Reading mode: Light Dark

suggestions for Nikon lenses

Go to last post
Leonard - i'm guessing you're referring to the 70-200 and 24-70's?

Great, great lenses. But they weigh too much to bring along as casual shooting lenses.
Was able to get them along with the 14-24mm last summer.

But - u know what?

I use the excact same lenses as you for 80% of my shooting (although you seem to have lost your primes ;-)) - which makes you just as happy with the results.

And you probably have a better bank balance than me.

One thing though - Nicole pls forgive me if you already know. But the 70-300VR is a FX lens. Which means it'll give you an effective focal length of 105-450 mm on the D3100.
 
SnapHappy32 said:
16-85mm (A "softish" lens - but extremely versatile in daily use. If you're not going to invest in a wideangle lens it'll serve you fine - and has a very good zoom range).
Click to expand...
If you have a soft 16-85 mm VR then you have a lemon. You should exchange it. It is one of the sharpest lens from the Nikon line. It is up to the prime sharpness (sharper than 50 mm f/1.8D at f/5.6).

--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://picasaweb.google.com/victorpetcu69/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://picasaweb.google.com/v.petcu.gci/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpetcu.gci.arhiva/
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
 
Appreciate the input - I've never heard that comparison before.

Having a zoom lens (at the longer end of it's focal range) outdoing a prime is not something I hear everyday.

Do you have any shots or links to you'd like to share?
 
I have received so much great information from every one, and like I stated before I think I am leaning towards the 70-300. I did want to know if anyone had any opinions on the 70-300 compared to the 70-200. I know obviously that i would not be getting as much reach with the 70-200 and that the price is considerably more but it seems to be a little more versatile. Is it worth the extra money.
 
I have both - yes it's worth the extra cash for specific purposes.
It is however twice as heavy. And thrice the price.

I would seriously urge you to actually see and hold both lenses in real life.
 
Without knowing what kind of things you shoot it would be hard to give you a definitive answer.

The 70-200 is a pro level lens, and it was a constant aperture of f2.8, making it great for low light situations. But as others have pointed out, it is a big heavy lens that you can handhold for a short time. You will have to develop big muscles to make this a walkaround lens.

The 70-300 is a consumer lens, and pretty sharp, not as sharp as the 70-200, but not bad, at least up to 200-250 focal length. It is smaller and lighter and cheaper. That would be my recommendation unless your stock in trade is indoor sports or concerts.
 
SnapHappy32 said:
I use the excact same lenses as you for 80% of my shooting (although you seem to have lost your primes ;-)) - which makes you just as happy with the results.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have several perfectly good primes from my film days. But zooms give me better image quality.

Most of my photography is landscape, so I'm shooting f/8 on a tripod more often than not. Any lens that says "Nikkor" on it is going to be pretty good at f/8. And, at least to me, the key to landscape composition is being in the right spot with the right field of view. And you need zooms to do that. When you have to "zoom with your feet" with a prime, you don't get the same picture. With a prime, you often have to shoot with a wider lens than you need and crop to suit. There goes your image quality advantage.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
kristennicole28 said:
I have received so much great information from every one, and like I stated before I think I am leaning towards the 70-300. I did want to know if anyone had any opinions on the 70-300 compared to the 70-200. I know obviously that i would not be getting as much reach with the 70-200 and that the price is considerably more but it seems to be a little more versatile. Is it worth the extra money.
Click to expand...
I have both and like both. I love the 70-200. It is my favorite lens. But, the 70-300 is also very good. The difference is that the 70-300 is fairly small, and fairly light. The 70-200 is fairly large and fairly heavy. The constant f2.8 of the 70-200vr is really handy, as it the amazingly fast focus. It is weather sealed (used in a monsoon). It is an entirely difference kind of lens. I suggest you start with the 70-300 unless you have a need for weather sealing, sports photography, or want a zoom "portrait" lens.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Im glad you still have them. My mistake. Didn't know of your preference for landscape..

My point was simply that standard primes such as the 35mm/50mm are very useful for say events where lighting conditions aren't optimal. They're hardly priced out of reach for most, and are convenient to carry.

Ps In my experience, when shooting with the 16-85@16mm, you're going to have to correct for a fair amount of distortion and chroma. That'll cost IQ as well.
 
SnapHappy32 said:
I stand corrected!
MTF scores (center):

16-85mm@85mm = 2.523
50mm@50mm/75mm DX = 2.189
Click to expand...
What is with this??
SnapHappy32 said:
@50mm/75mm
Click to expand...
All lenses are marked with their actual focal length.

So a 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens be it a DX or FX lens, be it a FX or DX body.

What changes from FX to FX is field of view. Sometimes called "effective focal length" but the actual focal length remains the same.

So your funny notation would only have made sense if you also marked the 16-85@85/127.5mm DX

What a crop sensor does is take and crop out the center portion of the image. If you have a FX and DX body with the same pixel density, you can create the exact same image (field of view, dof, bokeh, etc) by cropping the FX image to the same pixel dimensions as the DX image.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
SnapHappy32 said:
Im glad you still have them. My mistake. Didn't know of your preference for landscape..

My point was simply that standard primes such as the 35mm/50mm are very useful for say events where lighting conditions aren't optimal. They're hardly priced out of reach for most, and are convenient to carry.

