Advise on next purchase after D70

[King Tiger]

Hi Nikonian

Need to seek your comments and advise.

a) Wide angle lenses : I am aiming to get a 12-24mm DX next month.
I am a wide angle nuts, everywhere I go, be it at Sentosa, Bishan, Punggol or oveaseas in KL, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, I love to shoot scenery photos.
Thanks for Watcher's photo, my soul is sold to Nikon completely.
Anyone know where I can get the best price?

b) Mid range telephoto : On the other hand, I'm wondering should I sell away my 18-70mm DX and replace by 24-120 VR lens, since it have VR function and additional extend focal length, also to avoid the unnecessary overlapping focal length in my lenses collection, (12-24 DX & 24-120 VR instead of 12-24DX & 18-70 DX).
My concern is the image quality, will getting a 24-120 VR consider a downgrade?
And of course, where to get the best price?

c) Long range telephoto : I have no intention to get longer focal lenses at this moments. Maybe at later stage.
But just curiousity, a difficult question though, anyone owns Sigma 50-500 mm? how would it be to compare with Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 for usage like i) sport, ii) portraits and iii) wide life?

d) Data storage : Nikon Coolwalker Storage
The product seem useful, especially for one on the move or on long holiday trip.
Did anyone own ? Will you buy?

[sam_always]

why not consider sigma 18-125 as a walk around lens... sigma 18-125 thread This lens seems not bad hor...

[TMC]

Yo KT, remember from the gaffer tape sale that day?

My suggestion would be to find out how wide do you shoot at. I personally find 12-24 pretty limiting in its uses. maybe a 17-40 would be better.

VR can only help so much thru my exp with the KM A1. Would prefer faster lens. Using a 28-75 F2.8 now and it has been terrific with the AF. Shot an indoor soccer tourney and it has given me some terrific results.

50-500 and 70-200 VR is very different in speed and length. the former being a slower and very heavy lens to handle. Tried the sigma version before. Tho it gives a extremely versatile range but it is not to be handheld for long. 70-200VR on the other hand allows handheld shots for indoor events as it is fast and VR function.



My opinion is that the 70-200VR might be a bit overpriced for its functions. would prefer the older 80-200 f2.8 for its better value for the cost.

[Dennis]

Good for you, the second self confess wide angle nut. 12-24 would be the lens to get and you will not regrat it. Can also consider the 10.5mm FE also.
24-120 may not replace the 18-70 but the 17-55 might be a good choice. If you don't mind 3rd party the Sigma 18-125 is also worth consideration. As for Tele the 70-200 2.8 is a very good lens but I think the 50-500 is a little too big and heavy. I may do a side by side comparision of the 4 lens mentioned (18-70, 17-55, 24-120 and 18-125) and will keep you in mind on the findings.

Originally Posted by King Tiger Hi Nikonian Need to seek your comments and advise. a) Wide angle lenses : I am aiming to get a 12-24mm DX next month. I am a wide angle nuts, everywhere I go, be it at Sentosa, Bishan, Punggol or oveaseas in KL, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, I love to shoot scenery photos. Thanks for Watcher's photo, my soul is sold to Nikon completely. Anyone know where I can get the best price? b) Mid range telephoto : On the other hand, I'm wondering should I sell away my 18-70mm DX and replace by 24-120 VR lens, since it have VR function and additional extend focal length, also to avoid the unnecessary overlapping focal length in my lenses collection, (12-24 DX & 24-120 VR instead of 12-24DX & 18-70 DX). My concern is the image quality, will getting a 24-120 VR consider a downgrade? And of course, where to get the best price? c) Long range telephoto : I have no intention to get longer focal lenses at this moments. Maybe at later stage. But just curiousity, a difficult question though, anyone owns Sigma 50-500 mm? how would it be to compare with Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 for usage like i) sport, ii) portraits and iii) wide life? d) Data storage : Nikon Coolwalker Storage The product seem useful, especially for one on the move or on long holiday trip. Did anyone own ? Will you buy?

[sam_always]

For sigma 18-125, After the CCD factor, it will become around 27-185mm, quite equavelent to film walkaround lens 28-200mm. It is very good for traveling, just 1 lens you can shoot from WA to Telephoto. OF course dont expect the pic superb picture quality, but at least it covers your entire journey without change other lenses. As for 80-200mm, it a high performance superb lens, but it's heavy and bulky. not suitable for traveling. It will kill you.. IT's nice to have, most of the time it will be stay in your drybox. Only need it when you have major event or some important shooting.... this is just my opinion, correct me if i am wrong. thanks

[ccplim]

I second TMC on the tele.

