Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 9, 2004, 11:16 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 22
Default

I thought I added this posting to the forum but I think a network glitch hosed the posting at the right time. My work network came down. Anyway's if there's a double post then please ignore.

The question, I'm a new D70 (a couple of months now) owner and I'll be going to Mexico this January. I'd like some advice as to what lens may work best for me.

I like to shoot landscapes see Indian Headwhich I took in NH.

I also enjoy close ups, of flowers and such, so a Macro lens will be in the cards.

I'm using the stock lens that came with it and has done a great job.

Based upon what I just put what lens would you guys/gals recommend. I think I want to stick with Nikon because people seem to complain about sigma and such that I don't want to take a chance, I realize I'll be paying a premium.

Also I like the stock lens but would I be better suited to "upgrade" that or is the stock lens a good overall lens. If I were to upgrade what would be better.

Thanks
Mike
maflynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 10, 2004, 11:53 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

Well, if you want to stick with Nikon there is only really the Nikkor 17/55 F2.8 which will suit, or the 17/35. The former is in my hands here, but it weighs a ton and is not really a travelling lens. I suggest you read through the Tamron thread running at the moment which might give you a lot of insight. I haven't tried it, but the Sigma alternative at $400 or so might be a better bet than Nikkor at $1,300 and lighter too. Both are built specifically for digital cameras, and both incorporate the wide angle you need for landscapes. The stock lens is well rated everywhere except for its "plasticky" feel and does the job adequately. The other lenses will give you wider aperture and smaller depth of field though if that is what you need. But you will, if you stick to Nikkors, be paying one hell of a price to move up.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 20, 2004, 8:36 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

Hi Maflynn,
Look into the Nikon 24mm to 120mm "VR" lens. I have one and it sure covers just about everything I need to do. Take Your camera to Your local Camera store and try before You Buy. I'm sure it would not be a problem for the store to let You take a few pictures with it. The "VR" feature allows You to hand hold using a slower shutter speed. It is 3.5 to 5.6 but with the "VR" it is not really a hindrance. The cost is around $550.00 for this lens but is well worth it. Look at some of the posts here on the Forum covering this lens.
Ronnie,
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 23, 2004, 2:17 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

I have the old 24/120 which was and is superb on my F90X, but it doesn't really cut the ice as far as I am concerned in digital terms. The crop factor means a minimum of 36mm which for me isn't nearly wide enough for good landscape photography. Personally I find the kit lens better at digital work than the 24/120 and much lighter too.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.