Nikon-mount D70 zoom lens advice needed

Kevin

Kevin

Rainbow Bridge
Local time
6:33 PM
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
988
Hi all,

I have a Nikon D70 with the kit zoom lens and am looking for a replacement auto-focus zoom that fulfills the following criteria:

1. Medium-Range Zoom
2. f/2.8 constant aperture
3. Macro
4. Very good to excellent image quality
4. Good to excellent build quality
5. VR/IS would be a plus but not absolutely necessary
6. Usable on full-frame body would be a plus (might get a FF in 2010)

I have looked at the current offerings and see these interesting lenses:

Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 24-70 mm 1:2,8G ED
Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm 1:2,8 IF-ED
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC HSM Makro (APS-C)
Sigma 24-70mm F2,8 EX DG Asp. Macro (Full-Frame?)
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2,8 XR Di LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO

I have a budget of approx. 500 Euro. I would also buy a used lens.

Could anyone offer me some advice please?

Thanks, Kevin
 
If you can find one for EUR 500 go for Nikon AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 28-70mm 1:2,8 IF-ED.
Do not spent money for Sigma.
By the way you'll not find zoom Nikkors of this parameters (f 2.8) that will be a macro as well
 
Thanks for that suggestion!
Is Nikon's 28-70mm less costly than its 24-70mm offering or does it have better image quality?
 
Been round and round in circles with this myself searching Google for opinions and really didn't come to any definite conclusions except that the 18-70mm kit lens is very good for the money. Tamron and Sigma seem to cause love and loathing in equal measure while the Nikon's are very expensive. In the end I started using an old MF Tamron SP 35-80 f2.8 zoom (with macro) on my D300 but I don't think that would meter on a D70.

I use an 18-200mm VR but the distortion's a bit annoying while the 16-86mm VR has its followers. I've started using primes when I want that extra speed.

Hope you get some more opinions as I'd be interested too.
 
If you're contemplating going fx down the road, then I can't say enough about the Nikkor 24-70. Superlative. Cost might be an issue however. If this is the case, then look at the older 17-35. Will do well on dx (used it for years on D1 and D2 cameras) fx cameras.
 
I was also looking to get a lens or two which would be good for my film SLR as well as my DSLR (was D70 now D80).
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 looks good for the money, but maybe not THAT much better than the 18-70mm 3.5 Nikon.
When I tried my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime for a few shots the question of which zoom I should get just vanished. I added the sigma 30mm 1.4 to my kit instead of a zoom. Now I want a 20mm prime.......
 
Thanks for the replies so far.

I realize this is a difficult lens question and for that reason I am in no rush to make a decision.

Of course I have started looking at prime lenses from the Nikon lineup, such as the 35mm f/2.0 and the two 50mm primes (1.4D and 1.8D). The 50mm 1.8D seems to be an inexpensive, low-light lens that I could add to the purchase of a zoom.

I also found out about this Nikon lens but it seems to be older and might not meter and autofocus on my D70:

Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85/2,8-4 D IF Aspherical Macro

Does anyone know anything about this lens? 2.8-4.0 would be okay!

Best, Kevin
 
What's the main reason for replacing the 18-70 (a very underrated lens)? Going to a 2.8 costs a fair bit in both size, weight and cost for basically one stop of light. Shooting at 5.6 to 11 I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you go for the latest 24-70.
I'd be more inclined to pick up a used D300 and stick with the 18-70 for the time being. Unless you need to shoot at iso 3200 all the time FX is a bit pricey at the moment and you need exceptional glass to make it worth the switch.
 
You want the DX 17-55 2.8. Anything else is going to be too long at the wide end (the 24-70) or too short on the long end (the 17-35) to actually be midrange.
 
If I were to go with the DX 17-55 2.8 is there a possibility to turn that into a macro using an extension tube?

Back in approx. 2 hours.

Thanks!
 
I like the 18-70 as well

I like the 18-70 as well

but the 3.5 creeps up as you zoom really fast, so indoors, or out with narrow DOF really requires a faster lens, which is probably what the OP is looking for.

For now I'm carrying around a 105/2.5 PC prime with the kit lens, but will probably add the 35/1.8 AFS, and maybe consider a 12-24 AFS or Sigma 10-20 down the road.

fidget said:
I was also looking to get a lens or two which would be good for my film SLR as well as my DSLR (was D70 now D80).
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 looks good for the money, but maybe not THAT much better than the 18-70mm 3.5 Nikon.
When I tried my Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime for a few shots the question of which zoom I should get just vanished. I added the sigma 30mm 1.4 to my kit instead of a zoom. Now I want a 20mm prime.......
Click to expand...
 
ncd_photo said:
What's the main reason for replacing the 18-70 (a very underrated lens)? Going to a 2.8 costs a fair bit in both size, weight and cost for basically one stop of light...
Click to expand...

For weddings I have been using my R-D1 with off-camera lighting for just over a year now. I use a 35mm lens for the most part and in between the 15mm and 75mm.

I've had best results with very low flash output levels, iso 200-400 and apertures from 2.0 and 2.8 and would like a zoom that retains the same aperture throughout the range.

So I guess that I'll look more closely at the DX offerings and forget about the FX lenses. None of the DX Nikkors have VR or macro, correct?
 
:) I've never known a thread where lens advice was asked for and a majoritive answer given.

I don't know if the newer versions of the Sigma 18-50/2.8 are better or worse (they certainly focus closer) but I had this quandry back in later summer 2006 and I went for the first version of the Sigma (on a D70 as well).

It's been great, no reliability issues, also good on a D200. Used for some paying work and some favours and the only bad things I can say are the focussing speed, focussing noise and softness at f/2.8 (already going at f/4) - but I hear the newer versions have HSM and at f/2.8 the softness is nothing to complain about unless you're taking some photos that really need the detail.

Of course, not so good when you go to full-frame - but then you're not going to get a zoom with the range you need now that will also be good for FF (unless 24mm is wide enough for you).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom