Upgrading D70 kit lens, Need Advice

geoyip · 7th April 2004

Hi all,

I'm new to DSLR, just got my D70. Thinking of selling my kit lens to get the 24-120 VR for better zoom range, hope the pros here could advice me.

- how is the 24-120 lens, is it good?
- How much can the kit lens fetch?

Thanks in advance!

YSLee · 7th April 2004

Before the mass avalanche of bad advice starts, I'll ask you the following questions before you decide:

Consider your current photographic needs. What do you need that is beyond the kit lens? Do you need a wider focal length? Or more telephoto power? Closer focusing distance? A faster lens? If you're unsure, think about what you find lacking from your photography currently. Are you sure it needs a new lens?

Consider your future photographic needs. Is there something you think you want to explore that absolutely require another lens? If so, what lens do you think is required? Or at least, what do you require from it? If you're unsure, maybe you can put off any new lens purchase and just start learning what you can and what you cannot do. Learn to push the limits of your equipment.

I acknowledge it's a lot of questions, but don't rush. It's a long road, and take things one step at a time. You don't have to answer them all at once. Explore, and learn.

Finally, if you just want to own fancy toys, then I'll take a bow here, and step away.

espn · 7th April 2004

The 24-120VR is no doubt a better lens over the older 24-120, but you lose out here on the wide angle that the 18-70 brings. You get a longer reach, but you lose the wide. Do a search on 24-120 on the Nikon forum here, you should hit a post started my Matrix and inside has some very useful information and feed back.

18 ~= 27mm FLM
24 ~= 36mm FLM

Unless you don't need the wide, else I would have actually preferred to buy the 24-120VR additionally or totally forget it. The 18-70 does already cover a good range.

The RRP for the 18-70 is $599, stores should be selling at about $550 maybe.

mpenza · 7th April 2004

what makes you think the kit lens is bad? image qualitywise, it may be better than the 24-120VR.

Dennis · 7th April 2004

Kit lens is very good range unless you want to consider the 17-55, otherwise there is no replacement especially for the wide end.

espn · 7th April 2004

Originally Posted by mpenza

what makes you think the kit lens is bad? image qualitywise, it may be better than the 24-120VR.

mpenza, he never said the image quality is bad, he just wanted extra zoom

I agree with Dennis. If only Nikon came out with a 17-120 f/2.8 VR Wooooooo!

Dennis · 7th April 2004

I will be in line to buy the 17-120 and sell off the rest !!

Originally Posted by espn

mpenza, he never said the image quality is bad, he just wanted extra zoom

I agree with Dennis. If only Nikon came out with a 17-120 f/2.8 VR Wooooooo!

geoyip · 7th April 2004

Originally Posted by mpenza

what makes you think the kit lens is bad? image qualitywise, it may be better than the 24-120VR.

The Kit Lens is a solid lens, which is why I have post here for expert advice

and until now still cannot decide

.

I forgot to mention a couple of things:

1. I'll be using the camera to shoot achitecture for my company, and using the kit lens, have encounted a couple of situations where I do not have enough zoom on the telephoto size

2. For the wide size, already have green lite to buy 12-24, waiting for stock from CP

Sorry if i my msg was not clear enough

geoyip · 7th April 2004

Thanks all for the advice,

but I still can't decide

Pls see my previous post on: I forgot to mention a couple of things:

Will the 24-120 VR give pictures as good as, better than the kit lens?

Thanks in advance

Ansel · 7th April 2004

Originally Posted by geoyip

Thanks all for the advice,

but I still can't decide

Pls see my previous post on: I forgot to mention a couple of things:

Will the 24-120 VR give pictures as good as, better than the kit lens?

Thanks in advance

Warning! This may be a bad advice.

I understand from those who do own the lens, that the images of this lens is a little "soft", ie, not that sharp. But "not that sharp" doesn't mean it is not sharp. Depends on which other lens you compare it to.

leonzhu, gadrian, where are you?

Alternatively, check:

http://h00805ffe2420.ne.client2.attbi.com/24120/

and

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24120vr.htm

Ansel · 7th April 2004

OK another bad advice.

Actually I do own the 18-70 DX kit lens that you have. My next step will be to get the 70-200 f2.8 VR. You may want to consider this route too. This way you've got 18mm to 200mm covered with two great lenses.

Well, if 18mm is not wide enough for you, then by all means get the 12-24 which is a great lens. I don't own it but I do know people who do and I've seen pictures taken by it and they are just awesome. If this is the case then yes, it makes sense for you to buy the 24-120.

espn · 7th April 2004

Dude, if you want to try the 24-120VR, let me know, for architectural, I feel the 17-35 is a far better lens to consider.

mpenza · 7th April 2004

but 17-35 has not enough zoom range.....

actually, 24-120 may not be that very different from the 18-70 (in terms of "zoom"). something that's small in the frame (with a 18-70) will only be 3x bigger in area when the 24-120 is used.

if you really want a telephoto, try something longer... 70-200/80-200 would be more significant (the same subject will be 8x bigger in area at 200mm position).

DragcoX · 7th April 2004

May I ask what is ur reason for considering 12-24 + 24-120?
Is it becoz of more portable lens?
My guess is u prefer more portable lens yet have some reach.

My opinion is this choice is more of a compromise.
Photo quality is still there but I would prefer a 3 lens option, 10.5 fisheye + 18-70 kit + 70-200VR

Price wise
1) 12-24 + 24-120 = $1900 + $1100 - $500 = $2500 (est)
2) 10.5 + 18-70 + 70-200 = $1300 + $3800 = $5100 (est)

(2) =
+ slightly better quality (my opinion)
+ 80mm more reach
- cost $2600 (est) more
- 70-200 can be a monster to carry ard sometimes
- 3 lens, more troublesome if travel

(1) =
+ cheaper
+ 2 small portable lens, great for travels n moving abt
= good quality but not as sharp (my opinion, so no + or - here)
- reach up to 120mm only with the multipiler is 180mm not really very far
- 12mm equals 18mm (i prefer the fisheye here)

the + and - are all quite equal, it all depends on ur needs. I personally would go for option (2) as covers a wider range of shooting styles. but travelling with that option is a real task

walk too far become like road match

gadrian · 8th April 2004

Hmm.. I see my name being mentioned..

Well this maybe some bad advice.. hehe.. I shot architecture very often.. and I have found there is not much need to go beyond the 135mm on 35mm...

The 18-70 provides you with 105mm.. which is also very sufficient.. generally.. the 24-120.. will provide you with some longer length.. but will not be the real answer.. as for softness.. I would say.. nothing much to worry.. nmost of the time.. I shot architecture at f8 - f11 and sometimes f22.. to give the best DOF..

Here is my recommendation.. and yes.. this is an expensive recommendation (bad advice) -

17-55 f2.8 DX
80-200 AF-D f2.8

The 18-70 is a great lens for general photography.. and can be used to complement the above 2 lenses..

Cash · 8th April 2004

Originally Posted by geoyip

Thanks all for the advice,

but I still can't decide

Pls see my previous post on: I forgot to mention a couple of things:

Will the 24-120 VR give pictures as good as, better than the kit lens?

Thanks in advance

have u actually shot with the Kit lens?

geoyip · 8th April 2004

Originally Posted by Cash

have u actually shot with the Kit lens?

hi Cash, yes I have, pls see earlier post

geoyip · 8th April 2004

Originally Posted by espn

Dude, if you want to try the 24-120VR, let me know, for architectural, I feel the 17-35 is a far better lens to consider.

Hi ESPN,

thanks

, that would be great, how should we arrange to meet up?

geoyip · 8th April 2004

Thanks for the advice / input,

looks like the 12-24mm and (longer tele) 70-200mm vr / 80-200mm would be a better move!

how much is the 70-200mm VR and 80-200mm from CP?

Dennis · 8th April 2004

If keep the kit lens no need to have 17-55 leh. I suggest to keep the kit lens, get the 12-24 and one tele maybe 70-200 or 80-200. Afterall for architecture the 12-24 and the kit lens will serve very well, unless you want the 10.5 FE as well.

Originally Posted by gadrian

Hmm.. I see my name being mentioned..

Well this maybe some bad advice.. hehe.. I shot architecture very often.. and I have found there is not much need to go beyond the 135mm on 35mm...

The 18-70 provides you with 105mm.. which is also very sufficient.. generally.. the 24-120.. will provide you with some longer length.. but will not be the real answer.. as for softness.. I would say.. nothing much to worry.. nmost of the time.. I shot architecture at f8 - f11 and sometimes f22.. to give the best DOF..

Here is my recommendation.. and yes.. this is an expensive recommendation (bad advice) -

17-55 f2.8 DX
80-200 AF-D f2.8

The 18-70 is a great lens for general photography.. and can be used to complement the above 2 lenses..

7th April 2004	#1
geoyip Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 943	Upgrading D70 kit lens, Need Advice Hi all, I'm new to DSLR, just got my D70. Thinking of selling my kit lens to get the 24-120 VR for better zoom range, hope the pros here could advice me. - how is the 24-120 lens, is it good? - How much can the kit lens fetch? Thanks in advance!

