Currently shooting with a D70S with the below 2 lenses.
Looking for suggestions on what my next lens should be.
I don't have a photo, but the current 55-200 I have is the below lens with VR, so I actually have 2 55-200 lenses.

Wanting a general use 'EDC' type lens. Also want something with a bit more zoom than the 55-200 for if we get tickets to the F1 race again this year, but that may be a 2nd purchase down the road.

I'm wanting to get into shooting more, probably not needing anything macro for now.

AF-S Nikkor 55-200 1:4-5.6G ED


AF-S Nikkor 18-70 1:3.5-4.5G ED

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nik...dream-team.htm#18200

This one is a tad expensive, but I hardly ever take mine off my body (started DSLR with a D80; upgraded this year to a D300).

It's as close to a 'do-all' lense that I can think of. Zooms in nicely for far shots and zooms out enough for good close-ups. It's a tad big (especially since my D300 ins't that small to begin with) but you will get used to it quickly enough.

Could go with a 1.4X or 2.0X Tele-Extender rather than a separate lens. But, generally the quality of the shots will be better using a separate longer lens.

1.4 would give you 280mm on the 200mm lens, 2.0 gives you 400mm.

A prime lens (not a zoom) will generally be a better quality image. Nikon has a 500mm and 600mm prime but you will pay up for them.

My 2 cents.

I took my D300/18-200mm to an airshow, and it was great. Good for close-ups, and decent enough for zoom shots on aircraft that were flying by. IMO, A long prime lens (especially above 400mm) will be more or less useless for anything closer to you than 100 feet. I shot sports last year using a Canon with a 75-500mm zoom, and it wasn't good for anything close. I wouldn't recommend it for an EDC lens. . .

Edit to add:

If you want more than 200mm, then I really don't think you are describing an "Every-Day" lens. I would consider those to be 'specialist' lenses.

Our 18-200 has an almost permanent home on the D90.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nik...dream-team.htm#18200

This one is a tad expensive, but I hardly ever take mine off my body (started DSLR with a D80; upgraded this year to a D300).

It's as close to a 'do-all' lense that I can think of. Zooms in nicely for far shots and zooms out enough for good close-ups. It's a tad big (especially since my D300 ins't that small to begin with) but you will get used to it quickly enough.

I have that 18-200, and it is good. It distorts a bit at the low end, but that can be fixed in Photoshop if it bothers you. It is a slowish lens, so if you need something faster, a zoom with a more limited zoom range can be faster. It is a good one lens choice. The VR stabilization lets you shoot in low light pretty effectively.

But, I'd consider a less long zoom, more like the 17 to 70 (maybe a faster one, although that pushes the price up), and then a long lens for sports.

One-size-fits-all solutions usually only get you close. There are compromises.

I used to use the 18-200 for everything. IMHO it's the best all in one walking around lens for a Nikon.

It might not shot a car race since f3.5 is the best it does. On a sunny day though you would likely be ok.

I'm going to go in a different direction on this. I believe that the D70s only has around a 6 MP chip and that doesn't allow for cropping a shot that a camera body with a lot more MP to get the results you are looking for. I have a D5300 with a 24.2 MP chip that allows me to crop without much of a loss in sharpness or detail. You might be better off getting a different body.

Jim

You should get a 35 1.8. This lens is so fast that you don’t need a flash in many low light situations. It’s a great lens for candid shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by Suppressed:
You should get a 35 1.8. This lens is so fast that you don’t need a flash in many low light situations. It’s a great lens for candid shooting.

It is a great lens for many uses. Great for candids of people. Great for vistas and BIG things not too far away. But not good for sports, or animals you can't get close to, etc. In other words, smaller things that are far away.

It is true that some photographers forget that they can always use the old foot-zoom. That is, walk closer to the subject.

Thanks so far, some good things for me to look into.

