# Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 G IF-ED worth having?



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I'm ready to spring for the Nikon D70s, packaged with the subject lens. Is this lens worth having if most of my images will be sports shots, or the Nikon 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 G is preferred?


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Having a camera with only a 70-300 lens would be awfully limiting, moreso since with a 1.5x field of view crop that would translate into a 105-450 35mm equivalent. That's a very long lens. FWIW, my camera spends the majority of its time with a 17-55 lens attached to it. 

Anyway, is the 18-70 kit lens worth having? Yes. From all accounts it's a nice piece of kit, and it covers a very useful range of focal lengths. The 70-300 lens you mention retails for another $100. It's a reasonable lens for its price, and $100 is not a lot of money. If you're likely to use the camera at all, you'll get your money's worth out of that lens.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Cliff3 said:


> Having a camera with only a 70-300 lens would be awfully limiting, moreso since with a 1.5x field of view crop that would translate into a 105-450 35mm equivalent. That's a very long lens. FWIW, my camera spends the majority of its time with a 17-55 lens attached to it.
> 
> Anyway, is the 18-70 kit lens worth having? Yes. From all accounts it's a nice piece of kit, and it covers a very useful range of focal lengths. The 70-300 lens you mention retails for another $100. It's a reasonable lens for its price, and $100 is not a lot of money. If you're likely to use the camera at all, you'll get your money's worth out of that lens.


thanks. I will probably buy the camera with the 18-70, and then spring for the 70-300 later.


----------



## 325ic a beer (Oct 21, 2005)

*Hi,,*

If I were you , I'd try and go with something just a bit faster...... say 2.8.
I have a Canon "L" series 17-40 mm 4.0 and I wish I would have gone with the 
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM instead. Although I LOVE my 17-40 4.0 "L", I think I would have been better served by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM right off the bat. By the way, my next purchase???
A EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## 325ic a beer (Oct 21, 2005)

*Hi,,*

If I were you , I'd try and go with something just a bit faster...... say 2.8.
I have a Canon "L" series 17-40 mm 4.0 and I wish I would have gone with the 
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM instead. Although I LOVE my 17-40 4.0 "L", I think I would have been better served by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM right off the bat.
I keep finding that I totally NEED the extra light input ALOT of times i'm shooting. In the daytime, no. At night or inside buildings? Yes!!

By the way, my next purchase???

A EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## kjb (Oct 10, 2005)

*Good marks*

from Nikonians. I don't remember exactly where, but probably on the D70 forum. I read several reviews before I bought mine. Very cool.

Something else I forgot to bring to my first Bimmerfest.

Keith



Dave 330i said:


> I'm ready to spring for the Nikon D70s, packaged with the subject lens. Is this lens worth having if most of my images will be sports shots, or the Nikon 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 G is preferred?


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

325ic a beer said:


> If I were you , I'd try and go with something just a bit faster...... say 2.8.
> I have a Canon "L" series 17-40 mm 4.0 and I wish I would have gone with the
> EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM instead. Although I LOVE my 17-40 4.0 "L", I think I would have been better served by the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM right off the bat. By the way, my next purchase???
> A EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


I know what you mean. Those fast lens drive up cost substantially.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> I know what you mean. Those fast lens drive up cost substantially.


If money is an object, perhaps you'd be better served by the Nikon D50 and use the difference towards the lens. Camera and lens has to match. You wouldn't drive an M3 with all season tire, would you? Hmmm... maybe *you* would. Nevermind. :eeps:
BTW, Costco has the D50 kit, with both 17-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $800. It even includes a SD card and a carrying bag in the kit. :wow:
The 300mm you're considering costs only $100 for a reason. It's usefull only in bright outdoor situations. At the 300mm end, it can get too shaky for hand held use if the sun is not cooperating. For indoors and night sports/action shots the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 is much better.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dave 330i said:


> I'm ready to spring for the Nikon D70s, packaged with the subject lens. Is this lens worth having if most of my images will be sports shots, or the Nikon 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 G is preferred?


