Which normal lens to get for Nikon D70?

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: faenix

Originally posted by: ZOXXO

Originally posted by: faenix

Originally posted by: ZOXXO
I would go with the 50mm. It's by all accounts sharp, inexpensive and can be reverse mounted to other lenses to achieve a formidable macro setup.

I wouldn't say.. formidable macro.. but on the acceptable side

You can reverse a 50mm on a nikon by itself and it'll still be a macro lens. You just lose metering and focusing.

Ok, maybe formidable was bit of an overstatement but the price and dual usage capability make a 50mm a "must have" for any kit, IMO.

I don't really find using the 50mm as a macro lens practical. It's a nice feature to have sure, as a novelty though. If you want a practical macro lens, pick up a used 55mm f/3.5. A fellow ATOT'er VirtuaMike creates beautiful pictures from that $50 paperweight.

50mm is a 'must have' for any kit simply for the fact that its a small lens that packs quite a punch for its price. It doesn't really replace any macro lens, however.

We seem to be arguing in agreement. My point was that the 50mm is widely viewed as the standard focal length, is a very sharp lens and is an excellent value. I brought up the reverse mount macro thing as a point which to me would be the "icing on the cake" that puts it above the 35mm on the to buy list.

 

[PHiuR]

get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

edit: a 17-55 and a 70-200 with a TC is all you need...who cares about that 15mm that you don't have.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

yea it would be nice, my 17-35 f/2.8 works tho and i dont feel i need the extra 20mm often
and i have both the 50 and 35, and the 35 is definitly better suited on the D70, its just as sharp and it is easier to work with in many situations

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

yea it would be nice, my 17-35 f/2.8 works tho and i dont feel i need the extra 20mm often
and i have both the 50 and 35, and the 35 is definitly better suited on the D70, its just as sharp and it is easier to work with in many situations

that extra 20mm is great to have when you need it. I will say that it's easier to use a 17-55 as a walk around then a 17-35...a lot easier. Also, not having to change lens is a huge plus.

what kind of lenses do you have for your D70?

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: Mrvile
But the crop factor is merely a CROP, not a change in angle. If what you're looking for is the angle of the human eye view, you still need the 50mm. If you're looking to get more into the frame, well, take a few steps back and recompose.

Yup that's what I've been saying.

But that is wrong. The crop changes the angle of view, so ~35mm gives an angle of view on a DSLR that is equivalent to the angle of view of a ~50mm on 35mm film, which gives an angle of view equivalent to ~80mm on 645 medium format. Depth of field will be different at identical apertures and distances, but you will get the same perspective and the same things in the frame at the same differences with those different focal lengths on their respective formats - all "normal" lenses for the various formats.

Take a look at this.

The picture shows how the crop factor is in fact a mere crop of a full frame image.

"There is no magnification; it's just a smaller portion of the same image. The rectangles are 'more or less' to scale, and are in the proper proportion."

The pictures at this site show again how the crop factor is just a crop. If you placed the digital image inside the film image, you would get roughly the same angle and proportions.

"As a result the effective field of view is 35/23.7 = 1.5 times smaller." The crop factor creates an illusion that it isn't as wide...but it only seems so because you don't get as much into the frame, hence the smaller FOV. The angles are still the same.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

yea it would be nice, my 17-35 f/2.8 works tho and i dont feel i need the extra 20mm often
and i have both the 50 and 35, and the 35 is definitly better suited on the D70, its just as sharp and it is easier to work with in many situations

that extra 20mm is great to have when you need it. I will say that it's easier to use a 17-55 as a walk around then a 17-35...a lot easier. Also, not having to change lens is a huge plus.

what kind of lenses do you have for your D70?

35 f.2
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
105 f/2.8 Macro

17-35 f/2.8
18-70 3.5-4.5 (Kit Lens)
100-300 f/4

i use the 18-70 80% of the time on the D70, i use the 17-35 mainly for film work

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

yea it would be nice, my 17-35 f/2.8 works tho and i dont feel i need the extra 20mm often
and i have both the 50 and 35, and the 35 is definitly better suited on the D70, its just as sharp and it is easier to work with in many situations

that extra 20mm is great to have when you need it. I will say that it's easier to use a 17-55 as a walk around then a 17-35...a lot easier. Also, not having to change lens is a huge plus.

what kind of lenses do you have for your D70?

35 f.2
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
105 f/2.8 Macro

17-35 f/2.8
18-70 3.5-4.5 (Kit Lens)
100-300 f/4

i use the 18-70 80% of the time on the D70, i use the 17-35 mainly for film work

cool cool.

