Advice sought for Nikon lens choice.

Hi all

I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range.

I have narrowed the choice to three lenses.


1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200
range. It's very cheap.

2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens.

3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than
the cost of a new D lens)


I want a fast lens cause I like to shoot without flash and my main
subjects are really just my twin girls. However I have a few specific
questions.

1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Because it is specifically made for
digital does that mean that it's optically more compatible? E.g Even
though it's cheap because it's made for digital does that compensate
any? Ultimately are the images I get going to be comparible with the
faster much more expensive lenses as I would sacrifice the fast glass
if optically they were the same.

2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the
focusing that much faster? Any real world experience with either lens?


Cheers
Steve

In article .com,
says...
Hi all

I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range.

I have narrowed the choice to three lenses.


1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200
range. It's very cheap.

2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens.

3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than
the cost of a new D lens)


I want a fast lens cause I like to shoot without flash and my main
subjects are really just my twin girls. However I have a few specific
questions.

1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Because it is specifically made for
digital does that mean that it's optically more compatible? E.g Even
though it's cheap because it's made for digital does that compensate
any? Ultimately are the images I get going to be comparible with the
faster much more expensive lenses as I would sacrifice the fast glass
if optically they were the same.

2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the
focusing that much faster? Any real world experience with either lens?


Cheers
Steve


Out of all those listed, I would recommend the 80-200mm AF-S as being
the best option. It's a pearl! I really wouldn't bother with a cheap
telephoto - they just don't cut it. None of them.

--
Look. See. Click. Share.
www.leica.co.za
www.dallasdahms.com

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi all

I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range.

I have narrowed the choice to three lenses.


1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200
range. It's very cheap.

2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens.

3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than
the cost of a new D lens)


I want a fast lens cause I like to shoot without flash and my main
subjects are really just my twin girls. However I have a few specific
questions.

1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Because it is specifically made for
digital does that mean that it's optically more compatible? E.g Even
though it's cheap because it's made for digital does that compensate
any? Ultimately are the images I get going to be comparible with the
faster much more expensive lenses as I would sacrifice the fast glass
if optically they were the same.

2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the
focusing that much faster? Any real world experience with either lens?


Cheers
Steve


TWIN girls have to fit in the frame with a 1.5X FOV factor? Are you
photographing them across a football field? I think (based on having
two girls that I often want in the same photo) you'll find something like
the 28-105 or 24-120 far more useful. BTW--I have the 80-200 AF (non-D)
f/2.8 and have never found it useful for photographing my kids except
at school dance recitals and in marching band (literally across a football
field).

George

The new Nikon 55-200 is in my opinion, having had the misfortune to buy one
(and return it), the worst lens issued with a Nikon name badge. It is very
light and small. There is nothing good to say about its mechanical or
optical properties.

The various 80-200 f2.8 Nikons are excellent lenses mechanically and
optically. They are big and heavy. Very big and very heavy. The physical
size of these lenses can make handholding the lens difficult for anything
but faster shutter speeds. Fast autofocusing is problematic under some
circumstances.

I cannot believe I am going to recommend this but you may want to look into
the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 mm digital zooms. They are actually very good
performers, particularly at the tele end. I needed a light tele lens for a
trip through Asia last summer and was so disappointed with the Nikon 55-200
I let a salesman talk me into buying the Sigma. It has a predictable amount
of distortion at the very widest end/lowest focal length, easily corrected
in CS2 if you even notice it. Apart from that it is sharp, high contrast,
low flare and fast focusing. This may work better for pictures of children
than a technically superior but larger and heavier lens.

wrote:

1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200
range. It's very cheap.

I've heard nothing good about it, and lots of bad.

2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens.

3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than
the cost of a new D lens)

I'd go for option 3. Don't be afraid of buying used lenses; it's actually
a really good idea as long as you know they're in good condition.

1. Is the cheap DX lens any good?

Apparently not. I haven't used it, but those who have are saying it's
basically crap.

2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the
focusing that much faster?

Yes, and yes.

--
Jeremy |

"george" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi all

I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range.

I have narrowed the choice to three lenses.


1. The very cheap nikon dx series. I think it's around the 55-200
range. It's very cheap.

2. The 80-200 AF-D 2.8 lens.

3. The 80-200 AF-S 2.8 lens. (a second hand one for a little less than
the cost of a new D lens)


I want a fast lens cause I like to shoot without flash and my main
subjects are really just my twin girls. However I have a few specific
questions.

1. Is the cheap DX lens any good? Because it is specifically made for
digital does that mean that it's optically more compatible? E.g Even
though it's cheap because it's made for digital does that compensate
any? Ultimately are the images I get going to be comparible with the
faster much more expensive lenses as I would sacrifice the fast glass
if optically they were the same.

2. Of the two fast lenses is the S model worth the money? Is the
focusing that much faster? Any real world experience with either lens?


Cheers
Steve


TWIN girls have to fit in the frame with a 1.5X FOV factor? Are you
photographing them across a football field? I think (based on having
two girls that I often want in the same photo) you'll find something like
the 28-105 or 24-120 far more useful. BTW--I have the 80-200 AF (non-D)
f/2.8 and have never found it useful for photographing my kids except
at school dance recitals and in marching band (literally across a football
field).

I agree with you for the most part. But I was at a pool party photographing
my teenagers, and I stood far away to avoid splashes (very active kids) and
got good pics. The extra reach helps for something like this. Plus the
kids don't want you right on top of them at that age too.

bmoag wrote:

snip

I cannot believe I am going to recommend this but you may want to
look into the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 mm digital zooms. They are
actually very good performers, particularly at the tele end. I
needed a light tele lens for a trip through Asia last summer and was
so disappointed with the Nikon 55-200 I let a salesman talk me into
buying the Sigma. It has a predictable amount of distortion at the
very widest end/lowest focal length, easily corrected in CS2 if you
even notice it. Apart from that it is sharp, high contrast, low
flare and fast focusing. This may work better for pictures of
children than a technically superior but larger and heavier lens.

I agree - I bought a Tamron Dii series digital zoom 18-200mm for use with my
D70s.....

It's an exceptionally good lens which produces sharp, high quality pictures
with accurate color balance and an absence of imperfections and
artifacts.....street price ~$350!

PC

I have a Nikon D70 and want to get something in the 80-200ish range.


I've been very happy with the 80-200 AF-S, but I do recommend using a
monopod at the longer lengths in the woods or in evening/morning light.
The thing starts out heavy and it gets heavier fast...