 

Please, a little restraint. The primes and the 200-400mm f/4 VR maybe, the
70-200 f/2.8? I carry it most of the time I walk the dog.

Not my experience and frankly who cares if they stare? I get more looks at
my 95# white GSD I'm walking many times carrying this lens on my D70/D200.

And you say the 70-200mm f/2.8 needs a trailer, come on, at least be
logically consistent in your response.

 

On 15 Dec 2006 01:19:02 GMT, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

No, it is f/5.6, but the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is an AF-S lens the 80-400 is not.
you also have the lens by itself to use at f/2.8 which you never have with
the 80-400.

 

Well, I thought you might be sick of lugging it around and I could take it
off your hands if the price is right. I didn't think you would part with
it, but it never hurts to ask. I do have a stack of $100s with your name on
it should you change your mind. I'm in no hurry.

I love that GBH shot. I hope you are considering getting this printed?

I agree. I first hated lugging the 70-200 around when I first got it, but
don't even know I have it now. I tend to take the hound out on long walks
as well and have my backpack fully loaded with equipment. The 70-200 is a
must have lens that is awesome at indoor events, weddings, and other
gatherings.






Rita

 

I suggest revising your expectations and shoot for a better lens, not
longer. Already the 70-200 on a dSLR is a 35mm equivalent of 300mm. The
only nice option for longer is a 300/4 as mentioned with 1.4x TC at
420mm. You might find with a sharper lens, you can crop and enlarge more.

I'm not happy with the 2x on my 70-200 for sharpness... sometimes it's
useful... but for the price of that TC??? Better really with 1.4x & that
gets you a beautiful 280mm f/4.

I did a lot of playing around with macro on the 70-200 with a Canon 77mm
2-element closeup lens 'filter' on the front and the 2x on the back.
That's real handy for bees & butterflies but all those elements on the
zoom just do not compare to a fixed length macro. I've got the 105 VR
now & it's noticeably nicer for all sorts of closeups & long shots. That
thing works nice with a 2x as a tele if your macro is compatible with
the TC.

 

It's still enormous, and bringing it or not is a decision.

I've gotten stares and verbal comments *every time* I've used it with people
around. That's not even an exaggeration.

My 300mm is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 VR. It's also slower,
though. But if you're doing wildlife, you need big lenses; that's not the
point. The point was that yes, there is a reason to have a 105mm macro if
you also have a 70-200 VR. I have a 105mm non-macro, even, and find it
very useful.

For shooting wildlife you need the really big lenses. If that's *all*
you're doing, then okay, you don't need that 105, but then you didn't
need it in the first place.

 

Ed,

Those are some beautiful wildlife shots!
I'm trying to learn to shoot that well. Practice, practice, practice,
for me.
That 200-400 lens is very sharp.

 

Please excuse my ignorance, what exactly does the 50 and reversing ring
do??? Guess, gives you a 'very' macro lens, i.e. the image on the sensor
will be 2.85 times 'lifesize'?????

 

It works as a diopter (closeup lense). The 50mm lense is
achromatic and designed to focus relatively close to the "back
end" of the lense (i.e., the film plane is close to the lense),
hence it performs fairly well in that mode. A 50mm lense is a
+20 diopter! When mounted on a 105mm lense it will slightly
more than double the magnification. If you get 1:1 on a 35mm
format camera, you'll get 2:1 using a +20 diopter.

Other focal lengths, for diopters, are:

focal length diopter
20mm +50
50mm +20
100mm +10
200mm + 5
500mm + 2
1000mm + 1

Almost any prime lense between 20mm and 100mm will give fairly
good results when used in this fashion. The effects of a
diopter are greater when the lense it is attached to is longer,
so what ever combination you have, use the shorter one reversed
for maximum effect.

However, reversed lenses often cause vignetting, and of course
all the other typical effects of high magnification exist too.

 

Of course, though after the holidays when things have settled down a bit.
Got this one today with the 2X TC on the 200-400mm lens. That's really
pushing things for a hand held shot.
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/dSLR/wildlife/slides/DSC_4617-01_800.html

 

What 300mm are you taking about?
Looking at http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139
vs http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139
The 300mm f/4 has 77mm filter size objective and is (diameter x length -
in.): 3.5 x 8.8 and weighs 50.2oz, while the 70-200mm f/2.8 has the same
objective and is (Diameter x Length): Approx. 3.4 in x 8.5 in which is
slightly small and weighs 3.2# or 51.2oz. Seems like a wash to me.

 

It's a 300mm f/4.5 ED. It's just short of being too slow for wildlife,
but it's also just long enough.