Getting a D70s, looking for lens. Help :)

[vort]

Okay.

I'm making the move from film to Digital and I'm going to be purchasing a nikon d70s in the next week or so.

I'm getting the 18-70 kit lens, but I'd like to get another zoom lense as well. I don't want to spend too much, but I don't wanna get something that is horribly soft, either.

I've been scouting ebay, and in particular I've noticed the Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G for around $190, and also a Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED for $380 or so.

I don't wanna spend too much on the lense, and yes I realise if I want something crash hot I'll be looking into the $1000s+ but my style of photog is more portraits, so I will be looking at getting some primes in the future, but for now I'd like a half-decent, sharp zoom for general purposes.

That said, what are some recommendations for some primes ideal for portraiture, 100mm give or take.

If anyone has any sample images of said lenses that would be fantastic!

Cheers!

[birddog114]

vort,
Welcome!
For starter, the Nikon 18-70 can be used for portrait.
The 70-300G or 55-200 won't do much job as you expected.
Other than that, nice prime is 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.4 or 105 DC/f.2.

Do more search on this forum, Wendellt, showed off his 85/1.4 recently in few model and fashion shoots.

[vort]

Birddog,
Yes I realise that I will be able to do portraits fine with the 18-70, coming from film and using a 50mm 1.7 for portraits I'd like something similiar I forgot to mention, the nikon 50mm 1.8 is on my hitlist when I have enough, but I'd possibly like something with a higher focal length, too.

[birddog114]

vort,
What body and lens did you use before? 50/1.7? Nikon doens't have it.

Longer focal lenght is 85/105 or 135.
The 50/1.8 is a give away lens, if money is an object, it will work for you well.

[vort]

Sorry, I'm a Pentax Film user, they have a 1.7

[birddog114]

How is about a Nikon 70-200VR?
You can find something relative good buy, it's an old lens but it's perfect as the 70-210/ f4.

[vort]

How much would I be able to get one of them for? New/second hand.

[Raskill]

Vort,

I use a Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and a Nikkor 85mm 1.8 (you could go the 1.4 options if you wanted, but expect to pay a whole lot more). Both these lenses can be purchased from Birdy if you meet the membership requirements.

I would avoid the 70-300mm G, it's very soft and all in all not a good lens to purchase (good for free because you can sell it).

The kit lens will do a good job also, don't underestimate it.

Look forward to seeing some portraits.

Cheers.

[birddog114]

Second hand, ebay or trading post, you may find few of them.
New 70-200VR, looking for a higher of 2k.

[losfp]

The 70-300G is an oft-discussed lens here.

In summary:

- Quite soft wide open, but generally acceptable by about f/8 to f/11.
- Very slow focussing, especially if it has to hunt around in the dark.
- Compact and light.
- Great value for money.

I bought one second hand for $100 from another forum member. I thought, "for that price, why not?". I won't be able to afford a significantly better telephoto zoom for a while yet, and the 70-300G will teach me a little about getting the best out of my equipment, and the limitations of my skill.

I can't comment on the 55-200 as I have not used it, but the comments I have read imply that you should expect a similar level of performance from it.

I had the good fortune of being able to test out a 70-200VR at Saturday's minimeet (thanks, anubis!) - THAT lens is a beauty, but it's also some 25 times what I paid for my 70-300G.

Perhaps another option is a second hand 70-210 or 80-200.

[vort]

Thanks!

Yeh, I've been looking at the 85mm too. Seems to be around $500 on ebay for the 1.8.

Who is birdy and how does he get stuff for me

[johnd]

Welcome Vort.

First a point about the 18-70 kit lens. Even though it's "just" a kit lens, it produces great results. I did my first wedding the other day and used the 18-70 (on my d70) for most shots and they turned out pretty good.

The 70-300 though is quite ordinary. If you absolutely have to have 300mm for under $200 then I guess this is the only option. I had a 70-300 and it was very soft above about 200mm. At f8 from 100-200mm in good light it should perform OK but anything outside that range was disappointing.

I bought the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 second hand on ebay for just under $1000 and I have never regretted paying for that lens. There is absolutely no comparison between the 70-300 and the 80-200.

I've had no experience with the 55-200, but if Birddog says it's not much good, then you can guarantee it's not much good.

My recommendation would be to not get the 70-300 or 55-200 but save for a second hand 80-200.

As for primes, I have the 50/1.4 and am in the process of buying a 85/1.8 2nd hand. The 50/1.4 is a great lens, sharp as. I believe the 85/1.8 is very good as well.

Remember when going from 35mm to the d70, you get an approximate 1.5X factor on your focal length due to the sensor being smaller than 35mm. So the 18-70 kit lens is close to a 27-105 on a 35mm camera.

Stick with the 18-70 a while, then get the 80-200 for reach and the 85/1.8 for portraits.

Cheers
John

[vort]

Thanks John.

I am not understimating the 18-70 at all I'm buying it off another member of this forum and I have seen some shots taken with it and it seems to be very nice, although i'd like something with a bit more reach.

By no means do I need up to 300mm, but I would definately like a zoom lense that will be nice and sharp. I've been recommended the 70-200/2.8 by many a people and if I had <$1000 to spend on a lense right now, believe me I would! But for now I'm trying to keep the budget low as possible.

So far, I've decided on the 18-70, and a 50/85mm 1.8. It seems that if I want a half decent zoom lense I'm going to have to go for the 28-200, /starts saving.

What about macro lenses, any recommendations?

[johnd]

Thanks!

Yeh, I've been looking at the 85mm too. Seems to be around $500 on ebay for the 1.8.

Who is birdy and how does he get stuff for me

Stick around here for a while, become an active participant and you'll soon find out.

By the way, you've already met him. Birdy is Birddog.

Cheers
John

[johnd]

What about macro lenses, any recommendations?

I have a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. It works as a pretty decent short telephoto (150mm) as well. They retail for around $1000 new. I'm still learning to use it, but am really enjoying it so far. I've seen some pretty good images done with extension rings on other lenses like 50/1.8 etc. Might be worth investigating that option.

Use the search facility on this site. You will find a huge amount of information.

Cheers
John

[leek]

Hi Nick...

Have you considered the 24-120 VR?

If you opt for that instead of the 18-70, it will give you a little extra range for a little extra $$s...

[MATT]

Hi, Vort and welcome.


Some have had great results with there 70-300G but I have had mine for a few years and it is very soft.. But it may just be my version.

Dont discount some of the others llike the sigma or Tamron 70-300 that have some sort of Macro function as well. There has been some great stuff on this board from them.

Another idea is to keep an eye out for an older 80-200d ed 2.8 Nikon, should be able to pick one up for $5-600. I got one for $450 but its a bit ruff but I got it sight unseen.

Good luck and enjoy.

MATT

[Ivanerrol]

I'd go with a 70 - 210 AF or AFD. These can be picked up for quite reasonable price. The 'D' being a little
bit more expensive. They are optically way beyond a 70-300 G Lens.
Because of the crop factor a 300 mm lens on digital has a field of view over a 400 mm.
A 70 -210 gives good results handheld.
Don't discount the 18 - 70 kit lens. This is a fine lens compared to some of the off brands.
Also remember that when you buy Nikon, you are buying an optical company.
You may change camera bodies over the years but your lenses will go with
your next plus next Nikon body.

P.S. Don't abandon your Pentax.