I have both the 18-70mm and 70-300mm G lenses and think the 18-70mm is the better lens. The 18-70mm is a "DX" lens specifically designed for DSLRs and a higher quality lens. The 70-300 "G" is only $125.00, so it really won't cost you much to own both lenses. I highly recommend the www.nikonians.org site if you have questions regarding Nikons.

Regards...JL


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Absolutely, an unqualified yes (on the 18-70)! That lens is a stunner. As I mentioned in another thread, I did a studio comparison to some of my older Nikkor AF primes and even a 24-85 f2.8-4 AF zoom (a lens that costs double and weighs double). That D70 kit lens (on my D70s body) matched or beat them in almost every way (not in flare resistance or chromatic abberation). It focuses fast & quiet (AFS). The killer bonus is how light it is.

Some people are happy with that 70-300 but I am NOT one of them. I have their best ED version of it and I have to work very hard to get acceptable results. Here is as-good-as-I-can-get (f11, 1/500th sec, tripod, cable release, manual pre-focus) at 220 mm. It is good enough for posting and maybe a 5x7 print. My lens gets extra-soft above 220 mm. I'm sure it is good enough for snapshots and learning.










Here's a link to a larger version (too big to post in-line here) -- http://static.flickr.com/22/33771006_627bfb7651_o.jpg

Anyway, I highly recommend that if you're serious about images that you save up for a better long lens. Maybe a used 80-200 f2.8 (very heavy, slightly slow focusing)

Oh, and here's one of my favorite images taken with that kit lens. I used a reflector to throw light onto the wheels and I got lucky with the sky (not a Photoshop drop-in). This image made a magnificent 12" x 16" (approx on Super B size paper) print for the owner of that custom 1969 Camaro (shaved handles, show-quality paint, custom interior, & a 383 stoker motor that scares the paint off most other cars).


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Boile said:


> If money is an object, perhaps you'd be better served by the Nikon D50 and use the difference towards the lens. Camera and lens has to match. You wouldn't drive an M3 with all season tire, would you? Hmmm... maybe *you* would. Nevermind. :eeps:
> BTW, Costco has the D50 kit, with both 17-55mm and 55-200mm lenses for $800. It even includes a SD card and a carrying bag in the kit. :wow:
> The 300mm you're considering costs only $100 for a reason. It's usefull only in bright outdoor situations. At the 300mm end, it can get too shaky for hand held use if the sun is not cooperating. For indoors and night sports/action shots the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 is much better.


I bought the D70s today with the 18-70 lens, extra battery, and a 2 gb card to my door for less than $1K


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> I bought the D70s today with the 18-70 lens, extra battery, and a 2 gb card to my door for less than $1K


That setup should serve you well. Nikon cameras seem to be frugal with batteries though - I spent last Sunday worrying about the low battery in my D2X while capturing over 800 images using that same low battery.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Cliff3 said:


> That setup should serve you well. Nikon cameras seem to be frugal with batteries though - I spent last Sunday worrying about the low battery in my D2X while capturing over 800 images using that same low battery.


I've heard anywhere up to 2000 shots on a chrage depending on what you are doing. That's pretty damn good power management. :thumbup:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> I bought the D70s today with the 18-70 lens, extra battery, and a 2 gb card to my door for less than $1K


:wow: That's a great deal.
Brand new?
Link?


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Boile said:


> :wow: That's a great deal.
> Brand new?
> Link?


I got my D70s with the 18-70 and 70-300 and it aslo came with 2gb CF, UV filter, cleaning kit, and bag for $1,119 from Canogacamera.com :thumbup: The kit I bought is right on the front page!

