revenuee said:
ya i spent a few days with one and loved it --- got some nice prints from it
and yes i've looked at the SB-600 and will probably get it
as far as glass -- sigma EX 12 - 24 (i really like this lens i got some shots of with it and a D70), either sigma EX or nikon 28mm 1.8, nikon 50mm either 1.4 or 1.8 -- price wise they are quite different but i would love the extra half stop, i have the sigma EX 105mm, and then i'm looking at the Sigma EX 50 - 500mm -- but i've been wondering if i wouldn't be better off with the Sigma 70 - 200mm plus a 2x tele-converter
i have the nikon 35 - 80 and Tamron 100 - 300 aswell but these are just not very nice lenses so i very much wish to replace with the list above
see, i'm trying to get into some light photojournalism while i'm still in University, and i feel that the D70 is powerful enough even in sports with it's 3fps but huge buffer to do the job, i mean you shoot with the D100 where the specs in that respect are pretty similar and you seem very happy. However, i am very much a wildlife photographer so huge focal lengths are key for me so that 500mm will be 750mm on the D70 (drools) where as the 200mm + 2x converter will be 600mm
You've done a lot of good research. I hate to hijack this thread but I'm gonna do it because i'm sure you can appreciate the info (as can any other DSLR owners).
The Sigma 12-24 is a nice bet. It's pretty comparable to Nikon's 12-24 (which i have and LOVE) but it's half the price. The speed of the lens shouldn't be an issue since you're dealing with mostly landscapey stuff and architecture with this lens.
In your middle ground you mentioned liking the Nikon or Sigma 28mm lens. I'd avoid these, as they come to about a 42mm on a DSLR which is a weird focal length. I have the 35mm f2.0 Nikkor and believe me, at $259 (after rebate) it's a STEAL. It's sharp, and I use it for PJ work for this magazine. I also just got (coming in today) the Sigma 24-70. I'll let you know how this works. But It'll NEVER replace the 35 for alot of work. The 35 becomes a 52-ish lens, and is closest to a normal lens on digital. I'd recommend the 35 over either 28 anyday.
As far as 50's go...get the 1.8. It's a $100 and will free up some of your budget. Maybe add an 85 1.8 which is a stellar portrait lens.
As far as tele goes... the Sigma 70-200 will get you a faster aperture with TC than the 50-500. Their TC's are VERY good optically so you won't see image degeneration from using the TC. I have the 1.4 with my 70-200 and it's brilliant.
I dunno if you'll need the 12-24 Sigma... if you can, i'd get the 18-70DX kit lens. It's sharp and a nice carry around and goes to 28-105 on your D70. That plus the 50mm, 35 and/or 85 is a nice wide to mid-tele kit, combined with the 70-200 gives you a pretty impressive range.
My current lens setup, FYI, is the Nikkor 12-24, Sigma 24-70, 35mm, 50mm, 50mm macro, 70-200 + 1.4TC. The sigma 24-70, if you want that as an option, can be found on ebay for about $250 USD. For an f2.8 lens... that's pretty good.
For your wildlife kit, I'd go with:
The Nikkor 18-70 or Sigma 24-70 + 70-200 with 2.0TC for mostly wildlife and general portraiture and some architecture (interiors? you need th 12-24)
OR
Sigma 12-24, Nikon 35, 50, 85 and 70-200 with 2.0 TC if you plan on doing architecture and portraiture.
Does any of that make sense? Also, macmall has NICE deals on 1.0gb CF cards (80x WA which would suit your wildlife needs VERY well) for appx $120. I bought two. They ROCK.
Here's a 70-200 shot with 1.4tc at f5.6 I think: