Don't groan: a slightly different kind of lens and camera question..

TwoRails

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1
Location
The Great Northwest
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I have a little bit of a shake problem so when I want a long shot I grab my Sony H9 P&S which I can shoot at a 465mm eq due to it's very good IS. With my D70 I'm lucky to get a shot at 200mm or so.

So I was thinking of getting a VR lens. I haven't really researched much but I noticed that I can get a D60 kit for $699 with a 18-55 VR lens and a 55-200 VR lens.

(one example: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc...=4&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1 ) (The link isn't clear that both lenses are VR but the box in the store clearly states they are.)

I imagine that the glass alone goes for $450 - 500. That makes the body going for about $200 or so for a guesstimate.

The first lens question kinda answers it's self in that VR would be of a benefit, but the second is do they have a macro mode? That's not mentioned so I fear they don't. That could be a deal breaker by itself...

Also, they are DX lenses and I don't know if that means if they have a conversion factor or not so, for example, is the 200 only a 200 or is it a 300 eq?

The camera question is kinda typical, in that I don't know if the D60 is a step down, up, or sideways to a D70. Beside the megapixel difference, are there any good / strong reasons to dump a D70 for a D60? Like better noise control and other items? Maybe little things like I hear the D70 has a higher flash sync (but I don't even own a flash...). And the like...

Or are there good / strong reasons to forget it and keep the D70 and get separate lenses? Like maybe a 300 VR?

The lenses I currently have are a:
Quantaray 28-90 macro 1:2.3 3.5-5.6
Sigma 70-300 macro 1:4 -5.6

Any and all comments / suggestions are welcome!!

TIA

TR :)
 
No experience with telephoto VR, so I won't comment on that. But if you're looking for a reason to keep the D70, I'd say it's the built-in AF motor. With the D60 you won't be able to autofocus with lenses which have no built-in motor, meaning your Quantaray and the Sigma (unless the Sigma has a HSM in it's name which you forgot to write). Other reasons to keep the D70 are the higher flash sync, wireless flash commander with Nikon's CLS, DoF preview button, and a better button layout (two rollers, screen on top etc.).
 
I'm no expert about lenses, let alone about telephoto lenses but, from what I've gathered from online reviews, something like the 70-300 VR would probably be better at the long end (zoomed out) than the 55-200 VR since it has the newer and better VR II. Of course, it costs a lot more than the 55-200 VR and not too much less than a more professional lens. I don't think either would work for macro; I know the 55-200 won't focus on anything less than at least 2-3 feet in front of it... Not sure how Sigma and Tamron's telephoto lenses compare but they'd probably be worth a look.
 
I have not have experience with other lenses except the two lenses I have (18-55 and fixed 50mm) since I just bought a camera. But I have tried the macro feature of the kit lens. You can see how far the 18-55 can go, it can't go any further than that.
But you will see other photos from other posters that are true macro shots.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113499&highlight=macro
 
I can save you a lot of money... get yourself a tripod and take the longer range pics with that. ;)
 
If your after macro and VR then there is only one option - the Nikon 105mm macro VR - the only macro lens currently in production with a built in VR system. That said much of macro work is done with a flash (either handheld or on a tripod) so shake from the hands is usually not too much of a problem

Further I have used a 70-300mm sigma and I also found it tricky to get handheld shots at the long end that were not suffering from handshake - a cheap tripod solved the problem - the lens is not too heavy and provided that you don't leave it freestanding its fine, also cheaper tripods tend to be very light so you can easily use one all day whilst moving around.
A better tripod and head is more desirable though and will give you more flexability - especially going down low for macro work
 
I can comment on the 55-200 VR. It works wonderfully well. I hardly ever turn it off on my 55-200. It's literally quite amazing, because since it's in the lens you can see the VR working through the viewfinder.
 