The place was recomended by some other camera guys I know. The other good place to buy is B&H Photo.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

For a telephoto lens, I'm not sure why you need a 2.8 for digital. You need that for film cause you have to use low ISO, right? For digital, which is a lot more sensitive to light, you don't need it, I'd think.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> Lenses aren't designed for digital, except to decrease the focal length. 28-105 mm for film, is reduced to 18-70 mm for digital, that's all.
> 
> Nikon & Canon design their digital SLR bodies for their existing lenses, not the other way around.


Nikon's DX and Canon's EF-S lenses produce a smaller image circle suited to the APS-size sensors used by Nikon and some Canon bodies.


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

Cliff3 said:


> Nikon's DX and Canon's EF-S lenses produce a smaller image circle suited to the APS-size sensors used by Nikon and some Canon bodies.


The Canon EF-S lenses do not work on Full Frame cameras but for hacks like me who have the 1.6 crop they are fine.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> For a telephoto lens, I'm not sure why you need a 2.8 for digital. You need that for film cause you have to use low ISO, right? For digital, which is a lot more sensitive to light, you don't need it, I'd think.


Wrong.
Why do you think those professionals at the sidelines of football games carry gigantic 30lb lenses (and they all use digital nowadays)?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Boile said:


> Wrong.
> Why do you think those professionals at the sidelines of football games carry gigantic 30lb lenses (and they all use digital nowadays)?


Did I suggest throwing out your thousands of dollars worth of film lenses? No.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

JDMOTO said:


> haha, thats a joke dude. im sorry but the reason why the high end cameras have lower iso is because you have alot less noise then what ever iso your running at. Have you ever shot something in the dark at low iso? you can see that the black isn't so black and the way the colors fade (shift) isn't so smooth? well thats because your camera isn't taking in enough light. Yes, you might think that your camera the D50 doesn't need it, because you never had the option to use a lower iso. Try bumping up your iso just one level higher, you can see the noise. now imagine if you had an iso my lower then the lowest setting, you'll have a much cleaner looking picture.
> 
> Also, if your saying that you dont really need f2.8 on a digital then you might need to read up a bit on your photography. I said before, the reason why someone want to use the larger aperture is because of its speed while still using very low iso, the nice shallow dof to isolate the subject from the background. Also with a fixed ap. f/2.8 you can absorb more light because of how big the lens is. (which is why they are called faster lens)


I don't know much about photography, but I do know something about hobbies. And in any hobby, be it cars or photography, people like to buy expensive stuff so they can stand out from the average joe. It often has little to do with results. Is this the case with expensive telephoto lenses? I don't know, but Ken Rockwell seems to think so.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital



> *Telephoto Zooms for Digital*
> 
> This is easy! The 1.5x factor that wreaks havoc for getting normal or wide zooms makes telephotos trivial. Digital's higher ISOs also eliminate the need for the heavy, expensive fast f/2.8 zooms of film days, except of course if you want shallow depth of field for portraits.
> 
> ...


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> I don't know much about photography, but I do know something about hobbies. And in any hobby, be it cars or photography, people like to buy expensive stuff so they can stand out from the average joe. It often has little to do with results. Is this the case with expensive telephoto lenses? I don't know, but Ken Rockwell seems to think so.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital


I tried to get the Nikkor 18-200 in place of the 18-70/70-200 combo, but Canoga didn't have it.

In fact, most places I called didn't have this lens and a quick search on Ebay turned up some pretty significant price-gouging on those that did.

Ed


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

EdCT said:


> Not only that, but I got a personal call from a very nice woman from Canoga wanting to know how I'd heard of them. I told her a poster at bimmerfest recommended them - she got very excited as she, too, is a BMW owner (E46).
> 
> My package arrives by Friday. Thanks Test.
> 
> Ed


I talked to the same woman....VERY nice indeed. She wanted me to add my office address to my CC alternate shipping location. Very friendly. She called about 2 hours after I ordered. :thumbup:


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> I don't know much about photography, but I do know something about hobbies. And in any hobby, be it cars or photography, people like to buy expensive stuff so they can stand out from the average joe. It often has little to do with results. Is this the case with expensive telephoto lenses? I don't know, but Ken Rockwell seems to think so.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital


with that statement you posted. it had nothing to do with how fast the lens is. Yes it faster in focusing, but your shutter speed isn't fast enough to catch something moving in dark places (under low light). When i mean fast lens I mean you can shoot 100+ shutter speed under low light at a lower iso.

I guess if what he is saying is 100% then there would no need for the pro lens. Hmm maybe its because the expensive lens have more things they just speed to them. They also have better corner to corner sharpness, better saturation, color, contrast, and some are even waterproof. Also not to mention that they are fast lens.

I understand that hobbiest are sometimes collectors and need to brag about them having the most expensive toys. Have you tried shooting something with a f/2.8 (expensive lens) compaired it to a normal 3.5-5.6 lens and shoot it under a low light area? I dont own a nikon, but I have three lens that i can compare. my stock 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, 28-75 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and the 50mm can shoot @ a faster shutter speed then any of them at that given 50mm. Reason is i can drop it down to 1.8 and capture a lot of light. All this shooting the same iso.

Also i just reread your posted comment. "The great news about digital is that the *fast ISOs* usually excuse you from the need for an expensive f/2.8 lens." thats means shooting your camera at a higher iso setting like 800+.. say hi to noise for me. I would rather shoot at low iso and shoot with a faster lens. The comment didn't mean that digital has a faster iso then film. its just saying that you can shoot your regualr lens at a faste iso setting, but your trade os is noise in the picture.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

JDMOTO said:


> with that statement you posted. it had nothing to do with how fast the lens is. Yes it faster in focusing, but your shutter speed isn't fast enough to catch something moving in dark places (under low light). When i mean fast lens I mean you can shoot 100+ shutter speed under low light at a lower iso.
> 
> I guess if what he is saying is 100% then there would no need for the pro lens. Hmm maybe its because the expensive lens have more things they just speed to them. They also have better corner to corner sharpness, better saturation, color, contrast, and some are even waterproof. Also not to mention that they are fast lens.


Well, are you talking about low-light telephoto work, or general? You're getting pretty specific if you say you want the f/2.8 for low-light shots.

But overall, in his lens reviews, he talks about all those things - so if the expensive f/2.8s were superior in all those things you said, he wouldn't recommend getting the cheap lenses.

Why would he recommend the expensive f/2.8 lens for film, then turn around and say you don't need these lenses for digital?


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> Well, are you talking about low-light telephoto work, or general? You're getting pretty specific if you say you want the f/2.8 for low-light shots.
> 
> But overall, in his lens reviews, he talks about all those things - so if the expensive f/2.8s were superior in all those things you said, he wouldn't recommend getting the cheap lenses.
> 
> Why would he recommend the expensive f/2.8 lens for film, then turn around and say you don't need these lenses for digital?


because of what he stated. You can just up the iso to a faster iso speed to do what a fast lens can do on a lower iso speed. you even made it bold in the comment you said. This is another way for a normal consumer to get around the fact that if you can't shoot fast enough with your lens, you bump the iso higher to reach the faster shutter speed. Unlike film you can't change the film iso speed on the fly. the whole roll is either iso 100,400,800,1600 so running a larger fstop on a film will give you the advantage alot more.

Hey, if you dont want to shoot a lens with a fixed Av. then thats fine with me. but if you still think that the pro lens are just BS, Try one then try to say that again. Low-light shots is a big advantage with a larger Av. lens.

Funny thing is he raves about the expensive lens on film because hes shooting iso 50 thats why he nees a expensive lens. I'd like to see you try to shoot a normal lens during low-light with a iso 50 and handheld too. ya not going to happened. As you can see hes saying that the epxensive lens will last you 10 yrs + and no matter it will be hands down better.

