Which Lense

[jkrijt]

Originally Posted by CrazyCarl

For a small kit AND all 2.8 glass on a D70 (or any DSLR for that matter) I recommend a Sigma 18-50/2.8EX and the 50-150/2.8EX. Take a teleconverter and have a blast.
My problem with all-in-wonder lenses like 18-200's is they suffer from softness or distortion at the extreme ends of the range. Either way, most any lens now will take good pictures

Those two lenses may in itself have (a little) better quality but if you change lenses on the road a lot, you will get dust on your chip.
With the 18-200 on my D70s, I don't take my other lenses with me on a trip but only use the 18-200 and keep the body closed and the chip clean.
At home or in another clean environment I don't mind to change lenses but "on the road" I stick to my 18-200.

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by jkrijt

Those two lenses may in itself have (a little) better quality but if you change lenses on the road a lot, you will get dust on your chip.
With the 18-200 on my D70s, I don't take my other lenses with me on a trip but only use the 18-200 and keep the body closed and the chip clean.
At home or in another clean environment I don't mind to change lenses but "on the road" I stick to my 18-200.

That's a very good point but I think some dust is bound to get on your sensor anyway. One place dust can get directly into the body is through the eye piece and the nice long action (suction) from a muti-barreled 18-200(300) lens can contribute to that as well...not to mention very very few lenses are dust sealed with a rubber o-ring at the mounting plate.

I guess it's a trade off. On one hand you can have less sensor cleaning and post-processing work. On the other, you can have sharper images and a larger aperture which can use more available light and provide for a more narrow DOF handy for isolating subjects. Is the dust on the sensor extra work in the field and behind the computer? Sure is, but I've never seen a zoom that could produce the contrast, flat image and razor sharpness as my 105/2.8 macro (although some 70-200's come very close).

To me (and maybe to me only, who knows) it's worth changing the lens to get shots I am happier with if it only costs me 5 minutes of headlamp and blower bulb work before I go to sleep that night. I tried as hard as I could to keep a tiny kit but in the end couldn't do it. I ended up with four lenses and I now wouldn't have it any other way. YMMV of course and it ultimately comes down to personal preference. The most important thing is you're happy with your kit and use it to capture your experiences.

CC

[MarkLG]

Extenders: a word of caution regarding extenders on slower lenses like the 18-200's which have been mention here. If you start with an f5.6 lens then you'll lose 1 or 2 more f-stops when you add the extender depending on the magnification. You could end up with a lens combination which does let enough light through for the AF to function on some cameras, as well as reducing the usable shutter speed where you need it the most - at the telephoto end.
They're popular with pro's using highend lenses, which are usually f2.8 or f4 and can handle the loss of an f-stop or two.

I used the Nikon AF-S 18-70 on my D50 for my last trip, and was very satisfied with the results, but there were occasions where a longer lens would have been useful. I've been looking at the Sigma 18-200's as an alternative, but I'll need to give one a thorough test before the trip to check the quality thoroughly.

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by MarkLG

Extenders: a word of caution regarding extenders on slower lenses like the 18-200's ... You could end up with a lens combination which does let enough light through for the AF to function on some cameras, as well as reducing the usable shutter speed where you need it the most - at the telephoto end.

Very true, and don't be surprised is they screw your VR/IS/OS image stabilization.

Originally Posted by MarkLG

I used the Nikon AF-S 18-70 on my D50 for my last trip, and was very satisfied with the results, but there were occasions where a longer lens would have been useful.

The kit 18-70 is a great lens for the money with it's warm tones and high contrast after f6 or so - AFS is silky smooth. I used one for almost a year before moving to the 18-50/2.8. I can add a 1.4tele to make it about 24-70/4 with very little loss of image quality, won't close down at zoom and is sharp wide open (probably the biggest benefit of most 2.8 glass). Since being able to shoot with confidence wide open, and in lower light conditions, I found it reduced the need for a tripod (or VR for that matter) and I took more pictures than with the 18-70. I figured that can't be a bad thing and never looked back.

Now you mentioned you wanted something for the longer end. How much reach did you want? What kind of subjects do you tend to shoot?

CC

[teflon]

I didn't read all the thread, so I may be out of sync, but I think you already have a good set up - unless of course, you're looking to spend money.

The Nikon 18-200 is highly thought of, but it's fragile and the zoom had a tendency to 'creep' out unawares - just waiting to smash against something while you're carrying it. And what's the point of turning an slr into a point and shoot? I actually took mine back. And here's a thought - if you bust a do-it-all lens, you're screwed. If you bust one of a pair, you're still in business.

Tele-converters? They sound good, but are a complete pain in the butt - taking a lens off the body, attaching it to a t/c and then fixing it back to the body. That's THREE actions, plus a balancing act, as opposed to the two you already have. Sounds like punishment. Anyway, they are geared up for long telephotos, not zooms, and your 300mm lens is equal to 450mm on a 35mm film camera - already a VERY long lens for someone who takes "typical moto tourist photos". You really don't need much - camera and lenses, a small tripod - and a flashgun to take advantage of the D70's brilliant sync speed. Don't let others spend your money! Good luck.

My personal view. Hope it helps.