A 28-200 for the digital world

[Andres Garcia]

Hi I own a D70 and want to change my lens. I have a Tamron 28-200, that worked fine with my SLR cámera, but with the digital body it is too slow. I would like to carry only one lens, like this, but for the digital body.

Which would be the best? I coul spend 500 to 700 us dollars

thank for any advice

Andres

[D70FAN]

Hi I own a D70 and want to change my lens. I have a Tamron 28-200, that worked fine with my SLR cámera, but with the digital body it is too slow. I would like to carry only one lens, like this, but for the digital body.

Which would be the best? I coul spend 500 to 700 us dollars

thank for any advice

Andres

You might want to look at the Sigma 18-125. Or wait and try the two new 18-200 lenses from Sigma and Tamron. I use the Sigma 18-125 with my D70 as a day-to-day shooter, and it covers about 90% of my shooting.

Yes it does vignette at full telephoto (125mm) and low apertures (f5.6 to f8), but for the overall picture quality and excellent performance between about 20mm and 115mm (very little barrel distortion and no vignetting) it's better than most. And for $270 it is truely a bargain.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words...

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/gallery/197044

Actually most of the pictures on this site are taken with the Sigma, so feel free to cruise around.

[speaklightly]

In the "one lens" situation, my recommendation would be the Tokina 24-200MM F3.5-5.6. The lens is very wel priced and does a better job than the Tamron 28-200mm. We have samples of photos with that lens available at:

www.digicamlady.smugmug.com/gallery/449518

Sarah Joyce

[sarcazmo]

What abou the Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-4.5? Seems to be getting pretty good reviews.

[D70FAN]

What abou the Nikkor 28-105 f3.5-4.5? Seems to be getting pretty good reviews.

The only drawback is that at 28mm on a D70 you no longer have a wide-angle lens (it's now 42mm).

[speaklightly]

My wide angle choice for the D-70 was the Nikkor 12-24mm F 4.0 and I am very pleased with the lens. It does a great job.

Sarah Joyce

[Andres Garcia]

Thank you for your advices... but I find that 5.6 is not an accpetable lowest aperture...when you don't have enough light it doesn't work well. I think it is worth for me to wait a while, and work with my tamron 28-200 because there is not an affordable solution that makes a real difference.


Andres

[gary_hendricks]

I second the Sigma 18-125 which George has recommended.

[Ray Schnoor]

Hi I own a D70 and want to change my lens. I have a Tamron 28-200, that worked fine with my SLR cámera, but with the digital body it is too slow.

Out of curiosity, why is your lens adequate for a film SLR but not for a digital SLR.

Ray.

[Andres Garcia]

Out of curiosity, why is your lens adequate for a film SLR but not for a digital SLR.

Ray.

Because you have to multiply by 1.6 the aperture and the wide angle. So my Tamron 28-200 f3.5 for a film SLR, in my digital SLR is an 42-320, f5.6. That is not more a wide angle lens, and is a very slow.

Andres

[Ray Schnoor]

Because you have to multiply by 1.6 the aperture and the wide angle. So my Tamron 28-200 f3.5 for a film SLR, in my digital SLR is an 42-320, f5.6. That is not more a wide angle lens, and is a very slow.

From your earlier post, I wasn't aware that the 1.5x multiplier for the D70 was a problem for you. If you want a wider angle lens, I would suggest trying either the Sigma 18-125 or 18-200, the Tamron 18-200, or the Tokina 24-200.

As to the aperture, this is the first time I had ever heard anything like this and don't see any reason that this would be true. The same amount of light is getting through the lens as on a film camera, you are just exposing a smaller area to the light. This only increases the equivalent focal length of the lens.

Here is a link to a similar question on the Nikon website:

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=BdR-59Ch&p_lva=&p_faqid=288&p_created=1032968059&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTM2J nBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cGhvdG8gbXVsdGlwbGllciZwX3NlYXJ jaF90eXBlPTMmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9MTkmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9f mFueX4mcF9jYXRfbHZsMT1_YW55fiZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=

[D70FAN]

Because you have to multiply by 1.6 the aperture and the wide angle. So my Tamron 28-200 f3.5 for a film SLR, in my digital SLR is an 42-320, f5.6. That is not more a wide angle lens, and is a very slow.

Andres

Andres, The multiplier is 1.5 (1.6 for Canon). Your Tamron 28-200 has an aperture range of f3.5-5.6. It does not matter if it is film or digital the lens is the same aperture range. The only thing that changes is the apparent focal length. So now the lens would be rated at 42-300 and still the same minimum aperture range of f3.5-5.6.

so now if you were to buy an 18-50mm lens you would have a pretty good range using two lenses. And both would be average "speed". But as we have said before you might be happier with a single lens that covers 18-125 (Sigma) or 18-200 from either Sigma or Tamron.

On your D70 the Sigma 18-125 would now be 27-187, and the 18-70 would be 27-300. Again, the minimum aperture does not change.

Hope that helps.

[Andres Garcia]

[QUOTE=George Riehm]Andres, The multiplier is 1.5 (1.6 for Canon). Your Tamron 28-200 has an aperture range of f3.5-5.6. It does not matter if it is film or digital the lens is the same aperture range. The only thing that changes is the apparent focal length. So now the lens would be rated at 42-300 and still the same minimum aperture range of f3.5-5.6.

You are right, I missunderstood the facts about the aperture range, thank you very much for your time... I will tray the Sigma 18-125...

Andres

[D70FAN]

[QUOTE=George Riehm]Andres, The multiplier is 1.5 (1.6 for Canon). Your Tamron 28-200 has an aperture range of f3.5-5.6. It does not matter if it is film or digital the lens is the same aperture range. The only thing that changes is the apparent focal length. So now the lens would be rated at 42-300 and still the same minimum aperture range of f3.5-5.6.

You are right, I missunderstood the facts about the aperture range, thank you very much for your time... I will tray the Sigma 18-125...

Andres

Glad to help. Please remember that the 18-125 is a consumer lens, and you may want to read my comments from an earlier post talking about vignetting. Not a big issue, but you need to be aware of it.

[Bullitt]

[QUOTE=George Riehm]You might want to look at the Sigma 18-125. Or wait and try the two new 18-200 lenses from Sigma and Tamron.

I think any one of these lenses would be a good choice for everyday use, been thinking I should have went for the D70 body and a lens longer than the 18-70mm that came in the kit. I know a new lens is in the near future... By the way George, I love the way the D70 works compared to the Coolpix, its a little heavier but I will get used to that...

Bullitt

[D70FAN]

[QUOTE=George Riehm]You might want to look at the Sigma 18-125. Or wait and try the two new 18-200 lenses from Sigma and Tamron.

I think any one of these lenses would be a good choice for everyday use, been thinking I should have went for the D70 body and a lens longer than the 18-70mm that came in the kit. I know a new lens is in the near future... By the way George, I love the way the D70 works compared to the Coolpix, its a little heavier but I will get used to that...

Bullitt

I have yet to meet a D70 owner who didn't like the camera... alot. After a year of using the camera the weight isn't even a factor.

[palmbook]

If you are sure that you can live with 28mm wide-end, Nikon 28-200mm G ED IF AF (whatever) is the best ultra-zoom lens i've ever seen.

The second contender would be Tokina 24-200mm.

For 28-105mm F3.5-4.5, this is a very good lens. At 28mm F3.5, it's even sharper than a 28mm F2.8 prime lens, and so at F8! The only minus when compared to prime one is distortion (well, not serious, just worse).

Nikon 28-200 hits F5.6 ceiling a way too fast (at around 50-70mm only). That's why I go for 28-105mm instead. However, if I'm sure that I won't need anything wider than 28mm and I will need tele lens, 28-200mm is my first choice ;)

[Bullitt]

Lenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi...

Just a few questions:

1. Is there a big difference between 18mm and 24mm on the low end of these lenses?

2. How do the handheld shots turn out at 200mm without a tripod or an Image Stabilizing mode?

3. Where is the best place to purchase lenses such as the Tamrom 18-200mm and the Tokina 24-200mm?
__________________
Bullitt

I just posted this in another forum then read your article Palm, now Im really mixed up as to what lens to purchase... :confused:

[palmbook]

Lenses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi...

Just a few questions:

1. Is there a big difference between 18mm and 24mm on the low end of these lenses?

2. How do the handheld shots turn out at 200mm without a tripod or an Image Stabilizing mode?

3. Where is the best place to purchase lenses such as the Tamrom 18-200mm and the Tokina 24-200mm?
__________________
Bullitt

I just posted this in another forum then read your article Palm, now Im really mixed up as to what lens to purchase... :confused:
1. What do you mean? If you are talking about angle of view,Sure, it's a huge difference, especially whenever you can't step back anymore.
2. Fast shutter speed and well-trained hands.
3. bhphotovideo? maybe. as you can return them if you dislike them.

