A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

opinions on the equipment list



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 04, 05:51 AM
Pallav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default opinions on the equipment list

hello,

about a couple of days back i posted a thread called "questions on SLR
photography, n5005" on which some of you gave me sound advice. after
spending some time looking around and reading various articles/reviews
based on the responses, i have come up with the following list of
equipment that i need to get for my trip (i'm interested in doing
outdoor/nature photography in himalayan ranges, at elevation of about
3500-4000m).

the camera (which i'm still learning) is a nikon AF n5005. it
orginally had an AF sigma 70-200 mm zoom lens. i have not been able to
find any reviews about this old (maybe 10 years or so?) lens on the
internet. can someone tell me how good this lens is or is it pretty
poor quality?

based on what some of you (and others in other forums) suggested, i'm
thinking the following things to purchase:

1. nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D lens ($95)
2. nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D lens ($260 or so)
3. 2 hoya 52mm haze UV (HMC) multi-coated glass filters ($18 each)
4. 1 hoya 52mm Moose filter ($40) (polarizer + warmer in one)
5. chest strap ($10)
6. 52mm lens generic rubber hoods? ($10-$20) (generic should be fine
or something better?)

i'll be playing with the following films to try them out:
fuji velvia 100f and fuji sensia (slide)
kodak porta 160vc (print)
any other film that you think would be suited for an amateur doing
nature photography? pls recommend. what's a good place to buy films in
cheap bulk?

is there anything else that i should REALLY consider getting (as a
beginner in SLR photography) given my objective (i.e. nature
photography)? any advice or recommendations on the above list would be
really helpful to me given my limited knowledge in this area (just to
make sure i don't overspend/underspend for my purpose). also most of
the prices i've fetched are from pricegrabber.com, eopinions.com, or
b&h photo video. if there other places where i can get better prices,
please let me know.

i will have a tripod with me.

my last question is about batteries. the n5005 uses 4 AA batteries and
being an AF camera it drains quite a bit. since i'll be at mid
elevation in the winter, the batteries might drain quicker. i was
originally thinking about taking a whole pack for AA batteries.

a person recommended getting 2 packs of NIMH rechargeable batteries
(2300 mAH) and an AA solar charger (btw, any ideas on something small
that can be hooked on to an alpine backpack?). this seems like a very
attractive idea but can anyone tell me how long a charge cycle would
be and what the lifetime of such batteries are (i.e. how many rolls
of film can i shoot (in AF mode) without recharging) in a camera like
the n5005? how do you some of you cope with this issue on your travels
to remote places?

thanks for your time once again.

pallav
  #4  
Old September 10th 04, 03:34 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:01:15 -0500, Roger wrote:


My personal favorites for mountain photography were a 35mm f2.0 AFD lens
for environmental shots that included friends, etc and some scenics. This
coupled with a 105mm f2.5 MF AIS (gauss formula) lens for isolating
details in the panoramas. The 105 is a well built lens and may exceed your
weight restrictions. While I use a 24mm lens, it is rather sparingly
because the panoramas get just too filled with detail. It's great for an
occasional shot. However if you are doing climbing (technical or
traversing) while roped to the other members of the party it's great for
capturing the crew.


Hey Roger, pardon me butting in here, but how does the 35mm f/2 AF-D
compare to the older MF version? I have the latter and I use it as the
main lens on my F2, but instead of having it AI'd I thought of getting the
auto focus version so that I could use it on my other two Nikon bodies
(F4s and D70). I can get one at a relatively cheap price (used).

Are these the lenses that have the oil problem?

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

  #5  
Old September 10th 04, 07:55 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:51:03 -0500, Roger wrote:

Dallas,

I just re-read you post and my short answer is get the 35mm f2.0 AF-D.
It's performance is good enough (there is no 35mm Nikkor that is great
short of the 35mm f1.4 and it has aperture range caveats). I like my
AF-D very much and I use it on a F3, F100 and F5. As far as the oil
goes, if you can't see it in the aperture blades, I don't think you will
have a problem. AFIK oil on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is no longer an issue for
lenses manufactured in the last several years.

Roger
--------------------------------------------------

Now for the long answer which you can probably ignore.... I was trying
to multitask and I really didn't weigh my thoughts against your other AF
equipment.

My version of the 35mm f2 AF-D has never had an "oil" problem. I've had
it for several years. I haven't heard of that being a problem for at
least a couple of years now (for new purchase lenses).

I have and use regularly a 35mm f2.0 AIS lens. The optical formula
differences between the AIS and AF-D lenses is obvious. The front
element of the AIS lens takes up nearly all of the 52mm lens diameter
while the AF-D is much smaller. I find the center of the AF-D to be very
crisp over the aperture and focusing range but the corners go a bit soft
with wider apertures. It is however, my favorite lens for coverage and
utility. It is light weight but well constructed and has a good manual
focus feel - the focus touch is very light and not viscous like the
manual lenses so if you are using it in a hyperfocal MF mode, you will
need a piece of black electrical tape to "tack" down the focus point. I
just keep one on the lens barrel.

My 35mm f2.0 AIS is far better than a pre-AI 35mm f2.8 lens that I used
for a long time on a "F". However, that may be comparing apples to
oranges. I haven't tested a 35mm f2.0 pre-AI. The build quality of the
f2.0 AIS lens is excellent and mine has suffered some unexpected abuse
without showing any sign of "encounter".

I find the "bokeh" while not great on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D to be better
than on the 35mm f2.0 AIS MF lens. For that reason and the AF-D's
slightly better flare resistance, I'm more inclined to use the AF-D.

In the US the 35mm f2.0 AF-D lens is very reasonably priced and in my
experience I'd opt for the AF-D lens rather than convert the pre-AI.

