Marty, which telephotolens do you mean?
Nikon produces quite some telephoto lenses.
Fortunately the D70 has a smaller chip than the usual 35mm film, so you use just only the best part of any lens, the central part.
Like any other camera manufacturer Nikon produces leses in various quality and price levels. Usually you get what you pay for, although sometimes there are exceptions, like some of the E(conomy) lenses way BD. (before digital)
Leen
Looks like Nikon is gearing up big time with this camera. Nikon has a target the sale of 800,000 units a year. Bet the prices drop from what they are introducing them as.
http://dpmac.com/factory/index.html g.
Grant, That was interesting. They say someone has a D70 for sale at $2000. That camera isn’t even out yet and then it won’t be near that amount … something’s fishy.
Leen, The lens made for that camera is 18-70mm DX Zoom, probably an all purpose one. Marty
Marty
Both Canon and Nikon make some of the best lenses produced at this time but they also make some entry level glass. While these lenses are more than adequate they certainly are not the things dreams are made of. Price tends to be a good measuring stick but is not a flawless one, for example they both make a 55mm f/1.7 lens that is cheap but so darn good everyone should own one or two. That being said it is best to compare similar lenses sort of apples to apples. The 18-70 mm is a new lens and is designed exclusively for their digital camera and as yet has never been reviewed.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012804nikon18-70dx.asp Nikon doesn’t make any lenses that are comparable to this range but the do make combinations that would fit into that range that are very costly 17 – 35 plus 35 -70 runs around $2500 US so don’t expect the high end in quality but I suspect you will still not be disappointed with this new lens.
Probably not an high end lens, but rather verstile. I cannot imagine Nikon to offer a low quality lens, so I think this might be a rather good buy.
Usually you just only see the difference between a good lens and an extremely good lens in a side by side comparison and in extreme lighting situations.
Leen
I have two lenses for my Nikon Pronea-S (a SLR APS camera). I wonder if they could be used with the new digital Nikons? The lenses are:
IX-Nikkor 60-180 mm f/4.5-5.8
IX-Nikkor 30-60 mm f/4-5.6
Bob Warren
I also wonder if AF Nikkor lenses will work, assuming, of course, with limited capabilities. Are the mounts compatible?
Paul
Paul
Nikon prides themselves in there compatibility in lenses. I suspect all lenses designed for their 35 mm SLR cameras will be compatible. Of course the newer lenses will take fuller advantage of the newer features.
Grant
Grant,
That would be great if they would work. I’ve got zooms and fixed lenses (too bad, not all Nikon) ranging from 17 to 300 mm. They’re just collecting dust since I acquired a digital. I’m very interested to see some reviews on the D70 and the 18-70 mm lens.
Paul
Bob,
The IX series of lenses will not work with the nikon F100 autofocus film camera. I don’t know if they will work with the D100 digital camera. Go to nikon’s website.
Grant, that Canon 55 mm lens you cite has been out of stock at B&H for months; it’s on my wishlist…
Chuck get it as soon as you can. There is great debates at which is better the Nikon or the Canon but for my money they are both exceptionally wonderful pieces of glass and one only can wonder how they can make such extraordinary optics at a reduced price.
Grant
Grant, thanks – still trying to locate it. May take a ride to a fascinating store in Houston (The Camera Exchange) where I always walk out with a lighter wallet…
Chuck
Grant,
I can not find any reference to a Canon 55MM f 1.7 lens at all. Even on the Canon web site. Is this a Canon made lens, and if so, is it a EF series lens?
I have found a 50 mm in both f 1.8 and 1.4, and a compact macro at f 2.5, but no 55 mm Canon lenses at all. I am always interested in a well rated lens, especially if it is a deal. 🙂 Any information you can give me on it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Gary~*
It’s the Canon 50mm F 1.8 for around $70.00. This is an extremely good lens for the money. I, like Chuck have been trying to find one for a while. They are on B.O. everywhere.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ "E. Gary Heaton" wrote in message
Grant,
I can not find any reference to a Canon 55MM f 1.7 lens at all. Even
on the Canon web site. Is this a Canon made lens, and if so, is it a EF series lens?
