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 » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 30th 07, 10:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Adrian Boliston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

"Alexander Arnakis" wrote in message
...

It's all a matter of preference, of course. If it were my choice, I
would get a fast prime lens, like the 35mm f/2 AF-D Nikkor. A zoom
gives you more versatility, but at the price of bulk and slow speed.


This 35/2 is a good choice I find for a "one lens" setup, as it will focus
very close for taking macro type shots although I don't think it quite goes
to 1:1. Indoor shots are fine with f2 so better than pro zooms, and
although not a wide angle on digital I like the landscapes I get with this
lens.

When I can afford it I will possibly get a nice compact D40 as a second body
and a 20/2.8 & 85/1.8 to cover wider & longer shots without having to switch
lenses. I initially sold my kit 18-70 lens and got the 17-55 (now also
sold) but this was such a heavy & massive beast and seemed to draw a lot of
attention as other photographers would often ask me about it, but I prefer
the discreetness of the tiny 35/2.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk


  #32  
Old April 30th 07, 11:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:39 -0400, Rita Berkowitz wrote:

But it might not be as good as you think. After all, when used in
Antarctica one was known to fall apart. Don't go there, hear? g


I got a kick out of that when I read it. But seriously, I don't think that
any lens should fall apart under normal use. I hope Neil doesn't come in
here six months from now crying that his front element fell off.


If that happened, Ann Coulter would drop him like a hot potato.
Or maybe that should be like a limp noodle. g

  #33  
Old April 30th 07, 11:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alexander Arnakis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:46:21 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
wrote:

When I can afford it I will possibly get a nice compact D40 as a second body
and a 20/2.8 & 85/1.8 to cover wider & longer shots without having to switch
lenses. I initially sold my kit 18-70 lens and got the 17-55 (now also
sold) but this was such a heavy & massive beast and seemed to draw a lot of
attention as other photographers would often ask me about it, but I prefer
the discreetness of the tiny 35/2.

You know, of course, that these lenses won't autofocus with the D40.

If you're content with manual focus, an even more compact choce would
be the 45mm f/2.8P. This supports autoexposure on the D40.

  #34  
Old May 1st 07, 01:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bruce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

I have the D80 which came with a 18-70mm DX which is a good all rounder so I
beleive is the 18-200mm VR.

It comes down to cost a good but affordable macro is the 60mm micro nikkor
as an addition.

Bruce


  #35  
Old May 1st 07, 01:58 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
DoN. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

According to Rita Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com:
Neil Harrington wrote:
Attribution missing -- presumably trimmed by Neil.


[ ... ]

As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint
and very
common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200.


I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't
falling off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports
of this "very common" complaint?


Try again with a spanner wrench and tell me you aren't getting a 1/4
revolution of travel to tighten it up.


How many people have an appropriate spanner wrench in their
home? I've got one, but I like to work on almost anything. And if Neil
lives in the UK, the more common interpretation of "spanner" there is an
open-end wrench, not the specialized wrench needed for adjusting lens
assemblies.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #36  
Old May 1st 07, 02:21 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,272
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

On 2007-04-30 17:58:11 -0700, (DoN. Nichols) said:

According to Rita Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com:
Neil Harrington wrote:
Attribution missing -- presumably trimmed by Neil.


[ ... ]

As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint
and very
common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200.

I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't
falling off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports
of this "very common" complaint?


Try again with a spanner wrench and tell me you aren't getting a 1/4
revolution of travel to tighten it up.


How many people have an appropriate spanner wrench in their
home? I've got one, but I like to work on almost anything. And if Neil
lives in the UK, the more common interpretation of "spanner" there is an
open-end wrench, not the specialized wrench needed for adjusting lens
assemblies.

Enjoy,
DoN.


Besides which, none of us are going to disassemble our lenses just so
Rita can say they came apart. How do we know her experiments haven't
damaged her lens? Rita is beginning to sound like the fox that lost his
tail.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

  #37  
Old May 1st 07, 05:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Neil Harrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,001
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80


"Rita Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Right! What the hell does "light macro" mean? Either use the
terminology right or don't use it at all. There are people new to
this group that might
mistake you for having a clue as to what you are talking about.


What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it
determined? "Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro
must mean going down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine
macro lenses that only go to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their
products "macro" when they go to 1:4. The term is loose at best, and
"people new to this group" might as well learn that early on.


Google it up and see. The most accepted definition is 1:1 or greater
magnification. As for the lenses you talk about, which ones would these
be?


Minolta made a couple of macro lenses that would go only to 1:2 until you
attached an extension tube made for the lens -- back in the MD-mount days.
And I believe the Tokina 100mm macro lens just prior to the current Pro D
model also only went to 1:2 without attachments. I still have an old
Minolta-mount Vivitar 90mm macro that only goes to 1:2 by itself; there's an
optical adapter for it (essentially a two-element close-up lens) that takes
it to 1:1. I'm sure there must be others.