Optically, I prefer the AF-D over the AIS only for the "bokeh" (out of
focus qualities) which frankly aren't great on either lens. I also have
seen 35mm f2.0 AIS lenses on the used market for about $120 US. That's
what I bought mine for and that's just a bit more that a AI conversion
job costs here.

I know my answer isn't very crisp. I just see a lot of variables in the
choice. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is good enough to always be mounted on my F3.

Regards,
Roger


Your answer was very informative, Roger. Thanks very much for the input.

When I bought the F2 it came with the 35mm f/2 but it had a bit of fungus.
Luckily I have come across a very good repair guy locally who also does a
very nifty little AI conversion for practically nothing (he simply files
down a section of the mounting ring and it seems to work just like a
regular AI lens). After he cleaned my 35mm it's on the F2 almost all the
time.

While I haven't used a the F2 a heck of a lot, this lens just seems to be
perfectly suited to the camera. It has a very nice feel to it, plus it
produces what to me are very pleasing images. Hence the interest in the
AF-D version.

The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux
28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the
time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to
be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux.

Decisions...decisions...

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

  #6  
Old September 10th 04, 07:55 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:51:03 -0500, Roger wrote:

Dallas,

I just re-read you post and my short answer is get the 35mm f2.0 AF-D.
It's performance is good enough (there is no 35mm Nikkor that is great
short of the 35mm f1.4 and it has aperture range caveats). I like my
AF-D very much and I use it on a F3, F100 and F5. As far as the oil
goes, if you can't see it in the aperture blades, I don't think you will
have a problem. AFIK oil on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is no longer an issue for
lenses manufactured in the last several years.

Roger
--------------------------------------------------

Now for the long answer which you can probably ignore.... I was trying
to multitask and I really didn't weigh my thoughts against your other AF
equipment.

My version of the 35mm f2 AF-D has never had an "oil" problem. I've had
it for several years. I haven't heard of that being a problem for at
least a couple of years now (for new purchase lenses).

I have and use regularly a 35mm f2.0 AIS lens. The optical formula
differences between the AIS and AF-D lenses is obvious. The front
element of the AIS lens takes up nearly all of the 52mm lens diameter
while the AF-D is much smaller. I find the center of the AF-D to be very
crisp over the aperture and focusing range but the corners go a bit soft
with wider apertures. It is however, my favorite lens for coverage and
utility. It is light weight but well constructed and has a good manual
focus feel - the focus touch is very light and not viscous like the
manual lenses so if you are using it in a hyperfocal MF mode, you will
need a piece of black electrical tape to "tack" down the focus point. I
just keep one on the lens barrel.

My 35mm f2.0 AIS is far better than a pre-AI 35mm f2.8 lens that I used
for a long time on a "F". However, that may be comparing apples to
oranges. I haven't tested a 35mm f2.0 pre-AI. The build quality of the
f2.0 AIS lens is excellent and mine has suffered some unexpected abuse
without showing any sign of "encounter".

I find the "bokeh" while not great on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D to be better
than on the 35mm f2.0 AIS MF lens. For that reason and the AF-D's
slightly better flare resistance, I'm more inclined to use the AF-D.

In the US the 35mm f2.0 AF-D lens is very reasonably priced and in my
experience I'd opt for the AF-D lens rather than convert the pre-AI.

Optically, I prefer the AF-D over the AIS only for the "bokeh" (out of
focus qualities) which frankly aren't great on either lens. I also have
seen 35mm f2.0 AIS lenses on the used market for about $120 US. That's
what I bought mine for and that's just a bit more that a AI conversion
job costs here.

I know my answer isn't very crisp. I just see a lot of variables in the
choice. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is good enough to always be mounted on my F3.

Regards,
Roger


Your answer was very informative, Roger. Thanks very much for the input.

When I bought the F2 it came with the 35mm f/2 but it had a bit of fungus.
Luckily I have come across a very good repair guy locally who also does a
very nifty little AI conversion for practically nothing (he simply files
down a section of the mounting ring and it seems to work just like a
regular AI lens). After he cleaned my 35mm it's on the F2 almost all the
time.

While I haven't used a the F2 a heck of a lot, this lens just seems to be
perfectly suited to the camera. It has a very nice feel to it, plus it
produces what to me are very pleasing images. Hence the interest in the
AF-D version.

The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux
28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the
time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to
be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux.

Decisions...decisions...

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

  #7  
Old September 11th 04, 12:19 AM
Bandicoot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dallas" wrote in message
news [SNIP]

The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux
28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the
time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to
be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux.


How are you getting on with that Angenieux? Is it as nice as I would
expect? (given how much I like my 70-210mm one.)


Peter


  #8  
Old September 11th 04, 08:14 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:19:50 +0100, Bandicoot wrote:

"Dallas" wrote in message
news

The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux
28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the
time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have
to be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux.


How are you getting on with that Angenieux? Is it as nice as I would
expect? (given how much I like my 70-210mm one.)


Peter


Well it's early days still, so I haven't been able to really put it to
work yet. What I have noticed though is that it is considerably sharper
than the 18-70mm DX I got with the D70. I was taking some shots of the
kids in my garage studio last weekend and the ones taken with the
Angenieux are really nice.

When I get around to putting some more work into my website I will send up
some samples.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon EOS D10 vs. Fuji S2: Opinions? David Sleeter Digital Photography 7 July 23rd 04 12:25 AM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief In The Darkroom 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash elchief Photographing People 3 April 7th 04 10:20 AM
Opinions on Jobo LPL C 7700 Color Enlarger & Other Equipment Andrew McCall In The Darkroom 1 February 23rd 04 09:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.