I have yet to see any in-depth (p)review posted with regard to this lens. I am wondering if it's as good as the Nikkor 28-105. If it is, then there's really no point to keep my 28-105 if I do switch completely to digital upon buying a D70.
#1. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 0Mon 23-Feb-04 12:54 PM
The lens is scheduled to be released initially with the D70 body in kit form only sometime in March. Once initial manufacturing has met this demand, the lens will be sold separately. I would expect to see some reviews just after kit release.
#2. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 0avm247 Charter MemberMon 23-Feb-04 03:17 PM
The 18-70 certainly looks like a great lens, especially for its target niche. But it really hasn't been tested by anyone at least nothing has been posted yet.
The one lens that I purchased blind was the 70-300d ed and it turned into a respectable performer. I think Nikon will have another good performer here, too, in the 18-70 especially since its a very comfortable range as part of a one lens kit, something that is missing in DSLR lens lineups.
Find out more about me on the Moderator Page
"The important things in life are simple; the simple things are hard."
#3. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 2resnica Basic MemberMon 23-Feb-04 07:05 PM
This may not be the best consolation prize, but a review of the higher end 12-24DX lens is available at:
There is also a non-hands on preview and press release at:
Good luck. Thanks, Adam
#4. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
#6. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 0
You can find some info about this lens here:
BTW: I don't understand why they market this lens (and others) as 18mm if in reality it starts from 28mm, unless there was a full frame camera (?) compatible with this lens. But Nikon doesn’t go that way at this moment. So why not to show what we are use to, why do we have to do the math every time? Well Canon has different multiplier with every model, but Nikon doesn’t as far as I know…
#7. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 6Wed 25-Feb-04 03:23 PM
Until full-frame sensors become available and affordable from Nikon, APS type cropping numbers will continue to take a second seat to the 35mm equivalent. Quite frankly, I'm used to doing the conversions in my head, but I agree - it's a bit confusing to new digital users or converts. Until 35mm format stops being the standard for focal length computation (and given the heritage of DSLRs, that day will be long in coming), you'll probably keep seeing the unmodified focal length numbers published prominently, with the 1.5 conversion numbers safely ensconced within the fold-out manual.
#8. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 6Stavros Registered since 23rd Sep 2003Wed 25-Feb-04 11:52 PM
I must emphatically disagree with this statement. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I want to know the real focal length of the lens, not some pseudo-focal-length with a few unstated magic numbers mixed in. I've gotten used to the format of my dSLR and have started to pick up the gut feeling of what an 85mm lens does on it. When I want a ``normal'' lens I grab the 35mm. OK, my 20mm doesn't have the same field of view as it would on a 35mm format camera, but I know what it does, same as my zooms and other primes. I don't translate in my head, but try to think natively in the APS format. Same goes for depth of field, perspective, etc.
So what it comes down to for me is: the APS size dSLRs are a new format and the focal length printed on the lens is a physically meaningful and more importantly well defined number. I don't want my dSLR to try to fake a 35mm camera, just as little as I would expect or want a MF camera's lens to ``convert'' focal lengths to try to fake a 35mm format or an 8x10 view camera.
Treat the numbers however you want, but please don't demand that Nikon start folding in strange hidden factors and such just like/because the Canon, Pentax, Olympus or the digicams have. That just makes the numbers lie, and that would put the marketers out of a job.
#9. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 8Thu 26-Feb-04 01:10 AM
Here's a different oar in the water. My thoughts: *all* digital camera manufacturers prominently publish 35mm focal lengths, simply because this baseline knowledge exists and is well-disseminated within the consumer world.
As informed consumers, we know, without having to resort to FOV numbers, that an 18mm lens is very wide and that a 300mm is fairly long. As photographers, we have a sense and understanding of what these lengths mean to our perspective and type of picture-taking. These numbers haven't changed physically when applied to digital cameras. While I agree that APS size (and this a misnomer since APS is still larger than a middle-of-the-road 1.5x FOV crop CCD) is now emerging as a pseudo-standard within digital photography, the conversion numbers are not known enough in order to supplant 35mm numeric nomenclature. Like the victor in a war who gets to rewrite history, the power of a group (social/political/etc.) is expressed in it's ability to take facts and make it mainstream knowledge en masse. What you're seeing is the new knowledge of digital standards banging up against the persistent world view of 35mm film standards. This cannot be helped because manufacturers made a deliberate decision to base digital technology on 35mm platforms. Thus they had to make digital understood in terms most common to their customer base.
Even the much vaunted Four-Thirds system cannot bring itself to call it's Digital Zuiko lens a 600/2.8 period. The ads still state that it's a 300/2.8 that's the equivalent of a 600/2.8 because of the 2x crop factor. Basic physics and optical design tell us there's no way to make a 300/2.8 magically double up without a teleconverter of some kind. Therefore, the issue is one of nomenclature, plain and simple. Until digital knowledge is disseminated enough, this will not change - and most likely it will not happen without a major standards breakthrough that cleanly breaks away the remnants of 35mm heritage.