I shoot with a 20D. I have:

50mm 1.8
28-75 2.8 (Tamron)
70-200 2.8 IS
1.4 TC

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: PHiuR
get the 17-55 F/2.8! I am so envy of Nikon shooters because of that Lens. I wish Canon had it.

it costs 1200$

the 50 1.8 is 100$

the 35 f/2 is 300$

okay, out of those two. Get the 50 1.8.
just telling you, that 17-55 is so cool to have. 😛

yea it would be nice, my 17-35 f/2.8 works tho and i dont feel i need the extra 20mm often
and i have both the 50 and 35, and the 35 is definitly better suited on the D70, its just as sharp and it is easier to work with in many situations

that extra 20mm is great to have when you need it. I will say that it's easier to use a 17-55 as a walk around then a 17-35...a lot easier. Also, not having to change lens is a huge plus.

what kind of lenses do you have for your D70?

35 f.2
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
105 f/2.8 Macro

17-35 f/2.8
18-70 3.5-4.5 (Kit Lens)
100-300 f/4

i use the 18-70 80% of the time on the D70, i use the 17-35 mainly for film work

Anubis, is the 100-300 F/4 the Sigma one? If so, how do you like yours? I recently got one but haven't had time to really test it in the field yet (due to the sh!tass weather).

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Take a look at this.

The picture shows how the crop factor is in fact a mere crop of a full frame image.

"There is no magnification; it's just a smaller portion of the same image. The rectangles are 'more or less' to scale, and are in the proper proportion."

I never said that there was magnification.

The pictures at this site show again how the crop factor is just a crop. If you placed the digital image inside the film image, you would get roughly the same angle and proportions.

"As a result the effective field of view is 35/23.7 = 1.5 times smaller." The crop factor creates an illusion that it isn't as wide...but it only seems so because you don't get as much into the frame, hence the smaller FOV. The angles are still the same.

Your link isn't really backing up the logical jump you're making here. An elementary example: a photo is taken with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens; then another photo is taken with an APS frame camera and the same 50mm lens, but the photographer backs up to make the subject appear the same size in the frame (due to the crop). Because the photographer has backed up to reframe the image because the angle (or "field") of view is narrower after the crop, the perspective of the lines in the photo will be different. The 50mm lens is no longer offers a "normal" angle of view.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Anubis, is the 100-300 F/4 the Sigma one? If so, how do you like yours? I recently got one but haven't had time to really test it in the field yet (due to the sh!tass weather).

yes its the Sigma, and i love it, its great, focuses fast and is sharp throught the zoom and ap ranges, even at 300 f/4 it preforms very good

only down side is that its huge and kinda heavy

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Take a look at this.

The picture shows how the crop factor is in fact a mere crop of a full frame image.

"There is no magnification; it's just a smaller portion of the same image. The rectangles are 'more or less' to scale, and are in the proper proportion."

I never said that there was magnification.

The pictures at this site show again how the crop factor is just a crop. If you placed the digital image inside the film image, you would get roughly the same angle and proportions.

"As a result the effective field of view is 35/23.7 = 1.5 times smaller." The crop factor creates an illusion that it isn't as wide...but it only seems so because you don't get as much into the frame, hence the smaller FOV. The angles are still the same.

Your link isn't really backing up the logical jump you're making here. An elementary example: a photo is taken with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens; then another photo is taken with an APS frame camera and the same 50mm lens, but the photographer backs up to make the subject appear the same size in the frame (due to the crop). Because the photographer has backed up to reframe the image because the angle (or "field") of view is narrower after the crop, the perspective of the lines in the photo will be different. The 50mm lens is no longer offers a "normal" angle of view.

You just proved my point. Movement of the photographer affects the angle of the shot, no matter what camera or what lens is used. A 50mm lens on a DSLR is still a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, it just doesn't squeeze as much "photo" into the frame as would a 35mm camera. You *could* compensate by taking a step back, but it'll have the same effect on the angles as it would if you were to step back with a 35mm camera. I'm not saying the pictures from a DSLR would be the same as the picture from a 35mm...I'm just saying the same 50mm lens would give you the same angles on either camera.

Like I said before, the crop factor is a crop which definately affects the final picture. However, an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera will not produce the same picture as a 50mm lens on a DSLR would, as illustrated in the second link. You can tell that the 17mm digital image of the waterfall has a slightly wider angle than the 26mm film image does.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Anubis, is the 100-300 F/4 the Sigma one? If so, how do you like yours? I recently got one but haven't had time to really test it in the field yet (due to the sh!tass weather).

yes its the Sigma, and i love it, its great, focuses fast and is sharp throught the zoom and ap ranges, even at 300 f/4 it preforms very good

only down side is that its huge and kinda heavy

Hmm, mine focuses very quickly but is sometimes off (this is from the "field" experience of photographing the squirrils in my backyard 😛 ) whenever I focus on a blank surface or in low light. It might be just user error though. It's a bit soft at f/4 (although some images come out tack sharp), which again might be user error, but at f/5.6 it's completely sharp. This is the longest and by far the heaviest lens I've owned, so I guess it might just take some practice and time to get used to.