If I wasn't clear in the OP, I'm not opposed to a good 'do-all' lens to get now & a later purchase of a better high zoom/telephoto for later.

The above mentioned Prime, is definitely an easier price to swallow compared to the further above 18-200.

Still learning & trying to find more time to shoot. Not opposed to a prime, since I expect a lot of my shooting wouldn't be things in motion, aside from the once a year trip to Austin for the race.

Personally i really love the 18-140mm that came with my D7000. Even after acquiring quite a few other more expensive lenses in the same zoom range it's the one i keep going back to for its size, weight, sharpness and focal range. Very easily my favorite do all type lens.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:
I'm going to go in a different direction on this. I believe that the D70s only has around a 6 MP chip and that doesn't allow for cropping a shot that a camera body with a lot more MP to get the results you are looking for. I have a D5300 with a 24.2 MP chip that allows me to crop without much of a loss in sharpness or detail. You might be better off getting a different body.

+1


I moved from my D80 (bought new in 2007) to my D300 (bought used with only 300 shutter activations on it this summer) (I ran through more than 300 photos just playing around with it trying to see how the thing worked), and the difference is AMAZING. My D80 seems like a dinosaur by comparison. And, the D300 is 5 yrs old or so. It only cost around $350 for the body (IIRC, brand new, it was something like $1500-1800). Used DSLRs are really cheap, as the bodies don't hold their value at all. Buy good glass, and you can practically discard the old bodies when you are done with them.

Besides a much better sensor and larger image size, the LCD panel is much bigger than that on my D80 (and downright yuge compared to your D70). I LOVE my D300. I put my 18-200 on it, and don't even bother with anything else unless I have something weird to shoot (I use my f1.8 35mm prime for low light inside, my Tokina 12-28 at airplane museums (I can get wide shots when I can't back up a lot), and my 18-55mm if I really want something smaller/lighter for everyday use).

I would suggest getting a used D90 or D300, or maybe even jump to the 3000 or 5000 series so you can have video capabilities.

As far as getting good photos of the cars at the race, from the stands you will only get poor-to-adequate photos as they pass by you. The pros will be in the photo pit up close with their $10-20,000 lenses getting their good shots. I've never been to an F1 race, but it would be a pain in the butt carrying around anything bigger than 300mm all day.

In my opinion, you already own it, i.e. the 18-70. Sure, there are zooms with a wider range, however, image quality usually suffers at the extremes.

http://www.imaging-resource.co...-af-s-nikkor/review/


"Back when we first tested the Nikon D70 at Imaging Resource, we were impressed by the quality of the 18-70mm lens that came bundled with it in retail packages. It wasn't until we looked at the results from DxO Analyzer though, that we realized just how good it actually is."

quote:

Originally posted by sigproshooter:
Personally i really love the 18-140mm that came with my D7000. Even after acquiring quite a few other more expensive lenses in the same zoom range it's the one i keep going back to for its size, weight, sharpness and focal range. Very easily my favorite do all type lens.

I'll second the vote for the 18-140. Ive got that one and a 55-300 for my D7100. The 18-140 is a great, "Do it all lens" and not as bulky as some of the wider range zooms like the 18-200 and 18-300. It's the one that lives on my camera most of the time.

35mm 1.8 prime lens. Less is more.

When I was using the D90, the 18-200mm VR worked pretty damm good.

I second the 35mm 1.8 prime as an EDC lense. The picture quality on this $215 lens will be better than any of the lenses mention above. Also it is fast for low light or fast action shooting. If you like that, you can get an 85 or 105 later for more reach. These 2 in the D version could be found on the cheap.

My 18-200 has served me well on a D40x, a D7000 and now a D7200. I would guess I’ve shoot 20,000 photos with it.

Sounding like 18-200 & 35mm prime are the leading recommendations.
Given that I have the 55-200 & 18-70, those cover the range of the 18-200? So maybe the Prime would be an addition rather than eliminating an overlap?