Lenses for the D60

[runnane]

Having ordered my first dslr, the D60, I will also upgrade some lenses. The 16-35 seems to bee a good choice, but what about medium telezoom? I think the both 70-200 L lenses are too heavy and pricey, what about the 70-200 4 L? Do I lose a lot of quality if I go for this one instead of the 2,8 ones? Any recomodations/experienses?

[prosurfer]

I have no RL experience on the 70-200 lenses, but I'm planning to buy one and have studied the forums and other websites extensively.

4L is much lighter and cheaper than 2.8L, and they should be equal for outdoor use. For indoor use, 2.8 has some advantage due to better light sensitivity, but qualitywise there should be little difference.

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 has also recieved a lot of support, so you might want to give it a try as well.

[robertmealing]

Hi,

I just got the D60 and first lenses I bought were the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 4.0.

I like both of them a lot, but the 70-200 really shines. I'm a total newbie, having had a G1 for the last year and never having used a SLR before...

I just posted some photos from the San Diego Zoo that I took this weekend with the 70-200 using AV at f8.

Please feel free to check them out to see what a newbie can do with this lens. Shot in hi-res JPG with minor sharpening and levels in photoshop.

http://www.robertmealing.com/D60/index.htm

best,
robert

[D30man MI]

I used the 50 1.8 and everyone I've talked to, and myself included have gone up to the 50 1.4. it's one of the sharpest non L lenses you can get. HUGE difference!!!

Dave

PS
you're pics are REALLY good. I can't wait for my D60 to come. but it's too cold in MI to go to the zoo. In May it gets up to about 60-70ish, i'll go then.

[fastlane65]

I picked up my new 70-200 2.8 IS last week. Yes, it is a little heavier than my 28-70 2.8 and a good bit heavier than my 70-300 4-5.6 IS, but I walked around with it for about three hours and it never got too heavy to hold. The 70-200 4 should be even easier to hold.

It didn't take long for me to fall in love with the lens. I've all but forgotton the bill from the camera shop. This is the best all-around lens I've ever used (takes the place of my trusty 80 1.2 FD portrait lens.) I love the fact that I can get a really good close-up of the model's face without having to be inside macro range. I'm sure she was much more comfortable with me ten feet away than one foot away. This lens is extremely fast and sharp. Worth every penny - - all two hundred thousand of them. Thsi is one area where you do get what you pay for.

I haven't used the 70-200 4, but I have heard excellent things about it, and for the price, you can't go wrong.

[Rich Markese]

A few questions.....

For the D-60, Its true that a 70-200 lens isnt a true 70-200.... whats the actually calculation of that... is it times 1.6????

What is the big difference between the 2.8 and the 2.8 IS? Does the IS make that much of a difference. Its about 500 bucks more than the 2.8 Just curious if its really worth it.

How much less is the 4L and what do you lose compared to the 2.8?

Any feedback is valuable!!!

Rich Markese
www.MarkesePhotography.com

[Transfix]

I am very very pleased with my Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS USM to go along with my 1V and other lenes.

I'd image that to be a great addition to a D30 or better...but you will have to plunk down another 2,000 or so.