[Grossie]

After trying out a 70-300 Nikon lens I realized that the wide angle side of it was just way to narrow for an amateur like me. I bought the Tamron 18-200 today ($400) and I really like what this thing can do as far as versatility. The low end is exactly the same as my Nikon kit lens, and the high end is terrific. I'm sure I'm not going to get the same quality shots as if I had gone up market looking for a lens, but this thing seems like the ideal solution for me, a pure amateur. As a bonus, it's hardly any larger than my Nikon 18-70 (maybe 1/4") and it's about the same weight.

Anyone want to buy a Nikon 18-70 DX lens? ;)

[D70FAN]

After trying out a 70-300 Nikon lens I realized that the wide angle side of it was just way to narrow for an amateur like me. I bought the Tamron 18-200 today ($400) and I really like what this thing can do as far as versatility. The low end is exactly the same as my Nikon kit lens, and the high end is terrific. I'm sure I'm not going to get the same quality shots as if I had gone up market looking for a lens, but this thing seems like the ideal solution for me, a pure amateur. As a bonus, it's hardly any larger than my Nikon 18-70 (maybe 1/4") and it's about the same weight.

Anyone want to buy a Nikon 18-70 DX lens? ;)

Grossie, How about posting some of those shots at different aperture and zoom settings. None of the local stores seem to have these and I'm very interested in expanding from my 18-125 Sigma. ;)

Thanks.

[Bullitt]

Grossie,

You seem to be happy with the Tamron 18-200 lens, I think I will look at this or the Sigma 18-200 when it is available. I have read here that the Tokina 24-200mm lens produces sharper images but I do not wish to lose the wide angle on the lower limits of one of these lenses. I also may have an 18-70 DX for sale along with a Coolpix 8800... :eek:

[Grossie]

I may be out with the camera today, so if I shoot anything worth posting I will do so.

As for availability, my local "real" camera store didn't have it, but Ritz camera did! Since I'm a typical American I went with instant gratification over customer loyalty :D (actually the "real" camera store also did something that pissed me off a little, so I feel no guilt).

[Grossie]

Here are some shots, I did them in my kitchen just for fun. All were shot at ISO 400. I had to dumb them down quite a bit in order to get them onto this website. Let's see how they look here (nothing spectacular really)

[Grossie]

They're pretty grainy, but I guess you can get the idea about what's in there. They look nothing like this on my computer, obviously clarity is much better in real life. I hope this can at least give you an idea.

I have done some shots with both lenses (the Tamron and Nikkor) side by side and find that I can't notice a difference in image quality, but I haven't done anything terrifically challenging.

[palmbook]

They're pretty grainy, but I guess you can get the idea about what's in there. They look nothing like this on my computer, obviously clarity is much better in real life. I hope this can at least give you an idea.

I have done some shots with both lenses (the Tamron and Nikkor) side by side and find that I can't notice a difference in image quality, but I haven't done anything terrifically challenging.
good images. However they're not grainy, but muddy cos of quality-dump-down.

[jeisner]

You are right, I missunderstood the facts about the aperture range, thank you very much for your time... I will tray the Sigma 18-125...

Andres

Well yes and no... For example a 20mm f2 lens will be as Bright on digital as on film, and it will have the equivelant FOV of 30mm (1.5 crop) on digital... But it will not have the DOF of an f2 30mm lens on digital it will actually have the DOF of a 30mm f3 lens.... This is why those small sensor Prosumer cameras are not capable of shallow DOF photos... They may have a 4x crop factor so an f2 lens has the DOF of a f8 lens...

[D70FAN]

Well yes and no... For example a 20mm f2 lens will be as Bright on digital as on film, and it will have the equivelant FOV of 30mm (1.5 crop) on digital... But it will not have the DOF of an f2 30mm lens on digital it will actually have the DOF of a 30mm f3 lens.... This is why those small sensor Prosumer lenses are not capable of shallow DOF photos... They may have a 4x crop factor so an f2 lens has the DOF of a f8 lens...

Very good point, and one obvioulsy overlooked in most discussions. Thanks.

[jeisner]

Very good point, and one obvioulsy overlooked in most discussions. Thanks.

I only found out when I had my FZ20 because I was hell-bent on knowing why I could never get a shallow DOF, one of the big disadvantages of smaller sensors IMO..