D70 Companion lens to the kit 18-70 ??

Hi all,

I'd like to get a longer zoom to go with the 18-70 (which I really like). I'm considering either a 28-200 or 70-300. My budget definitely tops out at $350 (Cheaper would be better, but I'm not interested in a cheap lens that has significant focusing, distortion, or CA issues). I do want the lens to have (D)istance technology.

The pros of the 28-200 is the overlap. My hopes is that I will not have to change lens much for shooting something like my daughter's performance where I'm shooting from the house (and beyond the reach of 70mm) and when I'm shooting some backstage action. The cons of the 28-200 is the overlap. I'm currently considering the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikkor offerings.

The pros of the 70-300 is the extended range. However with a 1.5 crop factor, 300mm may be too long for handheld. But, I cold use my tripod as a mono I guess. The benefit of the longer reach would be shooting soccer games, windsurfing, and other type events (purely armature needs though). For this, I'm considering the Nikkor offering. Would the ED version be worth the extra cost over the G?

So, what say you?

I thank you in advance for any suggestions you may have,
Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldSchool

Hi all,

I'd like to get a longer zoom to go with the 18-70 (which I really like). I'm considering either a 28-200 or 70-300. My budget definitely tops out at $350 (Cheaper would be better, but I'm not interested in a cheap lens that has significant focusing, distortion, or CA issues). I do want the lens to have (D)istance technology.

The pros of the 28-200 is the overlap. My hopes is that I will not have to change lens much for shooting something like my daughter's performance where I'm shooting from the house (and beyond the reach of 70mm) and when I'm shooting some backstage action. The cons of the 28-200 is the overlap. I'm currently considering the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikkor offerings.

The pros of the 70-300 is the extended range. However with a 1.5 crop factor, 300mm may be too long for handheld. But, I cold use my tripod as a mono I guess. The benefit of the longer reach would be shooting soccer games, windsurfing, and other type events (purely armature needs though). For this, I'm considering the Nikkor offering. Would the ED version be worth the extra cost over the G?

So, what say you?

I thank you in advance for any suggestions you may have,
Tim

---

Nobody answered so - I don't have any of the lenses you mentioned. I have been using 80-200 f2.8 AF-S which works fine with the D70. Looking for something smaller, lighter and cheaper I tried out my 70-210 f3.5-4.5 - instant disappointment, it isn't as sharp and contrasty as the f2.8.

The 70-210 was a good, conservative choice for film. The 28-200 that you mention is more of a pushing-the-limits compromise. Personally I would be wary of using this lens as my main optic for digital.

I'm waiting for the designed-for-digital 55-200 Nikon (when they eventually sell it outside of the D50 kit). I hope that this will be the best compromise between quality, cost and size.

Charles