Hes right, you dont have to use expensive heavy large Av. lens with digital, you can just boost up the ISO setting to 1600 or what not. Oh wait he forgets to mention that your pictures will look grainy with noise. If you can live with that in your pictures then be my guest, enjoy. I on the other hand would rather have a nice clean noise free picture. as would the rest of the people ive talked to. This is why everyone likes the faster more expensive lens.

Im not a pro photog, but ive done a lot of research on what glass i buy. I also know what the pros and cons are of the lens. To me if you have the money for a nice glass then you should buy it because in the long run the lens should pay itself off from all the prints you sell.


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

Guys, take Ken Rockwell with a huge grain of salt. He is very free with his opinion and sometimes it is worth exactly what you paid for it.

Larger available aperture is a great thing, until you have to carry it around all day along with other big lenses in your backpack. They tend to weigh 2X to 3X (hmm, and cost as that much more too). And the killer? At, say, f8 or higher the smaller max-aperture lens may work EXACTLY as well as the big-boy lens.

To the poster who mentioned all lenses work better stopped down a couple of stops, that is not actually true. It may be true of most (or even all?) 35 mm lenses but Michael Reichmann recently posted data on his site, The Luminous Landscape, that showed some better quality larger-format lenses resolve best wide open (aperture diffraction starts to limit resolution immediately). However, I agree with the general sentiment that, for typical lenses, a couple of stops aperture reduction helps tremendously. Don't confuse depth-of-field with actual resolution.

I think I've proven to myself that the 18-70 in the title of this thead hits best resolution about one stop down from wide open (but has a relatively shallow DOF at that).


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Penforhire said:


> Guys, take Ken Rockwell with a huge grain of salt. He is very free with his opinion and sometimes it is worth exactly what you paid for it.


:stupid: From what little of his reviews I have read, he doesn't seem like someone I would take advice from. :dunno:


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> The same deal that Dave bought is only $859 @ Canoga (camerabody and 18-70 DX kit lens).
> 
> The kit that Myself and EdCT bought has alot more stuff in it for $1119.95:
> 
> ...


That's why I bought the accessories elsewhere. Abes charged me $60 for 1900ah battery. I complained and they reduced it $20. I got a 2 gb card at frys for $50, and a UV filter at BB for $10. The buffer is good enough for me, so I don't need a super fast card. The other stuff I don't need or care about.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Dave 330i said:


> That's why I bought the accessories elsewhere. Abes charged me $60 for 1900ah battery. I complained and they reduced it $20. I got a 2 gb card at frys for $50, and a UV filter at BB for $10. The buffer is good enough for me, so I don't need a super fast card. The other stuff I don't need or care about.


I bought a ton of other stuff at the same time(flash, 50mm prime, backpack, filters....), so getting all at one place was easier.

As for the buffer being good...yeah I agree, but read/transfer times to the PC is faster with the better cards.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

Test_Engineer said:


> :stupid: From what little of his reviews I have read, he doesn't seem like someone I would take advice from. :dunno:


Anyone who tells hobbyists what they don't want to hear is going to be unpopular. I'm sure nobody who bought a $1500 lens wants to hear the $100 lens is just as good. But i like that about him. Nobody should be telling DSLR noobs they need $1500 f/2.8 glass.

It's just like track noobs who ask what they need for their first track day. Some tell them they need a Ground Control kit, strut bars, Motul 600 and R compounds. I tell them they need two hands and two eyes.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Dawg90 said:


> Anyone who tells hobbyists what they don't want to hear is going to be unpopular. I'm sure nobody who bought a $1500 lens wants to hear the $100 lens is just as good. But i like that about him. Nobody should be telling DSLR noobs they need $1500 f/2.8 glass.


I have both the 70-300 ED (non-G) and 80-200 AF-S f2.8. The 70-300 normally lives in a drawer in my guest room, while the 80-200 is in my camera bag. The only reason I haven't ebayed the 70-300 is in case I decide to take up mountain climbing (or an equivalent) as the f2.8 lens is quite heavy and bulky. The 70-300 is not in the same league as the 80-200 with respect to the quality of images produced from it.