I have found a 50 mm in both f 1.8 and 1.4, and a compact macro at f
2.5, but no 55 mm Canon lenses at all. I am always interested in a well
rated lens, especially if it is a deal. 🙂 Any information you can give me on it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Gary~*
I would add that the older version of this lens had a metal mount whereas the newer one is a plastic mount, optically they are the same lens I have been told. I personally don’t mind the plastic mount as I am very careful with all of my equipment.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
It’s the Canon 50mm F 1.8 for around $70.00. This is an extremely good lens for the money. I, like Chuck have been trying to find one for a while. They are on B.O. everywhere.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/
"E. Gary Heaton" wrote in message
Grant,
I can not find any reference to a Canon 55MM f 1.7 lens at all.
Even
on the Canon web site. Is this a Canon made lens, and if so, is it a
EF
series lens?
I have found a 50 mm in both f 1.8 and 1.4, and a compact macro at
f
2.5, but no 55 mm Canon lenses at all. I am always interested in a
well
rated lens, especially if it is a deal. 🙂 Any information you can
give
me on it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Gary~*
Gary
That was certainly a slip on my part it is the 50 mm 1.8 lens. I was out for dinner before I posted this and maybe the wine …wait I didn’t have wine so I guess I just slipped.
First I am a Nikon man so only know of Canon by reputation and their use by close friends. All three lenses Canon lenses the 50 mm if 1.8 and 1.4, and the macro at F 2.5, and three Nikon lenses 50 mm if 1.8 and 1.4, and the macro at F 2.8 are exceptional lenses. In the case of the 1.8 both Canon and Nikon they are often rated superior to the 1.4 until you get to mid F stop and then they perform equally well. The macros are no slouch either but they are slower and much more expensive.
In the days of slower film I was a big fan of standard 1.4 lenses even with a slight degradation of quality but today, at over twice the price of the f1.8, it makes no sense to me to spend the extra.
I should point out that all these lenses are so close that there could be variations in production that would make one better than the other. I would not get too concerned about this as all these lenses are extraordinary it is just that at the price the F1.8 are selling for it is almost a steal.
Thank you James, I know the lens you mean then. I was not aware it was of such good quality however.
I will try to locate one as well then. Thanks for the information. 🙂 If I find a stash of them I will be sure to let you know.
Gary~*
Gary
An advantage of these lenses over zooms is that they require less energy to drive them so you get better battery life and a much faster focusing. If you have a clunker zoom you will be blown away by how fast these lenses focus.
Grant
David —
Thanks for the info. I’ll check out Nikon.
Bob Warren
Here is a comparison in the Canon f1.8 and the f1.4>
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ I think the f1.4 cost about 4 times what the f1.8 goes for. —
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ "E. Gary Heaton" wrote in message
Thank you James, I know the lens you mean then. I was not aware it was
of such good quality however.
I will try to locate one as well then. Thanks for the information.
🙂 If I find a stash of them I will be sure to let you know.
Gary~*
An enormous advantage of digital cameras with small sized sensors: these 1.8/50 mm lenses work like a real 80 mm portrait lens. Compare the price to a real 80/85 mm lens and you will nte a substantial difference. 😉
Extra added bonus: the 1.8/50 even has better quality than the 85mm equivalents for film!
Leen
Bob,
Re: your post #6
I can’t be 100% sure but I would guess the size of the 2/3 CCD is pretty close to that of the APS frame size. The focal length of your lenses will have to be 1.5X longer though. The 30mm will be like a 45mm equivalent in 35mm film. On the other hand, your 180mm will become a 270mm, a real long lens! Unfortunately the aperture will also be reduced to 5.8×1.5 = f/8.7. It’ll be hard to see anything through that. 🙁
Shan
Grant,
The blurb on Nikon web site says the D70 will have the F-mount. But as Ruizpaul mentioned, the older lenses may not have the full functional capabilities of the new D70.
