 Connie Odegaard |
Lenses I have a daughter that is getting a Nikon D-70. I would like to purchase lenses for her and have no knowledge. She will be using the camera for shooting volleyball, basketball(indoors), weddings, wildlife and portraits. What would be lenses to consider. $5000.00 budget. Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
$5,000 for the lens, or 5 kilos for the camera and lens? Just the lens, a f/2.8 70-200mm, a macro, and a wide angle that's below 28mm because of the narrower field of view of that kind of digital. I'd also get a 50mm because I like that focal length, but that would be just me. For camera and lens, a f/2.8 zoom. A wide angle, and if there's anything left, a flash. Later on, maybe a converter because wildlife other than birds and squirrels, you're probably too short at 200mm.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Connie Odegaard |
Camera is already purchased along with the 800 speedlight am looking for lenses only. When you state macro what focal length does that take in.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
One could easily burn through that $5000 with a set of big, heavy f/2.8 lenses. Is your daughter serious enough to lug a tripod/monopod with a 3 lb lens? A very good set of lenses that would serve very well would be the Nikon 17-70 f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX (~$310) for weddings/portraits/general use, and the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR ($530) for volleyball/basketball/wildlife.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
d'oh. The first lens should be _18_-70 f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX, not 17-70.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
You think somebody who's ready to give 5 for lenses right away is worried about gee, I don't know if she's serious or not? Wouldn't use the money for a 70-300 when you have that kind of budget for what she plans on shooting.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
I'd drop the D70 and sell it and add the money to the budget. Get a full frame camera (and forget those "digital" lenses which will be useless when there's no more crop cameras), with a nice ultra-wide zoom (17-40?), and maybe a 70-200 2.8 that somebody mentioned. If there's any left maybe a macro in the 100mm range. Don't forget the Gizto or Manfrotto. p.s. I don't know Nikon equipment so I cannot attest to the quality of anything mentioned.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Justin, do you really think there'll come a time when there's no more crop cameras? I hope not. I like the crop factor. As you know it makes a 400mm lens a 600mm lens on a Nikon camera. To my knowledge Nikon hasn't produced a full frame sensor yet and I haven't even heard gossip that they are intending one. I've used both the 105mm macro and the 60mm macro. I don't see enough difference between the two to justify the extra expense of the 105mm. You don't have to get quite as close with the 105 as you do the 60 but we're talking a couple of inches here not feet. IF you consider the Nikon 70-300mm it does not have a macro mode. If I was buying a lens that inexpensive I'd go with the Sigma that does have a macro mode, however, with that kind of budget I'd hold out for a better lens like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Sharon, As I said I don't know Nikon very well and I assumed that they did have a FF. Oh well no biggie. Also I just assumed that having a crop camera wasn't neccessarily the best thing. I mean it doesn't really make the 400 a 600. It's just a crop of a picture with all the same characteristics of a such as your angle, perspective, DOF, etc. I'm not trying to open a big debate and CERTAINLY I'm NOT trying to offend anyone, that's just what I thought. Anyways I guess I should've thrown this disclaimer out there. For anyone who doesn't know me, I don't have the priveledge of shooting with a single piece of digital equipement so everythign I've mentioned comes from my dreams and what I personally would dump my money into. You can take ANY of ANYTHING I said with a grain of salt...
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
I have heard from other nikon user's that the D70 is a dud. They did give kudos to the D1X though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Deb James |
I've had my D70 for 2 1/2 years and I love it! I wish it had more mp now, but it was top of the line when I bought it. It's about time to move on to the D200 though. I'll bet the D1X got kudos! Heck, I would expect nothing but the best for $5K!! :) Nikon overall is fantastic! I'm sure Canon and others are too, but I have no experience with them. I've been shooting with Nikon cameras and lenses for over 20 years and I have no regrets.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Justin, when I started shooting with a DSLR I really hated not having a full frame sensor, but since using one I don't really have any complaints. The 18-70mm DX lens I purchased with my D70 has the same coverage of a scene as did my 28mm on my film camera. The only reason I don't care to have one now is because two of my lenses are DX and I'd hate to have to replace them just for a full frame sensor. I wasn't looking for debate either :). Just curious if you'd heard something about all cameras going to full frame. Somehow I figured the crop factor was here to stay at the rate they're developing lenses to accommodate it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||