View Full Version : What are some of your favorite lenses for the D70?
Rasquachemedia
09-19-2005, 10:26 PM
I'd like to hear what others are using and recommend, as I'm interested in buying some new lenses. any feedback would be great.
thnx
I just got the Nikon 70-200VR lens. What a great piece of glass. Kind of pricey, but I did just get a $150 rebate back and I only had to wait about 6 weeks!!
The D70s came with a 18-70 lens. Its pretty good too.
dvpixl
09-20-2005, 04:14 PM
nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF
Ralph Oshiro
09-20-2005, 04:35 PM
nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AFDitto. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D rocks. Although I own a pile of Nikkors, the three lenses I shoot with the most are:
Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D
Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 micro AF-D
I also bought the camera with the 18-70mm bundled zoom because it was an 'S' lens (silent-wave focus motor--very fast), and pretty cheap with the bundle. But I think I've only shot with it once. I generally don't like zooms--they're not fast enough. Although the one zoom I would like is the $1,500 Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-S for runway fashion. I bought a mint-condition, used Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 which is a great bikini lens for about $450, but it's a non-'S' lens, and kinda slow on the focus.
The thing about fixed focal length lenses is that you dicipline your eye to that length, and you get the speed and aperture needed to do low light and selective-focus shooting. To me, the most important feature of a lens is how easily I can throw the background out of focus, and you need fast lenses to do that with. Also, if I do buy any more long lenses or zooms, I'm going to only buy 'S' lenses, because those are the ones I need the fastest focus possible.
Rasquachemedia
09-23-2005, 10:17 PM
I don't understand what people mean by fast. fast for focussing in auto?
Nikon 12-24 DX and the Nikon 10.5 fisheye lens. I do a lot of wide angle photography and end up resorting to film when I can't beg borrow or steal one of these....
Asa
I don't understand what people mean by fast. fast for focussing in auto?
For a camera lens, "fast" refers to the amount of light the lens lets in, indicated by a lower aperture number. f 1.4, 1.8, 2.8 is fast. f5.6 is not.
A wider aperture (more light) lets you use a faster shutter speed (thus the term...) enabling you to handhold the camera or at least shoot in lower light conditions. It also works for a shallow depth of field.
hillcity
10-16-2005, 06:06 PM
wooohooo...I just got my stalker lens...Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm (G)
It's taking me a while to get used to it. The camera shake is CRAZY at full zoom, and the metering seems all yuffed up...but consistently yuffed up, so I just have to figure out how far off it is, then I'll be fine. I only paid like $130.oo for it too! at B&H.
I recommend it for the money.
Rasquachemedia
10-16-2005, 06:25 PM
wooohooo...I just got my stalker lens...Nikon AF Nikkor 70-300mm (G)
It's taking me a while to get used to it. The camera shake is CRAZY at full zoom, and the metering seems all yuffed up...but consistently yuffed up, so I just have to figure out how far off it is, then I'll be fine. I only paid like $130.oo for it too! at B&H.
I recommend it for the money.
I bought mine for $105, 2 weeks before the price jumped up again. I really like this lens for the price. Of course I would love to get some of the others. I'm kinda shopping around.
Right now I have the 18-70 and 70-300 so I consider that a good range. I wouldn't mind something wider.
I'd love a 10.5 fisheye for my digital.
For a stalker lens, I have a 200-400 Tamron, plus a doubler, plus the 1.5X from using the FujiS2 gives me about a 1000mm AF lens....
Hillcity, your sig cracks me up. But if Jesus would shoot digital, does that mean the devil would shoot 4x5?
hillcity
10-18-2005, 10:47 AM
I'm initmidated by a lense too big to use without some sort of pod, but that 1000mm MUST be a dream!
I'd love a 10.5 fisheye for my digital.
does that mean the devil would shoot 4x5?
indubitably.
The 1000mm setup is OK...the Tamron isn't the sharpest or fastest thing out there, but I got a great deal on it so I feel it's money well spent. I did take it to a baseball game and got some decent handheld shots from the bleachers. I found it's faster to manual focus it than to wait for the autofocus to figure it out. Plus, the autofocus really doesn't work at all with the doubler on.
Since I shoot film and digital, I must be in purgatory... :engel017: :evil: :thumbsup:
bgundu
10-18-2005, 03:59 PM
70-200 is a must
1.7 nikkor teleconvertor
18-70mm great for group shots
50mm 1.4 for low light interiors
60mm micro
85mm 1.8 for portraits
10.5 fisheye
10-20mm
hillcity
10-18-2005, 04:47 PM
okay...i'm showing my noobiness...my appeal has always been that i can 'get the job done' with what I have (which til recently has always been the stock lens and available lighting. I've gotten a lot of work from indie/underground artists beacuse I'm cheap fast AND good...
but not always knowledgeable about the gear...(we're talkin STILL, not video here)
So my question is this: if I already have a 18-70mm, and a 70-300mm why would I buy a 50mm, or a 60mm micro (what's a micro??) or an 85? Is it because of it's fixed aperture?
erg?
The prime lenses (anything that isn't a zoom) almost always are faster (wider aperture) than a zoom lens, and in some ways are cheaper. A 50mm 1.8 can be had used for about $75.00, whereas you'll pay 1500-1600 for a 28-70 zoom that's only a 2.8. Historically, primes were also sharper than zooms, but that has changed a bit with technology. A micro is Nikon's term for a macro lens...basically lets you focus close. Macros are graded by their reproduction ratio, with most good macros giving you 1:1. This means (as I understand it) that the size of the image on your piece of 35mm film is the same as the actual size in real life.
If you can get the job done with what you have, great! Like I said above, my 200-400 isn't the greatest lens in the world, but hey, it gets the job done and I don't have to spend a bloody fortune for the few times that I use a telephoto.
Bgundu, mostly I agree with your list but I would qualify it a bit. For example, an architectural photographer that I work for uses his 12-24 and 28-70 almost exclusively. No need for a 70-200. Same goes for most portrait/wedding photographers. Gear varies depending on the job...that said, your list of lenses sounds very similar to mine (minus the 70-200, doubler, and fisheye)...although I do have some weird lenses. My favorite is a 16mm Zenitar fisheye, made in Russia, manual focus, sharp as a tack. It's worth shooting film just to use it.
MattC
10-18-2005, 05:13 PM
I have shot a lot of portrait, fashion and glamour photography. My favorite FL for that is 80 to 85...
Hell yeah! I love my 28-105 and my 85 1.8...for portraits you can't beat the 85-105 focal length.
Just got the 50mm 1.8D for my D70s. Wow. Absolutely amazing for the price($100). Its so dang sharp. Best purchase Ive made sense buying the camera. If you don't have this lens than you should get it(unless of course you already have the 1.4).
Luke
The 50mm is a great lens, I agree. Plus, on a digital, it turns into the perfect budget portrait lens with the magnification factor...
Don Tucci
11-21-2005, 04:31 PM
The 2 sleepers 50mm/1.8 and 28-100/3.5-5.6 these lenses are sharp.Don
Don...are you referring to the 28-100 G series? I wasn't too impressed with that one myself...maybe you meant the 28-105 D series, which is one of my favorite lenses. Just curious...