It depends on what you mainly need to use your tele-lens for. 50-500mm is more of a tripod mount lens as you will not be able to handheld it for long.

[espn]

Don't have to think...

AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 with AF-S 28-70 f/2.8 with AF-S 70-200VR + AF-S TC1.7X ...

[majere2sg]

I think you can consider the D2X or the 1Ds Mark II or 1D Mark II after the D70.

[yulee]

Get the SB800 first

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by TMC Yo KT, remember from the gaffer tape sale that day? My suggestion would be to find out how wide do you shoot at. I personally find 12-24 pretty limiting in its uses. maybe a 17-40 would be better. VR can only help so much thru my exp with the KM A1. Would prefer faster lens. Using a 28-75 F2.8 now and it has been terrific with the AF. Shot an indoor soccer tourney and it has given me some terrific results. 50-500 and 70-200 VR is very different in speed and length. the former being a slower and very heavy lens to handle. Tried the sigma version before. Tho it gives a extremely versatile range but it is not to be handheld for long. 70-200VR on the other hand allows handheld shots for indoor events as it is fast and VR function. My opinion is that the 70-200VR might be a bit overpriced for its functions. would prefer the older 80-200 f2.8 for its better value for the cost.

Hi TMC, nice to meet you that day.
No time to talk to you as I am in the rush, hope to see you and talk to you again.

For me, I would like to shoot as wider as I can, of course, depend on the condition and the place where I am. For my previous cam, I am not able to capture the whole image of the twin tower at KL, even though I have lay flat, knee down all the way to the ground floor in order to compose the image.

Thanks for your comments on telephoto, will take note.

[majere2sg]

So what photos you have taken with your D70 ? Share ?

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by espn Don't have to think... AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 with AF-S 28-70 f/2.8 with AF-S 70-200VR + AF-S TC1.7X ...

Espn, I need your advise, will PM you tonight.

[2100]

Since you love WA, why not wait a while and go wider with the tamron 11-18/4.5-5.6 since you are going for scenery..... That is 16.5 vs 18mm effectively, which is pretty noticeable.

You can check out my galleries below for wildlife with 50-500. I take fashion shows/events with it too as i prefer the versatility. This piece of glass stands up very well to abuse too, dropped from 1.5m top of the car down to solid concrete and still working 100%.

Oh...one more, www.pbase.com/f1powerboat

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by majere2sg I think you can consider the D2X or the 1Ds Mark II or 1D Mark II after the D70.

Then I will have to eat bread for the next 1 year.

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by yulee Get the SB800 first

Will get it by the 1 week of Oct.

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by majere2sg So what photos you have taken with your D70 ? Share ?

I just bought last week, will post after I'm back from holiday trip.

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by Dennis Good for you, the second self confess wide angle nut. 12-24 would be the lens to get and you will not regrat it. Can also consider the 10.5mm FE also. 24-120 may not replace the 18-70 but the 17-55 might be a good choice. If you don't mind 3rd party the Sigma 18-125 is also worth consideration. As for Tele the 70-200 2.8 is a very good lens but I think the 50-500 is a little too big and heavy. I may do a side by side comparision of the 4 lens mentioned (18-70, 17-55, 24-120 and 18-125) and will keep you in mind on the findings.

Dennis, look forward for your comparision infor.

[King Tiger]

Originally Posted by sam_always For sigma 18-125, After the CCD factor, it will become around 27-185mm, quite equavelent to film walkaround lens 28-200mm. It is very good for traveling, just 1 lens you can shoot from WA to Telephoto. OF course dont expect the pic superb picture quality, but at least it covers your entire journey without change other lenses. As for 80-200mm, it a high performance superb lens, but it's heavy and bulky. not suitable for traveling. It will kill you.. IT's nice to have, most of the time it will be stay in your drybox. Only need it when you have major event or some important shooting.... this is just my opinion, correct me if i am wrong. thanks

sam_always, I not familiar with Sigma lense, have anyone own it?
Can share comments on this lense?

[Dennis]

Yes, actually just tested it and it seems OK except colour. Mmmm not sure if the colour is too warm, some may like it. Can't tell as my monitor is not calibrated.

Originally Posted by King Tiger sam_always, I not familiar with Sigma lense, have anyone own it? Can share comments on this lense?

[sam_always]

errr.... i never own sigma lens also... haha. But sigma lenses has good review from alot user in dpreview. Acceptable image quality with low price... siutable for beginner. visit here for more about sigma lenses.