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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 11, 2005, 6:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Hi!

Going on safari in 2 months. Own a D70 withNikon's 17-55/2.8.

Know that's not nearly enough lens for a safari, and would really like to spend under $2,000.

I've been looking at thenew Nikon 70-200/2.8 but don't know if that's enough lens either.

Also looked at the straight 300/4. Not sure about buying something that's not a zoom (but willing to try).

Is there anything else I should be considering? Maybe something even in an older lense that's (dare I say) manual focus? Figure I'll be out at infinite most of the time, making AF less important.

Thanks!!!
CityCoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 11, 2005, 8:38 AM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

I'd recommend that 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 converter. That would give you the lens range equal to 105-300 2.8 with the 70-200 on your D-70, plus with the 1.4 converter you'd have the equal to 450mm and it would still be an f4. With the 300 f4 you'd have the equal of a 450mm lens, but less flexibility. Plus, the reviews I've read on the new Nikkor 70-200 VR say its one of Nikon's best lens ever.

Have fun!
wmdyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2005, 6:13 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 113
Default

You cant go wrong with the above combination. Plus the VR feature may be really usefull for this type of shooting.
Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2005, 7:43 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks! It's definitely one of the combos I was thinking about.

Just wondering how much I'll lose using the teleconverter? Not worried about the one f-stop but wondering how different the clarity and flares will be?

Thanks again for all your suggestions!!!

-AC
CityCoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 12, 2005, 12:24 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Wannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 167
Default

Doesn't the 1.4 with a 70-200 get you to 420, not 450? Small point maybe, but...
Wannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 13, 2005, 6:34 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

CityCoop wrote:

Quote:
Is there anything else I should be considering? Maybe something even in an older lense that's (dare I say) manual focus? Figure I'll be out at infinite most of the time, making AF less important.
If your plan is to shoot a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC most of the time, take a look at the Sigma 100-300 constant f/4 - There's just nothing sharper in a zoom (Yes - rated even higher than the 70-200 VR before the teleconverter). BTW it also has the HSM (silent AF with full-time manual overide): http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel
Just about everyone loves it... and much more flexible than a fix lens! :idea:
http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 2:46 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

Perhaps I can be of assistance here having just come back from South Africa myself. I took the D70, 70/200 VRIFED and the TC14E and in general was satisfied, but you have to comprehend that even with this combination I am forced to crop and enlarge to get satisfactory results. For most circumstances the above equipment has proved more than satisfactory for the last year (motor racing in point) but for wild life photography we are dealing with sometimes small animals at several hunded yards. A lion might look big and fearsome close up, but in real life on the veldt looks more like a pussy cat! It's like Arizona and Nevada - perpective is different.

If I was going again I would take the same lens but also buy the TC20E which in 35mm terms would push out to 600mm, which is really needed in these circumstances you'll find. However, there seem to be very good reports everywhere of the Sigma 70/200 HSM which is much cheaper, and a 2x converter is available with it. Whatever, you will be travelling in the back of a truck or bus on very bumpy terrain, so do not false economise - you'll need the VR version. I see also the 100/300 F4 Sigma is mentioned and while I have no personal knowledge that also would give good results, being the equivalent of 900mm with the 2X converter. However, if there is no VR version beware, or set a fast !SO rating to give you a fast shutter speed to avoid blur, risking the noise factor.

Hope this is of use.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 10:16 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks to everyone for all the info... really sounds like I should get as much lens as I can afford. Anyone have any other suggestions for a long lens with VR or its equivalent?

I'll have to share the pics when I get home (mid-April)!

-AC


CityCoop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2005, 9:09 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 113
Default

For VR or equivalent you will have only Nikon lens. If you consider a non-VR lens, Sigma recently introduced a 120-300 f2.8that has lots of praise.
Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 11:39 AM   #10
kex
Senior Member
 
kex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,022
Default

Wannabe wrote:
Quote:
Doesn't the 1.4 with a 70-200 get you to 420, not 450? Small point maybe, but...
right.
200*1.4*1.5=420.
kex 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 12:18 AM.