Wow! Thanks for the posts, Folks :)

No experience with telephoto VR, so I won't comment on that. But if you're looking for a reason to keep the D70, I'd say it's the built-in AF motor. With the D60 you won't be able to autofocus with lenses which have no built-in motor, meaning your Quantaray and the Sigma (unless the Sigma has a HSM in it's name which you forgot to write). Other reasons to keep the D70 are the higher flash sync, wireless flash commander with Nikon's CLS, DoF preview button, and a better button layout (two rollers, screen on top etc.).
Thank you. That's what I'm looking for, and the kind of stuff I just don't know. For an example of my lack of knowledge (and why I ask!) is I just *assumed* that lenses all focused the same way, meaning if they worked on one Nikon, they'd work on another... Sure seems like the D70 is much more feature rich.

I'm no expert about lenses, let alone about telephoto lenses but, from what I've gathered from online reviews, something like the 70-300 VR would probably be better at the long end (zoomed out) than the 55-200 VR since it has the newer and better VR II. Of course, it costs a lot more than the 55-200 VR and not too much less than a more professional lens. I don't think either would work for macro; I know the 55-200 won't focus on anything less than at least 2-3 feet in front of it... Not sure how Sigma and Tamron's telephoto lenses compare but they'd probably be worth a look.
Thanks! I did happen to see the 55-300 VR at Best Buy and was shocked at the price which was somewhere around $650 or so if I remember right. That's one thing that kinda got me starting thinking about the potential 'value' in a kit with two lenses. Didn't even know there are multiple versions of VR. Not really knowing much about macro (except I love it) I don't know what impact not getting closer than 2-3 feet would have. Another one of my *assumptions* is that if it (the subject) fill the screen, then you're "close."

I have not have experience with other lenses except the two lenses I have (18-55 and fixed 50mm) since I just bought a camera. But I have tried the macro feature of the kit lens. You can see how far the 18-55 can go, it can't go any further than that.
But you will see other photos from other posters that are true macro shots.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113499&highlight=macro

Thanks for the link. I've looked at a lot of macro shots here and it reinforces my desire to take and learn more :)

I can save you a lot of money... get yourself a tripod and take the longer range pics with that. ;)
A good tip, but, sadly I don't get to go on true "photo shoots." It would be nice if I could, but 99.99% of my "shoots" (more like snapshot events) are grabbing a camera while we go out shopping or other errands: I see something I'd like a pic of, jump out of the truck, snap, and jump back in. My BetterHalf would go nuts if I jumped out, did a set up and the like, etc... :( -- Ya, if I was able to go somewhere for a real shoot I would take a tripod. (Time is the major reason I can't.) I do sometimes take a monopod which I am figuring out how to use to minimize shaking.

If your after macro and VR then there is only one option - the Nikon 105mm macro VR - the only macro lens currently in production with a built in VR system. That said much of macro work is done with a flash (either handheld or on a tripod) so shake from the hands is usually not too much of a problem

Further I have used a 70-300mm sigma and I also found it tricky to get handheld shots at the long end that were not suffering from handshake - a cheap tripod solved the problem - the lens is not too heavy and provided that you don't leave it freestanding its fine, also cheaper tripods tend to be very light so you can easily use one all day whilst moving around.
A better tripod and head is more desirable though and will give you more flexability - especially going down low for macro work
Thanks, I'll check that lens out. Seems like I'll need to learn about flashes, too. Ya, my tripod is a cheapo plastic one. It came 'free' with a camera bag I bought a couple of years ago. I looked at a 'nice' tripod at Best Buy a month or so ago: pretty pricey at $150 but had loads of features, even a spring loaded head to support the weight of longer / heavier lenses. I guess it's for video cameras, though, as the thread mount is 3/8" instead of 1/4".

I guess what's throwing me off some is how well the Sony H9's IS works. I showed a friend of mine 3 hand held shots -- wide, full optical zoom, and full optical + full digital zoom -- and he was so impressed that he went out and bought one. So, again an assumption, I figured a VR lens would pretty much eliminate the need for a tripod since I don't need one with the H9...