#11. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 9vchong Basic MemberThu 26-Feb-04 01:26 AM
Worse than the lag of digital knowledge dissemenation, however, is the fact that focal length numbers are only useful if you know the size of the sensor being employed.
You're right in saying that the relationship between focal length and FOV is understood by our society in terms of the 35mm format, and 35mm is fine and dandy, but really basing everything on 35mm is as silly as basing everything on the length of some arbitrary person's foot or the temperature of a slightly feverish woman.
Eventually, 35mm film will be relegated to the back-counter of specialty camera shops and our hallowed focal lengths will be nothing more than arbitrary numbers with some social knowledge attached to them.
Why don't we use numbers that are grounded in a scientific manner, such as FOV? FOV is picture angle of the resulting image. 86 degrees is always 86 degrees, no matter the size of sensor, the brand of the camera, or the victor of a war.
#12. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 11Stavros Registered since 23rd Sep 2003Thu 26-Feb-04 03:45 AM
``Why don't we use numbers that are grounded in a scientific manner, such as FOV? FOV is picture angle of the resulting image. 86 degrees is always 86 degrees, no matter the size of sensor, the brand of the camera, or the victor of a war. ''
That's my point exactly, though I have the nagging urge to be pedantic: FOV is dependent on sensor size, at least if you use Canon dSLRs or consider film a ``sensor''. My 50mm has a 50mm focal length no matter what body it is mounted on. No matter what Nikon sticks behind an F-mount, this lens is a 50mm lens. The FOV changes when I mount it on a D100 as compared to a F-Ph.T, but I know what is behind the shutter curtain so I know what the lens will do. In light of your following post I may be preaching among the converted, though. For a fixed lens camera it makes sense to talk about FOV because you will never be able to break the pairing of lens and sensor. But an interchangeable lens' character is graven on it's body only in its focal length. As a photographer it is my duty to know the lens for what it is in different circumstances.
Perhaps part of the problem is we are accustomed to thinking of different lenses as different entities, but we think of bodies as being optically interchangeable. This is of course fostered by the vast majority of film bodies in common use being 35mm format. If we thought of bodies as being as varied as lenses we would probably not see so many arguments about crops, multipliers, and image circles...
But hyperbole and pedantry aside, thank you for pointing out what I didn't express clearly, and think is often understated: What our minds work with is FOV. It is not sensor size, focal length or some other nice, well defined, trivially measurable, invariant variable. When I said I ``have started to pick up the gut feeling'' of my lenses, this is exactly what I meant but didn't phrase well.
In my mind I am associating a FOV (and of course perspective and other properties, too) with a combination of a lens and a camera. When I want a mild crop for a portrait, I am visualizing and thinking in terms of a FOV, not a focal length. If I have my F-Ph.T in hand I grab for the 85mm; if it's the D100, I grab for the 50mm.
What might be most confusing is that the ``variables'' in terms of which we think are not the ones that make sense to measure optically and print on the lenses. When discussions go into the details of ``image crop'' vs. ``focal length multiplier'' and talk about 35mm equivalents I get the feeling that the entire line of thought has just cleanly missed the target. What's on the image is what the paricular recording medium grabs from the particular lens. My job as a photographer is to bring the two together with my vision of what I want to represent in the final image. It is what I want in the view that is important!
So from my point of view of making a photograph, the focal lengths are acronyms that have meaning in the particular context of the camera body. But even acronyms should have as much context independent information as possible to minimize confusion, so I want them to not read as ``50mm when used with a D100, 35mm on a F-Ph.T''. Focal length has a meaning for the lens independent of the camera. Multiplied focal lengths, FOV, etc., do not.
And yes, I realize I have just made Armando's point (or at least what I understand it to be) in a slightly modified form: As people we often do not think in terms of optical parameters but ``lens acronyms'' which we associate with FOV, so it is difficult to fight the ``translation into common terms we already understand''.
I readily admit to being a bit odd about this (though when it seems appropriate for ``clarity'' I violate my own rules). I know how the numbers work and I want them to continue to work that way because it gives me more and better understanding of my photography. Otherwise I would be compelled to use my gut rather than my mind. I'd rather use my mind and the numbers.
After all, I have learned not to trust my gut until I have good strong evidence it is right. I trusted it about Sushi, Bagels and Lox, and pappadams with pepper and hot sauces, (separately, please!) and only recently discovered what I had been missing..
#10. "RE: How good is the 18-70mm DX?" | In response to Reply # 8
We all must remember that focal length measurements are relative to the size of the image circle (hope I'm using the right term) for which the lens was designed.
The Coolpix 3200's lens says "5.7-17.4mm", which is 38-115mm in 35mm land. I *DO NOT* want Nikon to stamp 38-115mm on the lens barrel as this would be simply untrue! I'd rather the number be correct and confusing for my 35mm-minded brain than for them to lie to me for my convenience.
I can envision the mass confusion if we made the numbers lie... "Nikon is pleased to announce the development of the Coolpix 9200, featuring the world's smallest and lightest 22-134mm lens."