8th April 2004	#19
geoyip Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 943	Thanks for the advice / input, looks like the 12-24mm and (longer tele) 70-200mm vr / 80-200mm would be a better move! how much is the 70-200mm VR and 80-200mm from CP? Last edited by geoyip; 8th April 2004 at 01:20 AM.

7th April 2004	#2
YSLee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,262	Before the mass avalanche of bad advice starts, I'll ask you the following questions before you decide: Consider your current photographic needs. What do you need that is beyond the kit lens? Do you need a wider focal length? Or more telephoto power? Closer focusing distance? A faster lens? If you're unsure, think about what you find lacking from your photography currently. Are you sure it needs a new lens? Consider your future photographic needs. Is there something you think you want to explore that absolutely require another lens? If so, what lens do you think is required? Or at least, what do you require from it? If you're unsure, maybe you can put off any new lens purchase and just start learning what you can and what you cannot do. Learn to push the limits of your equipment. I acknowledge it's a lot of questions, but don't rush. It's a long road, and take things one step at a time. You don't have to answer them all at once. Explore, and learn. Finally, if you just want to own fancy toys, then I'll take a bow here, and step away.

7th April 2004	#3
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	The 24-120VR is no doubt a better lens over the older 24-120, but you lose out here on the wide angle that the 18-70 brings. You get a longer reach, but you lose the wide. Do a search on 24-120 on the Nikon forum here, you should hit a post started my Matrix and inside has some very useful information and feed back. 18 ~= 27mm FLM 24 ~= 36mm FLM Unless you don't need the wide, else I would have actually preferred to buy the 24-120VR additionally or totally forget it. The 18-70 does already cover a good range. The RRP for the 18-70 is $599, stores should be selling at about $550 maybe.

7th April 2004	#4
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	what makes you think the kit lens is bad? image qualitywise, it may be better than the 24-120VR.

7th April 2004	#5
Dennis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,862	Kit lens is very good range unless you want to consider the 17-55, otherwise there is no replacement especially for the wide end.

7th April 2004	#11
Ansel Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Land Downunder Posts: 2,069	OK another bad advice. Actually I do own the 18-70 DX kit lens that you have. My next step will be to get the 70-200 f2.8 VR. You may want to consider this route too. This way you've got 18mm to 200mm covered with two great lenses. Well, if 18mm is not wide enough for you, then by all means get the 12-24 which is a great lens. I don't own it but I do know people who do and I've seen pictures taken by it and they are just awesome. If this is the case then yes, it makes sense for you to buy the 24-120.

7th April 2004	#14
DragcoX Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 122	May I ask what is ur reason for considering 12-24 + 24-120? Is it becoz of more portable lens? My guess is u prefer more portable lens yet have some reach. My opinion is this choice is more of a compromise. Photo quality is still there but I would prefer a 3 lens option, 10.5 fisheye + 18-70 kit + 70-200VR Price wise 1) 12-24 + 24-120 = $1900 + $1100 - $500 = $2500 (est) 2) 10.5 + 18-70 + 70-200 = $1300 + $3800 = $5100 (est) (2) = + slightly better quality (my opinion) + 80mm more reach - cost $2600 (est) more - 70-200 can be a monster to carry ard sometimes - 3 lens, more troublesome if travel (1) = + cheaper + 2 small portable lens, great for travels n moving abt = good quality but not as sharp (my opinion, so no + or - here) - reach up to 120mm only with the multipiler is 180mm not really very far - 12mm equals 18mm (i prefer the fisheye here) the + and - are all quite equal, it all depends on ur needs. I personally would go for option (2) as covers a wider range of shooting styles. but travelling with that option is a real task walk too far become like road match

8th April 2004	#15
gadrian Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 1,226	Hmm.. I see my name being mentioned.. Well this maybe some bad advice.. hehe.. I shot architecture very often.. and I have found there is not much need to go beyond the 135mm on 35mm... The 18-70 provides you with 105mm.. which is also very sufficient.. generally.. the 24-120.. will provide you with some longer length.. but will not be the real answer.. as for softness.. I would say.. nothing much to worry.. nmost of the time.. I shot architecture at f8 - f11 and sometimes f22.. to give the best DOF.. Here is my recommendation.. and yes.. this is an expensive recommendation (bad advice) - 17-55 f2.8 DX 80-200 AF-D f2.8 The 18-70 is a great lens for general photography.. and can be used to complement the above 2 lenses..