Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! s

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:12:54 -0600, Caesar (color me Maroon) Romano
wrote:

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
good.."

What a bunch of uncreative morons.

There are also some people in the ng that can't produce reasonable
replies, and they make up for lack of quality by the sheer number of
their low quality, uncreative, noisy, sock-puppet replies.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:24:43 -0500, wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:12:54 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Caesar Romano
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, John Navas
wrote Re Nikon AF Long Lens under
$9,000 !! s:

I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

There seems to be a lot of pixel-envy in this NG. A lot of people here
seem to think that the quality of their images is directly related to
the number of pixels. Well, that's understandable. If they can't
produce an artistic image, at least the can produce one with a lot of
pixels saying: "... this camera cost so much $$ the images must be
good.."

What a bunch of uncreative morons.

If one is interested in nature photography, isn't the magnification/# of
pixels, one the concerns if one wishes to print one's photos?

Not when the image is captured properly in the first place.
With the 432 mm f/2.8 reach of my FZ20, I can frame accurately,
and make terrific prints -- see my samples.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

John Smith wrote:
I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

I would suggest a 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter to give 420mm f/4.
There's a bunch of different versions:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html

I have a manual focus Tokina which has a good reputation and works very
well for me but I am lusting for a nicer modern AF Nikkor. The one I
really want is a new VR which costs $4,500 :-( but the point here is
that anything longer is going to cost more like $7,500 - $9,500 as you
mentioned so this is what we can afford, if anything. Earlier AF
versions can be found used for around $2,000 and Sigma's is worth
looking at too. Old manual versions can be found for $500 to $1500.

Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter works great on these lenses: f/4 is still
fast, it's really small & a nice piece of optics. The 2x is not as great
but is excellent as 2x converters go. 600mm f/5.6 should AF pretty well,
especially with an AF-S version.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
more reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

TIA---



Have you had a look at the Bigma, I know it works well for many users and it
is quite cheap, not sure how it will perform on the D3 though, sorry.

Cheers.

Pete

Thanks Paul, for you kind and reasoned reply - unlike the self-idolizing
hype from this San Francisco egomaniac IT salesman named Navas.

Isn't the world already full enough of these assholes who really believe
their own hype?



"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
more reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

I would suggest a 300mm f/2.8 and 1.4x teleconverter to give 420mm f/4.
There's a bunch of different versions:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html

I have a manual focus Tokina which has a good reputation and works very
well for me but I am lusting for a nicer modern AF Nikkor. The one I
really want is a new VR which costs $4,500 :-( but the point here is that
anything longer is going to cost more like $7,500 - $9,500 as you
mentioned so this is what we can afford, if anything. Earlier AF versions
can be found used for around $2,000 and Sigma's is worth looking at too.
Old manual versions can be found for $500 to $1500.

Nikon's 1.4x teleconverter works great on these lenses: f/4 is still fast,
it's really small & a nice piece of optics. The 2x is not as great but is
excellent as 2x converters go. 600mm f/5.6 should AF pretty well,
especially with an AF-S version.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Thanks Pete!




"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
more reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

TIA---



Have you had a look at the Bigma, I know it works well for many users and
it is quite cheap, not sure how it will perform on the D3 though, sorry.

Cheers.

Pete

wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:45:06 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
:

If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
I made my point.

Which is you're point is lacking.. I posted full frame dslr photos for
comparison..

What you posted was a broken link!!
Dave Cohe

John Navas wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote in :

I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for
sports, surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses
but at $7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at
a more reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly
don't need an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a
complement, with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens
that's f/3.3 @ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

Sample images:
* http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg
* http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg
* http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg


He could probably shoot them with a 100mm lens on his D3, enlarge them to
what you got with your P&S and get better results.

"John Smith" wrote in
:

Thanks Pete!


The newer 150-500mm Sigma is apparently better than the older 50-500mm.
Also, I've seen the 120-300mm f2.8 Sigma sold used in good cond for under
$2k. That with a TC would be ok.

wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:06:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:59:28 -0500, wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:45:06 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 17:32:49 -0500, wrote in
:

If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
I made my point.
Which is you're point is lacking.. I posted full frame dslr photos for
comparison..
I'm not interested in a meaningless and pointless pixel-peeping ****ing
contest, or in having my images stolen -- sorry.

Then you are just ****ing into the wind.

http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...srp800x600.jpg
is an iso 1600 resampled image from my old D70. Post a link to anything
comparable to this from your P&S.

Now that link does work ok.

Dave Cohen