is it this lens?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=258518&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

any AF-D lens will retain full functionality on a D70 back... any "D" lens will retain full functionality ( any lens that is a "D" lens will go out of its way to tell you...it means there is a computer chip inside. the camera needs that for some of its calculations).

in other words the autofocus and metering in all modes will be perfectly fine

BUT it will have a 35mm equivelent focal lenght of 42mm-300mm... so in other words you will lose the wide angle portion of your zoom range, while gaining on the telephoto end

if you can afford it...consider the "kit" lens that is available with the D70... the 18-70mm its a solid performer and gives you the wider coverage you will lose with your Tamron...then keep the Tamron for middle to long shots..they'd make a good pair.

Thanks for the valuable info. Yes, that's the lens I have. Since digital cameras in general cost more than thie predisesors, I thought I could save a little. I also have several lenses dating back to my old F3 circa 1960. I can probably sell them to a collector on e-bay to help pay for a digital body

I'm not disputing your suggestion, but I'd go for the 20mm f2.8 Nikkor instead of the kit lens. That will give you a 30mm 2.8 which is a great sharp handholdable lens. That's what I keep on the camera when I'm not shooting with the 60mm macro.

Mr. Berman,

Sorry, a little OT.

I've been debating getting either the 18-70mm, or the 20mm, an endless debate as I don't want to spend the money right now. Yours is the first comment in favor of the 20mm. Everything I've read is the 20mm is a great lens. Part of my leaning towards it is the 62mm front thread, thus keeping all my lenses 62, and being able to use it on my N80. Any other pros or cons?

Bron

I cant dispute the quality of the 20mm... but my suggestion was based on the concept of the budget not being large....seeing as the topic starter revolved around the importance of being able to continue to use a third party superzoom...

if we're talking performance suggestions im a huge fan of the 12-24mm F/4 and the 17-35mm F/2.8 but i felt it was likley these were out of budgeting consideration....with the "kit" lens costing as little as an extra $100 depending on where you buy your D70 kit...its the lowest cost alternative i could think of..

The 20 is hand holdable. I wouldn't hand hold the zoom. Actually given a choice, I wouldn't hand hold any camera/lens preferring a few good pictures instead of a lot of mediocre ones. The 12mm - 24mm is considered excellent, but it's also in the $1,000 range. But I've never been a big fan of zooms, preferring to move my feet. The Ballerina picture in my D70 gallery was shot with the 20 under studio lighting. And the PMA aerial in my gallery was taken with the 12mm - 24mm zoom.

I have the 12-24mm...mostly because there really is no other option for a Nikon mount in a super wide angle... Im NOT a fan of the F/4 and the construction quality could be a LOT better considering the price tag...but the performance is on par with the price range.. I cant dispute the quality of a solid prime...you will NEVER get me to give up my 105mm, 85mm or even my 50mm for that matter. To each his own in the zoom/prime debate..both have their places....for every amazingly planned tripod mounted image made spectacular by a prime...there is another that was a grab shot made possible by quick zooming...at least with my style and manner of photography

I guess the real winner is the consumer, even the "poorer" lenses are solid performers considering that the most common flaw is distortion which is not too hard to correct in Photoshop (admittedly not the BEST solution...but it is a realistic solution to an age old problem). The advent of the D200 and its ability to work with older tech Nikkor lenses really opens the door for a "cheaper" Nikon back and older but very high quality lens combos.