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

John Smith wrote:
Thanks

BTW, there is also the 200-400mm f/4 AFS-VR for $5000. About the same as
a 300 f/4 VR + 1.4x TC.


Paul Furman wrote
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




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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:49:22 -0600, RichA wrote in
:

John Navas wrote in
:

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.

That's pretty lame, even for you.

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

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:40:48 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote in :

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?

Into the twit filter you go.

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

Paul,

I would think one could get the 300 f/4 VR + 1.4x TC for around $1,500
couldn't one?

John




"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...

BTW, there is also the 200-400mm f/4 AFS-VR for $5000. About the same as a
300 f/4 VR + 1.4x TC.

John Smith wrote:
Paul,

I would think one could get the 300 f/4 VR + 1.4x TC for around $1,500
couldn't one?

Oops, that was a typo, there is no 300 f/4 VR unfortunately. Canon has
one for $1200. There is an $1100 Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED but no VR.


Paul Furman wrote

About the same as a 300 f/4 [typo should be f/2.8] VR + 1.4x TC.


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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

In article , D.Mac
wrote:

A hand made Sigma (this model is all hand made) 120 - 300 F/2.8 with a 2x
tele-converter. 600 mm reach, F/5.6 aperture and truly prime lens quality
images at it's longest reach.

if it works, maybe. 84.6% failure rate:

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:41:56 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

I can get my DSLR with its 35 mm film equiv of 28-400mm zoom into my
jacket pocket. But at its longest it's max aperture is f5.6, two stops
over your f2.8. But because my pixels are bigger, I can push ISO more
than two stops past your P&S at the same noise level. So I've got a
wider zoom range with better low light capability in a jacket
pocketable camera. Does that make it superior?

--
Chris Malcolm

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:49:20 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:41:56 GMT, TheRealSteve wrote
in :

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:57:37 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

Fits nicely in my jacket pocket.

Here, you're rationalizing your purchase. You must feel really
threatened. Hell, my DSLR fits in my jacket pocket too. But I don't
always wear a jacket.

If your dSLR with a 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom lens fits in your jacket
pocket, then you and your jacket must be WAY bigger than me.

You are too funny!

My DSLR with a 27-300mm (a much more useful 11x zoom range than your
12x 36-432mm zoom range) f/3.5-5.6 (which works out to be faster than
your f/2.8 since I can go to several stops higher ISO than your P&S
without the images turning to mush) fits in my jacket and lets me take
better pictures than you could ever hope to.

Would I want to carry it that way? Nope. But I wouldn't want to
carry a bridge camera that way either. Which is why I also have a
true pocketable P&S and don't have to rationalize my purchases by
claiming they can do things which they cannot, like you do all the
time.

Steve

John Navas wrote in
:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:49:22 -0600, RichA wrote in
:

John Navas wrote in
m:

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.

That's pretty lame, even for you.


Well, the gull one was nice, likely took about 100 takes with a P&S or pure
luck to catch it though. I've seen people trying to shoot objects in motion
with superzoom P&S's and it's sad. If they're successful, it's only
because they work like Hell to develop a technique to make-up for the P&S's
deficiencies.
I once shot a bird with a Nikon D40 (6 megapixels) and an 18-70mm lens.
The pigeon occupied only about a sixth of the frame. I cropped it and
people thought it was a full-frame image, till they looked at the Exif. No
reflection on my abilities, the image quality was just that good.

On 2009-01-02, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:40:48 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote in :

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?

Into the twit filter you go.


Just two short weeks ago John was telling us with pride how little he
uses his twit filter and how much he dislikes to do so.

Threats on all sides, eh, John?

--
savvo orig. invib. man