Ken Rockwell has lots and lots of opinions. Sometimes, he's even right.


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> Anyone who tells hobbyists what they don't want to hear is going to be unpopular. I'm sure nobody who bought a $1500 lens wants to hear the $100 lens is just as good. But i like that about him. Nobody should be telling DSLR noobs they need $1500 f/2.8 glass.
> 
> It's just like track noobs who ask what they need for their first track day. Some tell them they need a Ground Control kit, strut bars, Motul 600 and R compounds. I tell them they need two hands and two eyes.


how the hell did we get into noobs buying 1500 lens? your question was "But how is that a benefit over an old film lens? Are you getting more light?"

to answer your noob question. As for the noob buying a 1500 f/2.8 from the first shot, well if hes got the money then he will have a good time learning from that lens. He will own that lens for 10+ years Also that might be his last lens in that range that he will buy. he can be smart use the stock lens and out grow that and then by the expensive lens.

Most of the companies sell the normal consumer priced lens because they are for people like you. They dont want to pay the big expensive prices for something that you wont use. People that just take picture @ family gatherings and vacations. Want something just a little better then a point and shoot. Ive even seen people buy a dslr just to say they have one. The Pro lens are for more advance photog users that do this just a tad bit more then a hooby maybe selling some prints or freelance. Where in the long run the lens will pay itself off.

So anyways, back to your old question that everyone here seemed to have asnswered. Yes a f/2.8 (expensive lens) will help the digital SLR, yes you do get more light.

finally, Anyone will tell you a f/2.8 lens thats made for pro. is hands down better then a normal consumer lens. Like i said before the lens is expensive because of everything about the lens not just because its got a large f-stop.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

JDMOTO said:


> how the hell did we get into noobs buying 1500 lens? your question was "But how is that a benefit over an old film lens? Are you getting more light?"


That was my question about DX lenses, not f/2.8 lenses. There is no extra light gained by using a DX lens.



JDMOTO said:


> finally, Anyone will tell you a f/2.8 lens thats made for pro. is hands down better then a normal consumer lens. Like i said before the lens is expensive because of everything about the lens not just because its got a large f-stop.


Obviously not 'anyone', because Ken Rockwell recommends not to buy the expensive f/2.8 telephotos for digital. He does recommend it for film, which was my whole point. I think some 'expert' advise doesn't apply to digital, but they keep giving it anyway.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Does anyone use his D70s beyond AUTO and preset sitution modes? Sorry I asked.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Dave 330i said:


> Does anyone use his D70s beyond AUTO and preset sitution modes? Sorry I asked.


I rarely use the AUTO in my D50.
I found that P, which pretty much works as AUTO except it won't pop the flash, gives better results. The bonus is that I can chose to change apperture or speed, should I chose to.
Try it. Take the same picture with AUTO and then P. Compare the results.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Dave 330i said:


> Does anyone use his D70s beyond AUTO and preset sitution modes? Sorry I asked.


I think I've used Auto twice since I got mine. :dunno: Usually shoot in (A)aperature priority or (M)full manual. Of coarse, if I'm shooting a fast target or night shots I use (S) shutter priority. Manual is easier than you think. Select an aperature and then adjust the shutter speed by using the meter in the viewfinder, or the other way around.

But basically I use A, so I can use as big of an aperature as possible to let as much light in as possible. It also helps make the focal point pop a bit more.


----------



## EdCT (Mar 14, 2002)

Dave 330i said:


> Does anyone use his D70s beyond AUTO and preset sitution modes? Sorry I asked.


The only time I use auto is either at indoor party situations where I'm just documenting the occasion, or if I want to see what the camera is suggesting for a particular shot.

