Advice on Tele Lens for my setup

[kyo86sg]

currently i own the D70 and the 18-135 DX lens(D80 kit len) and planning to get the Nikon 70-300mm VR IF ED lens. I understands that 70-300mm VR lens is not a DX lens which means it will be a 105 to 450mm lens on my Camera. Thus i have covered 18-135 and 105 to 450mm with this two lens. So will like to hear more advise before i get my tele lens.

*Student budget here and dont tell me 18-200mm stuff. =)

[yyD70S]

Yes, the Nikon 70-300mm VR IF ED lens will give you a FOV of 105-450mm because of crop factor; not because it's non-DX.

For a budget, you could consider also the Nikon 55-200mm VR (a DX lens).

I have tried neither though.

[Artosoft]

Originally Posted by kyo86sg currently i own the D70 and the 18-135 DX lens(D80 kit len) and planning to get the Nikon 70-300mm VR IF ED lens. I understands that 70-300mm VR lens is not a DX lens which means it will be a 105 to 450mm lens on my Camera. Thus i have covered 18-135 and 105 to 450mm with this two lens. So will like to hear more advise before i get my tele lens. *Student budget here and dont tell me 18-200mm stuff. =)

I am sorry to tell you, that you have a wrong mindset about DX or DX lens.

The focal length is never change. I mean, the 18-135mm and 70-300mm lens are still 18-135mm and 70-300mm lens in film slr or digital slr.

What is change, is because the sensor of DX is smaller than film, the Field of View is changing (but not the focal length of lenses). So, using DX slr, all the Field of Fiew of lens is changing to 1.5x (Nikon DX). We often called it 35mm equivalent of DX sensor is 1.5x.

So, not only Field of Few of your 70-300 become like 105-450 (35mm equivalent), but your 18-105mm lens too become like 27-157.5mm (35mm equivalent).

Regards,
Arto.

[kyo86sg]

er.ok but just wanna hear more advise on the setup~

[Artosoft]

Originally Posted by kyo86sg er.ok but just wanna hear more advise on the setup~

If you don't mind, correct your mindset first before you move on, or you always get wrong setup.

Regards,
Arto.

[Artosoft]

Actually, what is your purpose on buying tele lens? Don't buy it because you think 'IT A MUST'. Buy it when you need it and after you do the research why THAT lens is suit you, especially you already mentioned "student budget".

It is a waste of money when you buy tele lens, but after a while you realize that you like macro/micro shoot.

Regards,
Arto.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by kyo86sg er.ok but just wanna hear more advise on the setup~

Just want a general idea on what you're shooting before we can give advice. The 18-135 is actually covering a field of view of approximately what a 27-200mm would cover on a 135 film/FF digital SLR. That should already be more than enough to cover most of the things we shoot.

Yes, I know sometimes it's nice to be able to go closer, but most of the time a tele lens of that range will make it appear boring, unless you're shooting birds or wildlife. Then again, this 70-300 lens would no longer suffice because of the slow aperture.

I think most people would probably tell you not to waste your money.

[tkbonz]

If you really need a zoom lens, get the cheap 55-200VR. However it overlaps alot with your current kit lens of 18-135. My suggestion is to get the VR zoom lens, sell the 18-135 and get the 18-70 instead. Buying a $400 VR zoom and downgrading the kit lens for $100 (in difference) will set you back a total of $300 to get a zoom lens.

My 2 Cents!

[Umeiko]

I suggest you to get 70-300 VR. The quality is superb.

I also have 18-135mm and had wanted to get 55-200mm but realised the increase in the reach between 135mm and 200mm is not much. Therefore, went ahead with 70-300 VR and always shoot it.

Useful for animal shoot in zoo and birdpark. Or portrait of people from a distance. If you have budget issue, do consider saving to get it later.

[glennyong]

Originally Posted by Artosoft Actually, what is your purpose on buying tele lens? Don't buy it because you think 'IT A MUST'. Buy it when you need it and after you do the research why THAT lens is suit you, especially you already mentioned "student budget". It is a waste of money when you buy tele lens, but after a while you realize that you like macro/micro shoot. Regards, Arto.

i strongly believe it will be a impulsive buy. why not try renting it out and see if it suits you.

since you want to look after your pocket and couldnt afford much, its best to identify your needs before jumping in on a purchase and regret later.

[Umeiko]

Originally Posted by Umeiko I suggest you to get 70-300 VR. The quality is superb. I also have 18-135mm and had wanted to get 55-200mm but realised the increase in the reach between 135mm and 200mm is not much. Therefore, went ahead with 70-300 VR and always shoot it. Useful for animal shoot in zoo and birdpark. Or portrait of people from a distance. If you have budget issue, do consider saving to get it later.

I think I should amend my first sentence: I recommend getting 70-300 VR if you like to have a telephoto lens.

[zaren]

Originally Posted by yyD70S Yes, the Nikon 70-300mm VR IF ED lens will give you a FOV of 105-450mm because of crop factor; not because it's non-DX. For a budget, you could consider also the Nikon 55-200mm VR (a DX lens). I have tried neither though.

i have tried both lenses on my D40 and the 70-300 VR is a much better lens than the 55-200 VR. focus is spot-on, sharper and VR is significantly more effective.

will definitely recommend the 70-300 VR if size, weight and cost is not an issue.

[Yatlapball]

You need to correct your attitude about learning young man. Artosoft is correcting a very fundamental mistake in your understanding. The area of overlapping focal lengths is more than what you assumed it is.

You want to get the 70-300VR but you want to protect your budget. Although you don't want to hear about the 18-200, I am going to mention it nonetheless.

Where do you find the shortage the most? about 200? or way towards the end at 300?

I can tell you this, for the amount of $ you are shelling out for the 70-300VR, you might as well ditch the 18-135, combine the $ and get the 18-200. That is IF you do not really need the 200++ range.

That being said... I actually don't find the 200+ range on the consumer zooms of pretty much use (to me), since you often have to stop down quite abit for critical sharpness, coupled with it being slow.

Your life. Your choice. Your money. Whatever it is, I hope you make a wise financial decision.

[Yatlapball]

For anyone needing 300 and on a budget. I recommend Nikkor's 300 f/4. This is one excellent under-rated telephoto prime. It still is over a thousand bucks. But heh. If you really use this range, you won't feel that the money is wasted.

[Benji77]

I second this!

TS, you need to know what you like/prefer to shoot before jumping around, spending your $$. We just mean well by saying all this coz we dont want you to suffer...
unless of course, you are RICH RICH RICH.

Originally Posted by Artosoft Actually, what is your purpose on buying tele lens? Don't buy it because you think 'IT A MUST'. Buy it when you need it and after you do the research why THAT lens is suit you, especially you already mentioned "student budget". It is a waste of money when you buy tele lens, but after a while you realize that you like macro/micro shoot. Regards, Arto.

[kyo86sg]

Thanks for all ur view.....decided to rent and test out the lens 1st.......i think its best to try out first then buy.