Query re Nikon 18-70mm & 70-300mm VR lenses

Mr. Bones

I'm looking to upgrade the lens on my D40x & was looking at these two lenses as a relatively cheap way of covering the range I wanna cover. But looking at a Nikkor catalogue I see that the 18-70mm lens is a DX lens while the 70-300mm VR lens is not. I know that the DX lenses are designed specifically for the fact that the DSLRs have a smaller sensor size than 35mm SLRs and that if i used say the 18-70 on a 35mm it would become a 28-105mm lens. What I'm trying to figure out is if I use the 70-300 lens with the D40x, will it in effect have its range altered because it's not a DX lens? (I'm still trying to get my head around all these technical terms so excuse me if this makes no sense:o).

Also, I see that some people here use Kea-photo on Ebay to buy lenses, etc. I've found their shop (thru the link on a previous thread) but why is it that when you do a (worldwide) product search on Ebay, they don't come up in the list of outlets, even though they have the product in stock? Just wondering...

quilmore

Mr. Bones wrote: »

and that if i used say the 18-70 on a 35mm it would become a 28-105mm lens.

no, it will be a 28-105 on a DX camera (like a D40)
if you put a DX lens on a film camera you'll get a very strong shadow on most of the wide end of the lens

Mr. Bones wrote: »

What I'm trying to figure out is if I use the 70-300 lens with the D40x, will it in effect have its range altered because it's not a DX lens? (I'm still trying to get my head around all these technical terms so excuse me if this makes no sense:o).

using a full frame lens on a DX camera is fine, you get more resolution and sharpness than if you use it for full drame (you only use the centre part of it)

Mr. Bones

quilmore wrote: »

no, it will be a 28-105 on a DX camera (like a D40)

So if the 18-70 becomes a 28-105 on a DX camera, does that mean the 70-300 becomes a 105-whatever? Basically, I just want to be sure there's little or no gap between the two lenses.

Thirdfox

Yes.

It's just that as a DX lens the 18-70 cannot fill the frame of a FX camera at 18mm.

There are no gaps if you use the 18-70+70-300VR

thebaz

i have the nikon d 50 , with 2 prime lens , i'm saving for the 18 - 200 lens , it ranges from 550 in Hong kong , to 710 in Ireland. Might be an option for yourself, unless you need the 200 - 300 .

quilmore

thebaz wrote: »

i have the nikon d 50 , with 2 prime lens , i'm saving for the 18 - 200 lens , it ranges from 550 in Hong kong , to 710 in Ireland. Might be an option for yourself, unless you need the 200 - 300 .

I replaced 18-70 and 70-300 for 18-200vr, I'm very pleased not to have to change lenses that often and gain some light on the 50-70 end

18-70 is a great companion for the 70-200vr 2.8, but that's much more money (worth it thou)

Mr. Bones

Thirdfox wrote: »

Yes.

It's just that as a DX lens the 18-70 cannot fill the frame of a FX camera at 18mm.

There are no gaps if you use the 18-70+70-300VR

Cheers Thirdfox

thebaz wrote: »

i have the nikon d 50 , with 2 prime lens , i'm saving for the 18 - 200 lens , it ranges from 550 in Hong kong , to 710 in Ireland. Might be an option for yourself, unless you need the 200 - 300 .

Yeah, I was originally looking at gettin the 18-200VR, but then I came across the 70-300mm which, according to some reviews i've seen, produces better quality images up to 200mm than the 18-200 (from 200-300 it's supposed to be not great but usable). Don't really need the 200-300 but it might come in handy on occasion. Going with Ebay,I could get both the 18-70 & 70-300 for about the same price as the 18-200. I might miss the versatility of the 18-200, but the 18-70 would still be a fairly decent walk-around lens I think.

Thirdfox

Not to throw a spanner into the works here...but Nikon has put VR into the 18-55mm recently... *Maybe* they might be planning to do the same for the 18-70? If you can wait a while perhaps you should just buy the 70-300VR for now and wait a few months?

Unless you feel you must upgrade straight away?

(I've gone the cheaper route with the 18-55 kit lens and 55-200VR). The 18-55VR won't tempt me unless it does have a superior optical formula as well as VR.

Mr. Bones

Thirdfox wrote: »

Not to throw a spanner into the works here...but Nikon has put VR into the 18-55mm recently... *Maybe* they might be planning to do the same for the 18-70? If you can wait a while perhaps you should just buy the 70-300VR for now and wait a few months?

Unless you feel you must upgrade straight away?

As it happens, that's exactly how I was thinkin! I saw it mentioned on a couple of website forums that the 18-70mm is proving more difficult to source recently, with speculation that Nikon may be soon introducing a revised version, presumably with VR. I'll probably go for the 70-300VR & make do with the 18-55mm at the other end for the time being.

Thirdfox

I see we both frequent the dpreview forums

Remember though - something better is always around the corner (in my case the D40x would have been available 3 months after I bought the D40 - but I would have gone with the D40 version anyway and missed out on 2,000 photos of Japan). It may be worth it to buy now for the photos you'll take than it is to wait for a rumoured lens to appear.

But the 18-70 doesn't offer THAT big a difference optically I think. Handling is much better though, with the instant manual override and a "true" SWM motor.

Different filter size though for the 18-55 and 70-300...

davmigil

Mr. Bones wrote: »

As it happens, that's exactly how I was thinkin! I saw it mentioned on a couple of website forums that the 18-70mm is proving more difficult to source recently, with speculation that Nikon may be soon introducing a revised version, presumably with VR. I'll probably go for the 70-300VR & make do with the 18-55mm at the other end for the time being.

You could source one second hand . Shameless plug:

http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=35890&cat=500