Ps In my experience, when shooting with the 16-85@16mm, you're going to have to correct for a fair amount of distortion and chroma. That'll cost IQ as well.
Click to expand...
The distortion from the 16-85 is mild. If you get a program like DXO, it can even automatically correct this lens and it really very little impact on IQ.

Although unlike Leonard I prefer primes for planned shots such as landscapes, portraits, and so on. I like zooms for more spontaneous shots.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Bjørn. Thx for the introduction to fx/dx focal length differences - although your teaching skills are probably better spent elsewhere.

A 50mm Fx lens has an effective focal length of 75mm on a dx body. A 85mm dx lens has an effective focal length of 85mm. Period.

Mtf scores? I and plenty of people use them as sharpness indicators.
 
Bjorn_L said:
So your funny notation would only have made sense if you also marked the 16-85@85/127.5mm DX
Click to expand...
Bjorn - that's just nonsense.
I'm not fitting a dx lens on a smaller than-ASPC-sized sensor.

If you read closely - I pointed out the effective focal length conversion by using an FX-lens on a DX-body before (ref 70-300mm -> 105-450mm).
 
SnapHappy32 said:
Bjørn. Thx for the introduction to fx/dx focal length differences - although your teaching skills are probably better spent elsewhere.

A 50mm Fx lens has an effective focal length of 75mm on a dx body. A 85mm dx lens has an effective focal length of 85mm. Period.
Click to expand...
Really?? If someone takes he time to correct your foolishness, take the time to find out if you are wrong.

Here's a little clue, you are.

A DX lens is not marked with effective FL but actual. I know you're too shortsighted and stubborn to take my word for it (case in point your last two posts). So how's about you use google instead? If you ask me politely I might even be willing to provide you links if you are google challenged.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
SnapHappy32 said:
SnapHappy32 said:
So your funny notation would only have made sense if you also marked the 16-85@85/127.5mm DX
Click to expand...
Bjorn - that's just nonsense.
I'm not fitting a dx lens on a smaller than-ASPC-sized sensor.

If you read closely - I pointed out the effective focal length conversion by using an FX-lens on a DX-body before (ref 70-300mm -> 105-450mm).
Click to expand...
No you were posting gibberish. A lens is marked with actual focal length not effective field of view. So you were not point out anything except your ignorance. Then compounded this by getting all huffy and stuff when someone took the time to not only set you straight but provided an explanation as well.

In that you do not know the very basics, I suggest you take a little time to learn a few things before you advise others how to spend their money.

Or failing that use some of your own money to rent a FX lens which overlaps a DX lens and be prepared to be amazed when 50mm remains 50mm.
--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Bjorn_L said:
SnapHappy32 said:
Bjorn_L said:
So your funny notation would only have made sense if you also marked the 16-85@85/127.5mm DX
Click to expand...
Bjorn - that's just nonsense.
I'm not fitting a dx lens on a smaller than-ASPC-sized sensor.

If you read closely - I pointed out the effective focal length conversion by using an FX-lens on a DX-body before (ref 70-300mm -> 105-450mm).
Click to expand...
No you were posting gibberish. A lens is marked with actual focal length not effective field of view. So you were not point out anything except your ignorance. Then compounded this by getting all huffy and stuff when someone took the time to not only set you straight but provided an explanation as well.

In that you do not know the very basics, I suggest you take a little time to learn a few things before you advise others how to spend their money.

Or failing that use some of your own money to rent a FX lens which overlaps a DX lens and be prepared to be amazed when 50mm remains 50mm.
Click to expand...
I'm enjoying a nice cup of coffee so I am feeling charitable and decided to give you some help.

But rather than link to some other site where if you're feeling particularly thickheaded you will just persist in this goofy claim, I give you Nikon's posted facts (with links)

A DX 35mm lens

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
Minimum Angle of View (DX-format) 44°

An FX 35mm lens

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2198/AF-S-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.4G.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) 44°
Maximum Angle of View (FX-format) 63°

An FX 50mm lens

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2180/AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.4G.html#tab-ProductDetail-ProductTabs-TechSpecs
Maximum Angle of View (DX-format) 31°30'
Maximum Angle of View (FX-format) 46°

Notice how the DX Camera's angle of view is the same on the DX lens as it is on the FX lens?

Notice also how the DX angle of view on the 35mm lens nearly matches the FX angle of view on the 50mm lens?

Do you need me to explain what this means to you with regards to actual focal length vs effective focal length, or are you finally getting it?

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.
 
Bjorn. You might consider upgrading that coffeee to an Irish version.

Might take the brunt of your anger.

Have a nice day. I for one am not going to waste any more time on you.
 
Arh. Can't really help myself. Love a good rant from a bitter old man.

From the below link:

"The DX sensor makes possible the production of lighter, smaller cameras, but because it covers a smaller portion of the image projected by the lens, a 1.5x crop factor (so called because the smaller sensor crops the image compared to an image from a 35mm film frame) is introduced. This means, for example, a 24mm lens on a DX sensor camera will provide an approximate 36mm view."

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Nikon-Camera-Technology/g588ouey/1/The-DX-and-FX-Formats.html

PS Upgraded that coffee yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top