Shan
James,
If you look at the first side-by-side pictures of the comparation test, you’ll be able to see one of the reasons why the f/i.4 costs more than the 1.8. From the out-of-focus highlights, it is obvious the 1.8 has a 5 blade diaphram, while the 1.4 has a 7 blade one. If this is any indication, the faster lens appearas to be better made.
I agree that that the difference in performance can hardly justify the price to users being very careful with their equipment. But to a working pro, especially a photo journalist, that extra bit of cash outlay for a stronger construction may well be good insurance.
Shan
The comparison I was making was between the old Canon 50mm f 1.8 and the new Canon 50mm f 1.8., the only difference is supposed to be the metal vs. plastic mount.
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
James,
If you look at the first side-by-side pictures of the comparation
test, you’ll be able to see one of the reasons why the f/i.4 costs more than the 1.8. From the out-of-focus highlights, it is obvious the 1.8 has a 5 blade diaphram, while the 1.4 has a 7 blade one. If this is any indication, the faster lens appearas to be better made.
I agree that that the difference in performance can hardly justify the
price to users being very careful with their equipment. But to a working pro, especially a photo journalist, that extra bit of cash outlay for a stronger construction may well be good insurance.
Shan
Leen,
I have used a couple of E lenses and they are quite amazing in quality. The E75-150mm zoom used to be muy favorite light weight walkabout mid-zoom on a FM or FE body. This is that lens used by the landscape photographer and climber, Gaylen Rowel, used for that shot of the Potala Palace, Tibet (the one with a rainbow). Too bad he went down in a small plane in California last year.
Mine got moldy. Factory service did too good a job cleaning it, including the part removal of the single coating! Since then, it turned itself into a reaonable portrait lens with good softness and some charming flare. Not being a portrait kind of person, the lens has been in the back of the cabinet all the time. The other E50mm was tiny and weighted only about 3 1/2 oz. and about 1 1/4 inch deep. A little flary shooting into light but a very good one nonetheless.
Sometimes, a lens may not be priced by its performance alone. The production cost, durability and its ability to withstand less than careful handling may also be factors as well.
Shan
James and other Canonites: How is this for irony? I just got an e-mail from B&H informing me that the Canon 50 mm f1.8 is back in stock! I’ve been waiting since around Christmas… Needless to say, it’s on order. I almost ordered a polarizing filter for it, but the price of the polarizer was $59 – only ten bucks less than the lens! Amazing…
Chuck
The advantages, in the case of the Canon 50 f 1.4 over the 1.8 are:
1. A third of a stop faster.
2. Full time manual over-ride of the auto-focus.
3. Faster autofocus.
That being said, the 1.8 is superb from a cost/benefits standpoint.
Shan,
Respectfully, I think I disagree with you about the aperture problem. In my opinion, the problem you mention would only be so if you were moving the diaphragm away from the film plane/ccd by way of extension rings or bellows etc. F number is a function of aperture diameter and the distance of the optical center of the lens from the film plane/ccd(focal length). There is no true difference in focal length no matter which camera the lens is mounted on, only an apparent one. The apparent increase in focal length with respect to the D70 is taking place because the ccd is only using a portion of the covering power required by the 35mm. The intensity of the light on the film plane/ccd, however, is the same whether the lens is mounted on a 35mm or a digital?
I hope I’m right about this. It will save me some money on lenses. But I would like to hear from someone who might be more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
Paul
Sorry, this should have been attached to Shan’s msg at 1:59 PM.
Shan,
Respectfully, I think I disagree with you about the aperture problem. In my opinion, the problem you mention would only be so if you were moving the diaphragm away from the film plane/ccd by way of extension rings or bellows etc. F number is a function of aperture diameter and the distance of the optical center of the lens from the film plane/ccd(focal length). There is no true difference in focal length no matter which camera the lens is mounted on, only an apparent one. The apparent increase in focal length with respect to the D70 is taking place because the ccd is only using a portion of the covering power required by the 35mm. The intensity of the light on the film plane/ccd, however, is the same whether the lens is mounted on a 35mm or a digital?