 

[Mrvile]

Here is a pretty sharp pic that I took earlier today. That's the full pic, no crop. Looks great.

Here is the 100% crop of that pic. I think it's still pretty sharp, but could be better. Maybe I'm expecting too much from my 350D?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Here is a pretty sharp pic that I took earlier today. That's the full pic, no crop. Looks great.

Here is the 100% crop of that pic. I think it's still pretty sharp, but could be better. Maybe I'm expecting too much from my 350D?

dont have any 100% crops online but here are a few from it

http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4652.JPG
http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4683.JPG
http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4706.JPG

the 100% crop of your loos fine, a lil USM in PS and it will be fine, its not even that soft anyway
at 300 f/4 the DOF is so small that depending on where you focus it canmake your image look soft, the angle plays into this also as the focal plane can be at an odd angle

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
The crop factor creates an illusion that it isn't as wide...but it only seems so because you don't get as much into the frame, hence the smaller FOV. The angles are still the same.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Do you understand the definition of AOV (angle of view)? We can use the AOV to compare one lens to another as long as the format is the same . A 50mm on a medium format camera has a completely different AOV as on a 35mm camera which has a different AOV as on a cropped sensor DSLR. It's wide angle on the MF camera, normal on the 35mm and telephoto on the cropped sensor DSLR.

Another point that seems to be confusing you is the term magnification. Nobody is implying that a cropped sensor DSLR acts to magnify a particular lens. When people use that term they are referring to the pixel density of that cropped area as compared to a FF camera. If for instance, we had a 10mp 1.5X crop DSLR and a 10mp FF DSLR both sporting a 500mm lens and taking a picture of a subject (which does not fill the 1.5X frame) from the same distance, the 1.5x DSLR would resolve more detail, due to more of the pixels being placed on the intended subject. That is where the term magnification can be used correctly. It's why wildlife photographers seek a DSLR with the highest pixel density possible, so long as the density does not diminish the capability of the camera (i.e. a point & shoot digital).

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Here is a pretty sharp pic that I took earlier today. That's the full pic, no crop. Looks great.

Here is the 100% crop of that pic. I think it's still pretty sharp, but could be better. Maybe I'm expecting too much from my 350D?

dont have any 100% crops online but here are a few from it

http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4652.JPG
http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4683.JPG
http://www.tweaknasty.com/ran/DSC_4706.JPG

the 100% crop of your loos fine, a lil USM in PS and it will be fine, its not even that soft anyway
at 300 f/4 the DOF is so small that depending on where you focus it canmake your image look soft, the angle plays into this also as the focal plane can be at an odd angle

Thanks for the response.

I'm gonna go down to a pond by my dad's work tomorrow where he claims lotsa geese and ducks gather so hopefully I'll come back with something tomorrow 😛

Now that I look at it the pic isn't actually soft...I know there's something up about it but I can't put a finger on it. Oh well. Who uses 100% crops anyway? 😛

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Like I said before, the crop factor is a crop which definately affects the final picture. However, an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera will not produce the same picture as a 50mm lens on a DSLR would, as illustrated in the second link. You can tell that the 17mm digital image of the waterfall has a slightly wider angle than the 26mm film image does.

From the same position, an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera will have the same perspective, framing, angle of view, etc. as a 50mm lens on a DSLR will have. Yes, the depth of field will be different (it will be thinner on the 35mm camera), but the images will otherwise be identical in theory.

(in practice, lens focal lengths are not measured quite as precisely as one expects in theory, so the images could be slightly different; however, this will not be noticeable to the extent that you seem to be claiming)

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Mrvile
The crop factor creates an illusion that it isn't as wide...but it only seems so because you don't get as much into the frame, hence the smaller FOV. The angles are still the same.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Do you understand the definition of AOV (angle of view)? We can use the AOV to compare one lens to another as long as the format is the same . A 50mm on a medium format camera has a completely different AOV as on a 35mm camera which has a different AOV as on a cropped sensor DSLR. It's wide angle on the MF camera, normal on the 35mm and telephoto on the cropped sensor DSLR.

Another point that seems to be confusing you is the term magnification. Nobody is implying that a cropped sensor DSLR acts to magnify a particular lens. When people use that term they are referring to the pixel density of that cropped area as compared to a FF camera. If for instance, we had a 10mp 1.5X crop DSLR and a 10mp FF DSLR both sporting a 500mm lens and taking a picture of a subject (which does not fill the 1.5X frame) from the same distance, the 1.5x DSLR would resolve more detail, due to more of the pixels being placed on the intended subject. That is where the term magnification can be used correctly. It's why wildlife photographers seek a DSLR with the highest pixel density possible, so long as the density does not diminish the capability of the camera (i.e. a point & shoot digital).

