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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 6, 2005, 1:31 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Default

I have spent the last 2 weeks looking for information on lenses and have gathered a great amount of information. Of all the Nikkor lenses that are avaible, I narrowed my selection down to around 10 lenses which I am considering.

I am planning to go on a safari next year in Africa, so that is what I keep in mind when buying lenses. However, untill that time, I am planning to visit a lot of zoo´s and a themepark (Efteling, the Netherlands, great scenery).

I have selected the following Nikkors:
  • AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 or AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8[/*]
  • AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8[/*]
  • AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4[/*]
  • AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 or AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8[/*]
  • AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-14mm f/4
[/*]
All are great lenses, which I want in my collection. However, I need to start somewhere. I currently shoot with a 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 Nikkor which I am completely dissatisfied with -- however,it came with my camera unfortunately. My problem with the 17-55 / 17-35 is that the DX will not work properly on a F5 or F6, which I might buy some day in the future, or might not. With the zoom lenses, is the new 70-200 worth the $700 premium. From what I have heard, it is one of the best lenses ever and almost as good as the prime lenses in that range (so it would be worth the premium).

To conclude, I have 6 Gmail invitations which I would like to give away to people at these forums, for all their great advice. So if you are interested, or someone you know is interest, send me his or her e-mail and I will give them an account. It offers 1GB storage, which I found ideal for mailing and storing 6MP digital photos.

Thanks again!
dieseljunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 7, 2005, 10:35 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

I can't help noticing the lack of medium long telephoto lens (such as 400mm) in your list. Since it seems like you have some interest with wildlife, I have a feeling that you will miss this (like I do!) someday. I do have a 80-200 non AF-S one, and from my (very little) experience, 200mm isprobably not sufficient to frame wildlife in their habitat. It's okay for zoo or animals living in parks, since we can get pretty close to them.

So shall we put 80-400mm VR in your list? :-)


bulukucing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 3:31 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Default

bulukucing wrote:
Quote:
I can't help noticing the lack of medium long telephoto lens (such as 400mm) in your list. Since it seems like you have some interest with wildlife, I have a feeling that you will miss this (like I do!) someday. I do have a 80-200 non AF-S one, and from my (very little) experience, 200mm isprobably not sufficient to frame wildlife in their habitat. It's okay for zoo or animals living in parks, since we can get pretty close to them.

So shall we put 80-400mm VR in your list? :-)

I have read that a AF-S VR Nikkor combined with a TC-14 II delivers fabulous results. Thus, on a digital body, that would mean around 120 to 420mm. I think that zoom area is more than enough to satisfy my needs. I also have not too positive critism on the 80-400mm VR, so I guess it stays off the list. Sorry.
dieseljunkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 5:57 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4
Default

funny that now I come to about the same conclusion as yours.

Basicly I decided that I need longer reach than 200mm, and the choice was either Nikon 80-400mm VR or 70-200VR plus teleconverter. I already bought TC-14E teleconverter by mistake (thinking it would be compatible with my 80-200 AFD while it wasn't, silly me), so a 70-200 or 80-200 AF-S will nicely get me into 300mm reach.

First I thought that getting 80-400 would be the better option. From what I read, most people seems to say that 80-400 has better quality than 70-200mm plus 2x teleconverter. The drawback is the AF is slow, particularly on bodies like D100 or D70 (which I own).

No problem, I thought. Just buy a secondhand D1 if you want fast AF.

But then after further consideration, I think I will go with the 70-200mm + converter option. The reason is because the 70-200 is probably the best zoom you can get for the range, and with 1.4 converter probably the quality is still better than the 80-400 (this is my personal conclusion only!). With 2x converter (TC-20E), probably the image quality will be less. But I get AF-S with 70-200! (Although dunno how slow the AF with 2x). And the converters will be good investments if I decide to get other AF-S lens in the future (such as the AF-S 300mm f/4).

So back to the original thread, I think I second your opinion on the 80-400.

I'm not much into wide angle photography, so can't really comment much on your list of wide angle zooms. I'm quite curious though why you didn't put Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 on your list. From what I read, it's also a fabulous lens.

Just my 0.02p.
bulukucing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 11:55 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Thanks for your response. I also believe that the AF-S VR 70-210mm f/2.8 with a TC-14E teleconverter is a nice alternative -- if not better. I am also thinking about buying the 300mm f/4 prime to complement the 70-210mm. About the auto-focussing, I am not into sports photography, more into nature photography. They have been taking photographs for decades without auto-focus, and I do not believe that it is necessary to have lightning fast auto-focus. The pictures of the past are just as good.

About the 28-70mm f/2.8, I have read a lot of positive critism but the problem is that ona digital body it will be a 42-105mm. I have yet to find out if I need the wide-angle range of view. I only started with photography for like half a year, and so far I haven´t really missed a wide-angle. In addition, I am thinking about getting a DX 10,5mm Fisheye. In my opinion, wide-angle is primarly more artistic, so if i go that way, I am planning to go all the way. So a rectanglar fisheye.

I also believe that the 28-70mm is more expensive than the 17-55.
dieseljunkie 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 9:44 PM.