Just because some marketing genius call it macro doesn't mean that it is
really macro. And no, the 18-200 does not do macro.


No, I didn't say it did, and I don't accept all those close-focusing zooms
that the makers call "macro zooms" as being real macro lenses either. But
surely a complex, fixed-focal-length lens expressly designed for that sort
of work is properly called a macro lens whether it goes to 1:1 or only 1:2.


Poor build quality and poor light gathering
qualities are subjective. Most reviewers rave about this lens. You,

Which reviewers would these be? I mean the ones without a vested
interest in pushing this lens?


Well, I've had one for a couple of weeks, I'm prepared to rave about
it and I have no "vested interest in pushing this lens." I think it's
an absolutely fabulous, glorious, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
lens.


And what are you comparing it to? If you are used to using crap lenses
and
slap this baby on your camera you will think it's the second coming of
Jesus. It still is a crippled lens that has its uses.


But you regard *all* DX lenses as "crap." If Nikon made a 10-1000mm f/1.2
lens that focused to 1:1, delivered 200 line pairs/mm corner to corner at
all distances, focal lengths and apertures, was perfectly distortion-free
and built strong enough to use as a jack handle, if it was a DX lens you'd
still call it "crap."


OTOH, have a hatred that borders on psychopathic. "Many" complaints
about the front element falling off? Nonsense. This is a new
complaint that you made up. Neither is lens creep unique to this
lens. It is common to nearly all lenses in the price range that the
OP was talking about. Not everyone can afford to spent $1500 on a
lens, Rita.

Hey, I don't hate the lens, in fact I think in principle and concept
of turning a D200 or a D2x into a P&S on steroids is awesome. On
the other hand, I guess one could buy a decent P&S for $750 that
will perform almost as well.


I . . . don't . . . think . . . so. I have all of Nikon's last and
finest Coolpix "prosumer" models, which is the sort of thing I
suppose you mean by "P&S," and while the 8700 and 8800 are wonderful
cameras they are certainly not comparable to the 18-200 on an SLR.


The 18-200 is a convenience lens, that's it. It does a decent job on an
SLR, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that the optics are any better
than
what is found on most pocket P&S cameras.


Now there's a bizarre opinion if I ever saw one. . . . You have succeeded in
rendering me speechless, a rare condition for me.


As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint
and very
common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200.


I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't
falling off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports
of this "very common" complaint?


Try again with a spanner wrench and tell me you aren't getting a 1/4
revolution of travel to tighten it up.


Even if I had a suitable wrench, the likelihood of my trying that is
vanishingly small. I've never felt the need to "tighten up" any lens I've
owned in the past 50+ years, and I'm quite confident my new 18-200 is not
going to fall apart, fantastic stories notwithstanding.


The biggest lens creep around here is you. I have had it with your
unsubstantiated claims.

LOL! You're a fool if you find it acceptable for a $750 lens to
have lens creep and other QA problems.


I don't see lens creep as being a "QA problem," and mine hasn't crept
anyway, so far. But then I carry it with the lens shortened. I read
somewhere that the lens creep mostly occurs when the camera is
carried with the lens somewhere in mid-zoom, which seems to make
sense. If mine (which is still quite new) does eventually creep I
still won't see it as a quality problem. The part of the lens that
extends has some weight, after all, and there's a reasonable limit to
how stiff one wants the zoom control to be.


It will creep. Just get a Livestrong bracelet or a rubber band from a
bunch
of broccoli and you'll be happy.


I'm already deliriously happy without the Livestrong bracelet (whatever that
is) or rubber band. I love the lens.

Neil


  #38  
Old May 1st 07, 05:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
DoN. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 405
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80

According to Neil Harrington :

"Rita Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:


[ ... ]

What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it
determined? "Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro
must mean going down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine
macro lenses that only go to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their
products "macro" when they go to 1:4. The term is loose at best, and
"people new to this group" might as well learn that early on.


Google it up and see. The most accepted definition is 1:1 or greater
magnification. As for the lenses you talk about, which ones would these
be?


Minolta made a couple of macro lenses that would go only to 1:2 until you
attached an extension tube made for the lens -- back in the MD-mount days.
And I believe the Tokina 100mm macro lens just prior to the current Pro D
model also only went to 1:2 without attachments. I still have an old
Minolta-mount Vivitar 90mm macro that only goes to 1:2 by itself; there's an
optical adapter for it (essentially a two-element close-up lens) that takes
it to 1:1. I'm sure there must be others.