Otherwise, like Test, it's either aperture priority or full manual, the way I used to do it back in the day when I was an avid film photographer.

I sometimes take several shots of the same thing slightly varying settings until I get what I want (similar to 'bracketing', read your manual), with a digital camera, it's a snap, just delete what you don't want.

The D70s is a deep camera, there's lots to learn, I suggest really digging in and learning about exposure compensation, fill-flash, MASP mode etc., if you're going to use it in auto mode, a simple point and shoot is a better choice.

Ed


----------



## JDMOTO (Aug 10, 2005)

Dawg90 said:


> That was my question about DX lenses, not f/2.8 lenses. There is no extra light gained by using a DX lens.
> 
> Obviously not 'anyone', because Ken Rockwell recommends not to buy the expensive f/2.8 telephotos for digital. He does recommend it for film, which was my whole point. I think some 'expert' advise doesn't apply to digital, but they keep giving it anyway.


well there is a DX lens that can capture a lot of light and its the 17-55 f/2.8, but i guess you will never want to use that lens because its too much for you. even though its has the one of higest rating in the DX family. I wonder why?

ah **** here we go again. did you read what he said. **** the whole reason why he said that? Do you know what the pro and cons are of not using a faster lens, a better built lens? If you dont even care to think about why someone would use one then, your very short minded. Thats good that you truthfully think that rockwell knows all. I bet you hes using expensive lens when hes shooting for client or a job with his digital.

Im done with this dumb argument with you. Ever wonder why people say, its not really about the camera but the lens you use. Ever wonder why lens a hell of alot more then bodies? Reason is without a nice optic lens, you pictures will just be eh.. ok.. not great. It might be alright with your eyes, because thats what your use too see. Reason why Pro users that get paid big bucks use expesive lens is because of that reason. They use the best, top rated optics to take the pictures because ok isn't good enough to them. They have to be the best.. kinda like in autocross. why not use ok brakes that will fade on your run after the 3rd lap. when you can opt. for something better a little more that will hold up a lot longer? same idea, right?


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

JDMOTO said:


> well there is a DX lens that can capture a lot of light and its the 17-55 f/2.8, but i guess you will never want to use that lens because its too much for you. even though its has the one of higest rating in the DX family. I wonder why?
> 
> ah **** here we go again. did you read what he said.


You can spin it all you want, but Ken Rockwell was crystal clear on the issue:

"If you want to spend more and carry heavy lenses then feel free to get an f/2.8"

If you want to say Ken Rockwell is wrong, fine.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

Dawg90 said:


> When my 18-200 VR lens shows up in 2009, I'll let you know if it's any good.
> 
> The thing I hate about Point & Shoots is the interminable startup and shutter speed, even on the latest models.


I've owned the 18-200 VR since early 3/06 and it is a great lens. It is the only lens I took to the Canadian GP this year and it has worked well. I've taken over 500 images with my D200+18-200 VR and have been very happy with the combo.

Hope this helps...JL


----------



## Spectre (Aug 1, 2002)

SRFast said:


> I've owned the 18-200 VR since early 3/06 and it is a great lens. It is the only lens I took to the Canadian GP this year and it has worked well. I've taken over 500 images with my D200+18-200 VR and have been very happy with the combo.
> 
> Hope this helps...JL


No, it just makes the wait all that much harder.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Spiderm0n said:


> So I just ordered the 70-300 G. Ed, that is the one you guys ordered in the package, right? Thoughts? I also considered the 18-200, but given the difficulty of finding the lens I figured I would see how this goes.
> 
> I bought the D50 in January and haven't taken it off auto yet. I just ordered a digital photography guide on Amazon, My plan all along was to grow into its capabilities, and Nikon has me hooked so far.... I have to echo Dave's comments, however: The D50 on auto is still a dream compared to the point and shoot cameras I have used.


Not according to EdCT. If you use the AUTO mode in your D50, you should just go with a point and shoot camera.


----------