I hope I’m right about this. It will save me some money on lenses. But I would like to hear from someone who might be more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
Paul
Shan,
Respectfully, I think I disagree with you about the aperture problem. In my opinion, the problem you mention would only be so if you were moving the diaphragm away from the film plane/ccd by way of extension rings or bellows etc. F number is a function of aperture diameter and the distance of the optical center of the lens from the film plane/ccd(focal length). There is no true difference in focal length no matter which camera the lens is mounted on, only an apparent one. The apparent increase in focal length with respect to the D70 is taking place because the ccd is only using a portion of the covering power required by the 35mm. The intensity of the light on the film plane/ccd, however, is the same whether the lens is mounted on a 35mm or a digital?
I hope I’m right about this. It will save me some money on lenses. But I would like to hear from someone who might be more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
Paul
Your message has made it through three times. Shan is an active member and will surely find it even though it may not be threaded as you would like it .
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
Sorry, this should have been attached to Shan’s msg at 1:59 PM.
To step in and bring the thread slightly back to Nikon the f/1.8 is a 7 blade diaphragm and the base is indeed metal. The f/1.8 are made by Nikon in China where the f/1.4 is made in Japan. Yes outsourcing also happens in Japan. While we are at it the D70 is made by Nikon in Thailand, if that is a concern.
Shan while the focal lengths do behave differently from film to digital I do not believe the f/ratios do. I think the factor for Canons is 1.6 and Nikons is 1.5 but I have been wrong before.
Grant
Grant,
Thanks for the follow up on the lens information.
As for the discussion on the factors. Yes, on the my Canon, the factor is 1.6 for the focal length, and that has no bearing on the F stops.
Also, IMHO the subject about the better quality lens holding a better focus on the outer edges I am sure is a solid point, especially with a 35mm film camera. But those of us that have gone digital are lucky in the case that with the smaller CCD, than Film size, it is exposed more by the center of the lens, than the outer edges of it. So "in some cases", I have found that a lens that did not perform to well on the outer edges on my film cameras, are given new life when used on a digital, because of this center focus area. Again that is just my opinion, and my personal experience with Canon lenses.
I love a good L series lens as much as the next person does, but I can not always have what I want..(or so my wife tells me anyway. 🙂 ) And I believe if you know the limitations of any equipment that you use, most of these factors can become very small ones in the end. (Just don’t tell my wife that..as I still have my heart set on owning that Super Wide Angle 14mm f/2.8L 🙂 )
Gary~*
Gary
There are some studies that have indicated that even with full 35 mm that the advantage of superior lenses to over mediocre lenses can be negated by not using a tripod, or using inappropriate film. Of course as will the choice of certain lighting will have an affect on resolution and contrast.
As far a keeping things from our wives I do know the score after all there are some 8"x10" glossies of me, a kangaroo, two midgets and a ballerina I would not like my wife to know about 😉
Grant
Grant,
I come from the days when 200 ASA film was considered to be FAST.<LAUGH> Auto focus was unheard of, and all my friends smelled like dark room chemicals.<LAUGH>
I was always aware of the diff between a "quality camera and lens",(over what I was used to shooting with.) But we managed to make due with what we had. As time went by, and all the innovations such as auto focus came about, I thought I had died and went to camera heaven.<LAUGH>
Today we take all that stuff for granted. I like to keep a couple of old manual 35 SLRs around just for when that happens to me. I think today many people do the same with photography as they do with golf. They try to buy a better game, by buying better clubs. (But if you cant break 90 with your old sticks, the new ones are not going to get you on the tour.<LAUGH> )
Same with cameras and lenses Grant. You can have the best made, but unless your willing to put in the time, and energy to learn how to use it, it is just a waste of money. And often your better off learning with lesser priced equipment, just so you can learn to figure out how to beat the short comings just in case you have to fall back on a old back up camera to finish a shoot.