Certainly -- at least one Nikkor -- Micro-Nikkor Auto 55mm f3.5,
covered down to 1:2 directly, and required a specific spacer ring
which carried the auto diaphragm coupling, the 'M' ring to reach 1:1.
There was an earlier 35mm f3.5 which went all the way to 1:1 without
attachments, but that one did not have an auto diaphragm. All pre
auto-focus, of course. It will fit on my D70 with the 'M' ring in
place, but not without it -- at least until it gets modified in an AI
conversion.

There is also the 200mm f5.6 "Medical Nikkor" which used a set
of six quality screw-on close-up elements in various combinations of one
or two, which worked with the rings on the lens body to automatically
calculate the aperture using the built-in ring flash. There was no
focus adjustment -- you got the fixed ratios from the combinations of
lenses (which simplified the exposure calculation). You set the
reproduction ratio on one ring, and the ASA (now ISO) on another, and
this set the aperture properly. The maximum magnification was 3:1, and
the minimum 1:15 (with no screw-on lenses).

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
  #39  
Old May 1st 07, 08:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Brace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80


"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
According to Neil Harrington :

"Rita Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:


[ ... ]

What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it
determined? "Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro
must mean going down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine
macro lenses that only go to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their
products "macro" when they go to 1:4. The term is loose at best, and
"people new to this group" might as well learn that early on.

Google it up and see. The most accepted definition is 1:1 or greater
magnification. As for the lenses you talk about, which ones would
these
be?


Minolta made a couple of macro lenses that would go only to 1:2 until you
attached an extension tube made for the lens -- back in the MD-mount
days.
And I believe the Tokina 100mm macro lens just prior to the current Pro D
model also only went to 1:2 without attachments. I still have an old
Minolta-mount Vivitar 90mm macro that only goes to 1:2 by itself; there's
an
optical adapter for it (essentially a two-element close-up lens) that
takes
it to 1:1. I'm sure there must be others.


Certainly -- at least one Nikkor -- Micro-Nikkor Auto 55mm f3.5,
covered down to 1:2 directly, and required a specific spacer ring
which carried the auto diaphragm coupling, the 'M' ring to reach 1:1.
There was an earlier 35mm f3.5 which went all the way to 1:1 without
attachments, but that one did not have an auto diaphragm. All pre
auto-focus, of course. It will fit on my D70 with the 'M' ring in
place, but not without it -- at least until it gets modified in an AI
conversion.

There is also the 200mm f5.6 "Medical Nikkor" which used a set
of six quality screw-on close-up elements in various combinations of one
or two, which worked with the rings on the lens body to automatically
calculate the aperture using the built-in ring flash. There was no
focus adjustment -- you got the fixed ratios from the combinations of
lenses (which simplified the exposure calculation). You set the
reproduction ratio on one ring, and the ASA (now ISO) on another, and
this set the aperture properly. The maximum magnification was 3:1, and
the minimum 1:15 (with no screw-on lenses).

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---


And let's not forget the Nikon PN-11 originally made to take one of the
earlier Micro-Nikkors out to 1:1 as I recall. It is a 52.5mm auto extension
ring complete with an integral tripod mount.
Extremely useful with any current Micro-Nikkor (and others) to extend the
reproduction ratio. I find it works especially well with my 200mm
Micro-Nikkor when paired with the RRS 87-B mounting which locks the whole
shebang into one Arca-Swiss quick-mountable unit. The 87-B also can act as
a focusing slider, so you don't have to play with your reproduction ratio
during focus.
Nice design but I find an actual geared Macro focus rail is easier & quicker
to focus with.
Bob


  #40  
Old May 3rd 07, 06:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Ruether
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80



"Robert Brace" wrote in message news:[email protected]

And let's not forget the Nikon PN-11 originally made to take one of the earlier Micro-Nikkors out to 1:1 as I recall. It is a
52.5mm auto extension ring complete with an integral tripod mount.
Extremely useful with any current Micro-Nikkor (and others) to extend the reproduction ratio. I find it works especially well
with my 200mm Micro-Nikkor when paired with the RRS 87-B mounting which locks the whole shebang into one Arca-Swiss
quick-mountable unit. The 87-B also can act as a focusing slider, so you don't have to play with your reproduction ratio during
focus.


I have a PN-11 (and maybe a suitable RRS plate) available
if anyone is interested...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether


 




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
How to pick a macro lens? Roy Smith Digital SLR Cameras 24 April 7th 07 11:33 AM
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack Michel General Equipment For Sale 1 October 2nd 05 01:57 PM
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack Michel 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 October 2nd 05 01:57 PM
Which Would You Pick . . . Tom C. Digital Photography 18 August 20th 04 03:09 PM
**HELP** Pick the BEST one ** Guru Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 May 30th 04 07:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.