Hmm. So you're saying that the actually angle of view changes as the sensor size changes? I'm having a hard time picturing that.

Also I never said that the magnification remains the same. I only said that the angles should. The magnification would obviously be larger on a DSLR with the crop, since more of the pixels are dedicated torwards the center of the frame. Yes, I know what magnification is.

Although I'm still having trouble getting what you're trying to say about the angles. The angle of view is affecting by the optics of the lens and shouldn't be affected by the size of the sensor. The size of the sensor only affects how much you can fit in the FOV. On a FF DSLR, the sensor is just larger than a 1.6 crop one. I don't see how this can affect the angle of view.

 

[Mrvile]

Well it's 1 o clock where I am and it's time to hit the sack.

It was fun debating with you guys. I'm new to DSLR photography and I really don't care about this whole crop business. So in reality, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

But I hope you guys see where I get my logic. You guys are probably correct, but it's just difficult for me to perceive something like that.

Oh well, I love ATOT.

'night guys.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Hmm. So you're saying that the actually angle of view changes as the sensor size changes? I'm having a hard time picturing that.

Also I never said that the magnification remains the same. I only said that the angles should. The magnification would obviously be larger on a DSLR with the crop, since more of the pixels are dedicated torwards the center of the frame. Yes, I know what magnification is.

Although I'm still having trouble getting what you're trying to say about the angles. The angle of view is affecting by the optics of the lens and shouldn't be affected by the size of the sensor. The size of the sensor only affects how much you can fit in the FOV. On a FF DSLR, the sensor is just larger than a 1.6 crop one. I don't see how this can affect the angle of view.

I think I understand the confusion. We are talking about the angle of view and the particular format (35mm, 6x7, 1.5X DSLR) coupled with the focal length is what determines the AOV. A 50mm lens does not denote any particular AOV unless we apply a format to it.

You also seem to be ascribing additional qualities to a wide angle lens than say a telephoto. In theory, a cropped WA picture taken from the same distance as a telephoto lens will look exactly the same (except for the DOF) so long as the crop matches the field of view of the telephoto shot. You would not be able to look at the WA crop and claim that it "has a slightly wider angle".

 

[JinLien]

50mm has been worked over for more than 50 years therefore they are the sharpest lens to have and are the cheapest to buy.

Personally I would go for a 50mm and not worry too much with perspective then get a get a 28mm when if require true perspective.

35mm SLR film area is 24x36mm therefore the actual focal for normal perspective lens should be 43.3mm

Nikon digital D70 sensor area is 23.7 x15.5mm therefore true normal perspectives is 28.3mm.

 

[virtuamike]

Personally my style is shifting towards the wider end. For framing purposes, go with the 35.

I've never used the manual 50's so I can't tell you how they perform. I have a current 50/1.4 (non-D, Japan model) that's crazy sharp. It's wonderful for lowlight work, though it was a struggle to get it to frame my street shots right in order to give context.

#1
#2
#3
#4

Recently picked up a 35/1.4 AIS (yes, manual) and it's a great fit in my lens lineup. Much easier to frame with especially when you don't have the room to step back. Very sharp when stopped down in the 2.8-4 range but I'm not totally blown away by its perfomance wide open. It's nice having the extra stop but I don't think you're losing too much by going with the current 35/2 AF model.

#5 (mom & dad)
#6
#7

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: faenix

Originally posted by: ZOXXO

Originally posted by: faenix

Originally posted by: ZOXXO
I would go with the 50mm. It's by all accounts sharp, inexpensive and can be reverse mounted to other lenses to achieve a formidable macro setup.

I wouldn't say.. formidable macro.. but on the acceptable side

You can reverse a 50mm on a nikon by itself and it'll still be a macro lens. You just lose metering and focusing.

Ok, maybe formidable was bit of an overstatement but the price and dual usage capability make a 50mm a "must have" for any kit, IMO.

I don't really find using the 50mm as a macro lens practical. It's a nice feature to have sure, as a novelty though. If you want a practical macro lens, pick up a used 55mm f/3.5. A fellow ATOT'er VirtuaMike creates beautiful pictures from that $50 paperweight.

50mm is a 'must have' for any kit simply for the fact that its a small lens that packs quite a punch for its price. It doesn't really replace any macro lens, however.

LOL that's not the first time I've heard the 55/3.5 referred to as a paperweight. Love it on the D200, it's a real joy being able to meter.

The 55/3.5 excels at closeup which is why I use it for macro, but it's not the hottest performer at regular shooting. The 55/2.8 is a better compromise lens if you're looking for a normal that'll do macro (closeup is supposedly one notch below the 3.5).

Some 55/3.5 shots.

#1
#2
#3
#4 (D200 @ ISO800, let the noise critics whine)
#5 oh how I miss the D70
#6
#7