Digital Lens
 

Hi All

Have recently completed another trip to Morocco and decided to take a Pentax optio 555 instead of my Nikon SLR. The quality of the pictures was unbelievable and has totally hooked me on digital.

As I can't see me using my standard SLR again which has a 28mm 105mm lens which never really met my needs. I am thinking of part exchanging/selling it for the new Nikon D70.

Can anyone recommed what the best setup would be for the lens.

So far have been thinking about a 18mm to 70mm for general and wide angle shots And an 80mm to 200mm Zoom lens which seems to be dramatically more expensive.

Finally how do the other makes of lens compare to the Nikkor ones, balencing value for money etc.

Thanks

Julio

Has anyone got any views etc.

thanks

Julio

Nikkor makes very good lenses, but quite expensive indeed...

I think untrained eye doesn't do any differences between Nikon, Pentax, Canon or Carl Zeiss similar optics. Just very detailed tests show some slight differences between them. To sum up - just pick up those that fit into your budget. I think most consumer-use people say Pentax lenses are best value for money, but it always vary on personal needs...

If you like wide angle shots then ultra-wide ange or even fisheye lens is recommended. High quality fisheye lenses are mostly the most expensive stuff together with long teles.

Sad part of it is that fisheyes work much better in co-operation with film cameras because of the lens creates much field curvature that can fit better on film thick emulsion than flat digital CCD sensor (outer parts will be more out of focus). But there some good enough fisheyes for digitals available indeed as i've heard.

Margus

[This message has been edited by Margus (edited 26 September 2004).]

I'm using a Canon 300D with a Sigma 28-300 lens. The lens cost around £150 and i'm very pleased with the results. This package will be coming on our RTW trip.

A good review for this lens can be found here:
http://www.photoshot.com/articles/pr...a_28_300mm.htm

[This message has been edited by G and L (edited 26 September 2004).]


www.aroadlesstravelled.com

[This message has been edited by G and L (edited 26 September 2004).]

I just got a Nikon D70. I got the "package" deal, which came with a Nikor 18 - 70 lense, then a Sigma telephoto 70 - 300. The Sigma lense cost around $160 us, which was about 1/2 of the same version of the Nikor lense. I have been extreemly happy with the results.

We are working on exactly the same problem.

The Nikkon D70 seems to be a good deal. It will exceed for sure our needs and it is possible that we will never use all the tricks it includes. But on the other side it gives us "growth-perspectives" ;-)

Up to now nobody came up with an alternative. So I am getting convinced it will be worth the money.

But then, what objectives should we buy?

I like macro, since it gives you a change to take quite unique pictures of small details. On the other hand I also wonna be able to take a picture of my girlfriend rockclimbing.

A good setup I think is:
one specific & small macro objective.
one 28-300 objective

This way we can take quite a range of different pictures and don't have to carry to many stuff.

Any advice more then welcome.

Pieter

The general impression that I have is that there's Zeiss, Nikkor and Canon at the top of the pile, then pretty much everyone else. Any of these three will give images good enough for even a pro.

FWIW, I used to travel with just 2 lenses, a 20mm and an 85mm, but I'm thinking of getting a 100mm to replace the 85mm. The concept remains the same, the 20 for interiors and landscapes, and the 100/85 for portraits.

Iain

Ian,

So you are not taking any kind of zoom lens with you?
Guess it is cheaper and less stuff that can get dust into it's system.
But doens't it make it less easy to get a / the right picture?

Pieter.

KISS, and light.

Only you know what your needs are. What are you gonna be shootin? How much do you want to spend? Etc.
Keep it as small a kit as you can and buy the best you can afford.

You might want to take a look here for some good reviews on Nikon gear.


[This message has been edited by vagabond (edited 28 October 2004).]

You end up taking different pictures, not better or worse. If I'm taking a candid portrait of someone on the street I just point and shoot. I don't waste time zooming in and out trying to get the framing right, I'll do that on the computer when I get home. If I'm taking a landscape and I want more in the shot, then I'll walk backwards until I've got everything in I want. It's harder work to get the shot, but sometimes having to work a bit harder makes me think more about the image, and the end result is a better photo.

At the end of the day I like the 20/100mm combination, and it works for me. I also like primes because they are faster than zooms, allowing me to "get" the shot in less than ideal light. I know of others that take a wide-zoom and a tele-zoom, and cover every focal length from 18 to 300mm. Bigger lenses with more moving parts to get sand in, but more flexible especially at the tele end. Your choice.

Iain

I've decided to purchase a Canon Rebel, 8mb type. I'm having a tough time deciding on which lens to go with. I have narrowed it down to these 3 choices:
1) A Canon 28-200mm lens
2) A Sigma 18-200mm lens or
3) A Canon 18-80mm with a Canon 75-300mm lens (comes as part of a package)

I would prefer to carry only one lens, for obvious motorcycle related reasons. Any experienced input is greatly appreciated. H.

It really depends on what your expectations are regarding picture quality. These long range zooms (18-200) are very convenient, but a bit of a compromise in terms of image quality. If you just want to take some good snapshots, and print them at standard sizes then any of the lenses would be fine, but if you start cropping down images, or printing enlargements, then you'll notice the shortcomings of this type of lens.
You'll probably find that most of your pictures are taken in the 17-70mm range. This will cover your typical scenery shots, snapshots of people and buildings, etc.
I'd suggest getting the best quality 17-70 (or 80) range lens you can afford. If you're buying a kit then you'll find that the 18-55mm supplied is pretty basic - it's worth getting the store to upgrade it to something like the 17-85 USM, if funds allow, or maybe one the better quality Sigmas. You can then supplement it with a budget 55-200 or 75-300 if you feel you really need it.

I only carry a 17-70mm lens on my Nikon D-SLR, and I find that it covers most situations. The only time I'd carry the extra zoom would be for getting close-ups of distant wildlife, or for action shots of other riders.

Make sure you get plenty of practise with the camera before the trip - get to know the controls, and the effect the settings have on the picture output.

Thanks for the input Mark. I'm in the States for a month taking a break from the road. I'll be heading back to Kenya in January to continue riding north to Europe. I plan to go on several safaris and no doubt the 70-200/300 would be nice for those events. It just seems like alot of lens to carry around. Nikon/Canon also sell packages with an 18-105mm lens as well, I'll look into that too. H.

Tests and Reviews
 

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.photodo.com/products.html

Canon has a 28-300 L lens that would be very versatile. It's big and it's pricey.

The 55-500 Sigma would need a decent tripod.
Personally, I'd consider image stablization as a must for any real telephoto work. No number of mega pixels can make up for blur.

I just got a little Canon S3 that takes one hellava picture. 12x zoom, IS, 6mp and it's cheap. I compared it against my gf's Canon 10D (2 different lens) and the S3 pics were better.