Either way, I dont think a photographer that spends their time in the field learning, will even find it to be time wasted. I am sure most here will agree with that statement anyway. 🙂
I am pretty new to Photoshop, but I can tell from what I have read on here that most of the people here take it pretty seriously, if they do it for a living, or just for fun. It you put in 100% all the time, you will always go home with some shots worth framing. 🙂
And remember Grant, midgets like to be called "little people" now.<LAUGH> Thanks again for the help. 🙂
Gary~*
Just a word on the Canon 300D 18-55 zoom lens. You can put any Canon 35mm SLR lens on this camera, but the reverse is not true! The above lens extends farther back into the body…I guess they wanted to make its extension shorter…and if you put that lens on an old 35mm Canon SLR, you can damage the mirror and its mechanism!
I would like to see some tests comparing that lens to the 18-70 zoom on the D70 when it comes out. Those are two cameras I am salivating for…
Bert
One must know their shooting habits and if I was to get the D70 or any Nikon Digital I would be tempted to get the Nikkor 24-85 f2.8/-4D IF. I very rarely shoot outside this range and this is one sweet lens although a tad pricey for most people. Any how enough dreaming I am off to bed.
Grant
Exceptional quality glass is usually just to know you are on the safe side and the optics won’t let you down. Very often you can only see the difference in a side by side comparison. But this assurance often is worth de price difference.
Leen
Leen
I do agree that for the most part the advantages exceptional optics visual virtues are only seen in A/B comparisons. The eye can be very forgiving and any softness in either contrast or resolution is probably a lesser factor that the photographers skill. The skill of the photographer will have a greater impact on final outcome the quality of an image than that of the lenses. I suspect everyone could improve there shooting much more by taking a course or attending a work shop in photograph as compared to purchasing a more exotic lens. For me there are three reasons to buy good optics. The limitations of contrast and resolution are pushed a bit further and in principle you can get technically superior images. The largest f-stops can often be 2 or more stops greater than a less costly lens allows the use of slower film. If one have the ability of using an ISO 50 instead of a ISO 200 then one should get both better resolution and the contrast will again pick up (remember I am still a film man). The final reason is a bit silly but seems to have a place in human nature. When one has a hobby they seem to want to have the best even if you will never used to its fullest. I suspect it is like our fore fathers living in cave, and collecting shiny stones.
Of course the above is comparing a excellent lens against a good lens. I did have a turkey once that showed milky image even to the untrained eye. Hopefully there are not many of them on the market.
Grant
The largest f-stops can often be 2 or more stops greater than a less costly lens allows the use of slower film.
Grant,
Actually, that helps with digital cameras too, allowing the use of the lowest ISO setting which usually has less noise.
Bert
E Gary H, I agree to some extent that the latest equipment will not "make" one a better golfer or photographer. Still, my system seems to have worked well for me. I have always bought "over my head" and it pushes me to learn more. I bought one of the first ‘Head’ tennis rackets, and ‘Ping’ putters and I learned plenty through USE and books.
So I am not afraid to go for the Nikon D70.
Marty
Marty,
By all means, if it is available to you, do so. I am sure it will do a fine job for you. And after looking at your photos, I am sure you will do it justice as well. (Much more so than I do with my Ping clubs.) I will admit that they knocked a solid 8 strokes off my game however. Out of pure consistency, and the confidence they gave me. Which is what I think we gain the most from high end equipment. Be it clubs or cameras, or about anything else. I have also found that with any new tool, we all tend to push it to its limits much more often, expanding our own along the way. 🙂
Good luck to you with your new Nikon Marty. I hope you are as happy with it, as I am with my new Canon.
Gary~*
The picture of the D70 on the dpreview website is very impressive…and misleading. They show it with a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor, a very expensive lens that does not come with the camera. That huge piece of glass really looks impressive, though.
Marketing, I guess…
<
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/>
Bert
