PDA

View Full Version : Nikon 70mm-200mm lens



anco85
08-08-2007, 01:11 AM
Hi guys.

After a pretty heavy discussion on why NOT to get the d40 in the "which camera" forum, I decided to go and test out the d40 at a retailer yesterday.

The d40 + kit lens goes for roughly $700 here, but they do however sell a double kit lens setup which includes the kitty and a 70mm-200mm nikon lens for roughlly $900

Im pretty new to slr'ng so I know sweet blow all about lenses.

What is a 70mm-200mm lens used for and is this particular one any good?

Thanx in advance
Anco

fionndruinne
08-08-2007, 01:45 AM
Well, a 70-200mm lens is a telephoto lens, meaning it offers more reach, to get you up close to the action. The D40's kit lens, on the other hand, is from 18mm, called wide angle, which captures a lot of the scene, to 55mm, considered just on the edge of telephoto zoom.

But I've not heard of a Nikon 70-200mm lens for this kind of price. Are you sure it's made by Nikon (their lenses are called Nikkor)? Sounds suspiciously like a cheap telephoto (such as Quantaray) for a Nikon mount, rather than a genuine Nikkor lens.

Or, perhaps you are thinking of a 55-200mm lens? I know the D40 is offered with a two-lens kit, made up of the kit lens plus a 55-200mm AF-S Nikkor. If this is the case with what you're looking at, this lens will probably be the older Nikkor version without a handy thing called VR, which is Vibration Reduction, or anti-shake stabilization. I'd advise against it! There's a better 55-200mm Nikkor lens newly out, one with VR, for only about $50-$75 more than the one without VR. Why's this important? Well, with a telephoto lens, when shooting with the camera in your hand, the enhanced zoom power of the lens is going to "magnify" any shaking your hand might do, resulting in blurry pictures much more commonly than when you're shooting with the kit lens.

Rooz
08-08-2007, 01:45 AM
exactly what lens is it ? there is only 1 nikon 70-200mm lens i know of and its around $1700, so its not that one. if it is the 55-200mmVR then thats a great little telephoto lens. it basically extends your zoom range.

the lens on your s3 is bascially a 36-432mm lens.

the kit lens is effectively 27-83mm lens. if you add the 55-200VR then you also get the added range of 83-300mm zoom.

one thing that scares the crap out of people moving from super zoom to dslr is how much LESS zoom range they normally have unless you;re prepared to spend the money on longer range lens'.

anco85
08-08-2007, 02:04 AM
it certainlly is a nikon lens and not a knock of. I might be mistaken, it might be the 55mm-200mm. I dont know if its the vr version, but it should be newish as they sell the lens seperatlly for a pretty penny but basically give it to you at a discounted price if you buy the d40. Ill go have a looksie later on to see if its the vr version.

I find that I almost never get even close to the long en of my zoom with the s3 and almost never zoom.

I mostlly do people shots and automotive shots and the odd macro shot(which im getting more and more into)

The thing is, if I want to zoom in far, I have the s3, if I want to do macro shots, I have the s3. So maybe I should skip on the 55-200 unless it has great IQ :D

Rooz
08-08-2007, 02:16 AM
if its the 55-200VR then thats a great little lens, lots of people here use it. xailo, reg, kiwi, andy etc if its not the VR version i;d give it a miss.

anco85
08-08-2007, 02:26 AM
Ill go have a gander during lunch time today. Other than writing, is there any other way to distinguish between the 2 versions?

K1W1
08-08-2007, 02:31 AM
The dual lens D40 kit has the 18-55 and the 55-200 (Non VR) lenses.
I personally wouldn't buy the dual lens kit. I would buy the body with the 18-55 and then get the 55-200 VR lens as a separate item at the same time. The VR version of the lens is much better and not very much more expensive so with some negotiation it should only cost you a small amount over the dual lens kit but you will be a lot better of in the long term.

anco85
08-08-2007, 02:39 AM
Oh ok then. that saves me a trip. Now I can spend my money on another lens anyway as I dont need a tele.

erichlund
08-08-2007, 08:01 AM
Oh ok then. that saves me a trip. Now I can spend my money on another lens anyway as I dont need a tele.

One thing I can tell you for certain. The more you use that dSLR, the less you will want to pick up that S3. That's when you'll decide to spring for the long lens. Been there. Done that.

anco85
08-08-2007, 08:09 AM
haha, I hear ya. I love my canon to pieces. It has imence sentimental value(got it from my parent on my birthday + its my first real dcam) and its an exceptional camera. Im just really longing for a hotshoe.

Im pretty sure ill still use my s3 on every occasion I get.

I had the oppertunity to use a 350d for a photoshoot awhile ago and decided to take my s3 along just incase. I ended up shooting 10 or so pics with the 350 and 300 odd with the s3. Just something about that cam that makes it special :D

fionndruinne
08-08-2007, 07:44 PM
Yep, the 2-lens kit contains the 55-200mm non-VR, and isn't worth it when you consider the quality ad price point of the new VR version.

One thing to understand, though, is that (correct me, please, if I'm wrong, folks) the 55-200mm does not reach as far as your S3. While it is telephoto, it doesn't have the "superzoom" length of the S3. So I'd say, try out that 18-55mm as much as you can, and determine whether it's enough for you, or whether you'd like the 55-200mm as well. I know I hanker after its range. I've tried it on a D40 at Ritz camera, they were quite happy to let me do so. Might give it a look-see.