I can comment on the 55-200 VR. It works wonderfully well. I hardly ever turn it off on my 55-200. It's literally quite amazing, because since it's in the lens you can see the VR working through the viewfinder.
Thanks; sounds good. Have you done any macro work with it?
 
If your after macro and VR then there is only one option - the Nikon 105mm macro VR - the only macro lens currently in production with a built in VR system. That said much of macro work is done with a flash (either handheld or on a tripod) so shake from the hands is usually not too much of a problem

Yeah im not really sure why it has VR. Ive read that its use when shooting at 1:1 or anything near it is VERY limited, or isnt even usable. So the VR is only useful when youre shooting non-macro subjects...

Or so ive heard...
 
I have heard similar as well, but never really had it confirmed by anyone
 
105mm macro shots are quite possible with good technique, however going to a higher focal length makes it REALLY hard without a tripod.

In this case, we are looking at someone that says they are having issues with shake under normal circumstances... I still think a tripod is the answer here more than any lens selection. If flash is to be used, on camera flash is pretty much useless. It would have to be a macro-specific lighting or off camera lighting. This will only address up-down-sdie-to-side... if the shakes are even slightly pull-push... focus will always be off, due to the very nature of macro photography.
 
Well, I just looked online at that the Nikon 105mm macro VR and, ouch... that's pricey at $800 - 900! That far exceeds my currently limited skills. :(

... (unless the Sigma has a HSM in it's name which you forgot to write)...
Dooh! Forgot to mention, no, no such letters on either lens.

105mm macro shots are quite possible with good technique, however going to a higher focal length makes it REALLY hard without a tripod.

In this case, we are looking at someone that says they are having issues with shake under normal circumstances... I still think a tripod is the answer here more than any lens selection. If flash is to be used, on camera flash is pretty much useless. It would have to be a macro-specific lighting or off camera lighting. This will only address up-down-sdie-to-side... if the shakes are even slightly pull-push... focus will always be off, due to the very nature of macro photography.
You got one in while I was typing the above.. :) - Yes, you're right, I am not steady at all; embarrassing but true.
 
(one example: http://www.costco.com/Browse/Produc...=4&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1 ) (The link isn't clear that both lenses are VR but the box in the store clearly states they are.)

You probably have figured this out by now but here are the lens details in the link that you posted, very misleading or could be, the 18-55 is vr the 55-200 is not.

What’s Included:

Nikon D60 Digital SLR Camera Body
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Zoom NIKKOR Lens
55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom NIKKOR Lens
Accessories:
Lithium-ion Rechargeable Battery
Quick Charger
USB Cable
Strap
Software Suite CD-ROM
 
... You probably have figured this out by now but here are the lens details in the link that you posted, very misleading or could be, the 18-55 is vr the 55-200 is not. ...
Ya, misleading for sure. That why I checked out the actual box when I had to go to Costco on Thursday night. The box does state they are both VR lenses. So it's just a typo on the Web site. Hmmm... I wonder if that is costing them sales??
 
Well... this is been an eye opener for me. Had to run to the hardware store so I stopped by Best Buy for giggles and looked at the lenses. I paid a little more attention to them. Being use to 'macro mode' on my P&S units, and having 'macro' on the above two lenses for the D70, I yet again assumed that most lenses had some kind of close up capability.

Wrong! The lenses were mostly all under glass, but just looking at them I can see there is no 'macro' switch on them, nor on any lens on a camera regardless of brand. They had only one actual macro lens (I think it was the 60mm Nikkor - no zoom) and it was almost $600.

They also had the lenses that were in the kit I mentioned in my first post and no macro on them, either. So that blows my brainstorm of saving money by buying a kit.

So, before I pop for that kind of money, I feel I should learn how to use what I have first. And eat a lot of beans and rice in the meantime to save up for it, what ever 'it' turns out to be :)

Again, thanks Everybody for all the tips, time, comments, and suggests!! It is appreciated.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top