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

"N" wrote in message
...
"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

Everyone here has equal rights. Live and let live fella.


edited for brevity

I hope you remember you said that.
Douggies Irony meter spins so freely these days that he is using it as a
fan.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

"N" wrote in message
...
"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

Everyone here has equal rights. Live and let live fella.


edited for brevity

I hope you remember you said that.

Neither he nor Navas actually have a clue about quality results so you can
be sure it will never happen with either.

By now you'll probably have all the answers you need but maybe you might
consider my solution. $2.5k worth.

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.

The only catch is the filter size. I had to pay $170 for a circular
polariser for mine! Dinner plate size front element. A heavy lens by any
standard but excellent results at a fraction of the cost of 600mm Nikor or
Canon "L".

The one thing that it might have benefitted from is Image stabalization but
a gimballed tripod makes up for it and with the D3 you can up the ISO to get
a fast shutter speed without losing any image quality.

Example at 300mm.
http://gallery.photographyreview.com...hy//502/01.jpg
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!



"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---

"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"N" wrote in message
...
"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

Everyone here has equal rights. Live and let live fella.


edited for brevity

I hope you remember you said that.
Douggies Irony meter spins so freely these days that he is using it as a
fan.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church
of Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." Gandhi

Yeah... Right. You who takes pot shots at real photographers while hiding
under your rock.
Get a life or a camera mate. Either of which is a waste of resources on
the rest of us.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!


well having seen your photographs Douggie I can agree that yes, a Camera IS
a waste of resources on you :-)
and Douggie, don't despair, I don't think that life is a wasted resource on
you, after all, for some people their life shines out as a warning to
others, so you should feel proud that your beacon is keeping others from
smashing into the same rocky pile of bull**** and bile that holed your keel
so many years ago.

I have a Camera, I have taken the odd photo with it as well, nothing special
and nothing that I feel is up to most of the standards presented by a lot of
the contributors here, but if I was to compare it too yours, it would
probably come of favorably, at least I know how to stitch a panno so tree's
don't grow out of thin air and foot paths don't disappear along with the
stairways to nowhere. When are we going to see the Manly thing Douggie, or
are you not manly enough ??

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

D.Mac wrote:
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...

I have a Camera, I have taken the odd photo with it as well, --
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]

You said it mate. I really didn't think you had the balls to admit you troll
the groups for entertainment, not information.

Now tell us about the copyright claim.

Did someone get the ****s with your gouding and insults and dob you in or do
the Scientology boys partol Usenet looking for people using thier trademarks
and copyrights?

ROTFL!

You are a dead set arsehole. I'm pleased someone has managed to pull you up
at least for this ****. No doubt there's be more to come too!


For someone who can't get the date and time settings right on his
computer, it is unsurprising that AC's sig line whooooshed overhead.

Douglas, it is the 3rd January. THIRD. After you get that right, check
your nearest clock (it's 7:01 now..*), and lastly, try to get the
timezone right.


* Or maybe try to find someone with the time writted on a piece of paper.


(Going for a second whoosh...)

Do you really think the "Canberra Internet crimes squad" (if it really even
does exist) really gives a rats ass about some "Pete D" and "D. Mac" ****ing
at each other about a camera lens? Give me a break!

You guys sound like two old ladies arguing over who stole who's knitting
needles. Or perhaps more accurately, two old fags arguing about whose dick
is longer.

Just shut the **** up, both of you...



"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"N" wrote in message
...
"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

Everyone here has equal rights. Live and let live fella.


edited for brevity

I hope you remember you said that.

Neither he nor Navas actually have a clue about quality results so you
can be sure it will never happen with either.

This coming from the person posting "Peter Dee" photos but denying he is
"Peter Dee" when I asked him. Only to later admit it is him.

Hey fool. Did you think you were being smart in using a form on my web
site to anonomously (ROTF) send me hate mail? Did you fell like the idiot
your are when you posted a message to aus.photo from the same IP address
as I recorded in the form?

Be serious here Peter. Do you really think you opinion has any value more
than anyone elses? Or are you just bening an arsehole like you've been for
the last few years?

Tell me Peter, was it the Canberra Internet crimes squad that forced you
to remove your defamation insult about me from the headers of your
messages or did you have a change of heart when IInet told you to do it or
be thrown off their servers?

You wouldn't know what quality was if it bit you on the bum.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!

Mark Thomas wrote:
* Or maybe try to find someone with the time writted on a piece of
paper.

Now don't you go taking the blessed names of Bluebottle and Eccles in vain.
(The 11th Commandment)

--
Jeff R.
(I wish I had a piece of paper like that)

"D.Mac" wrote in message
...

"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...

I have a Camera, I have taken the odd photo with it as well, --
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church
of Scientology International]

You said it mate. I really didn't think you had the balls to admit you
troll the groups for entertainment, not information.

Now tell us about the copyright claim.

Did someone get the ****s with your gouding and insults and dob you in or
do the Scientology boys partol Usenet looking for people using thier
trademarks and copyrights?

ROTFL!

You are a dead set arsehole. I'm pleased someone has managed to pull you
up at least for this ****. No doubt there's be more to come too!
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!


another example of your utter cluelessness you dolt, my sig is a subtle dig
at scientology and there preponderance of law suits all over the world with
anyone who points out their stupidity, I see that subtleties and sarcasm
still elude your poor tired and incapable mind, might I suggest you take a
remedial reading course for as part of your New Years resolution.
as for dead set arseholes, just how many times have you been pulled up for
plagiarism just within the photo groups, you sad pathetic man ??
and I see you have failed to do the Manly thing because your not half the
man you think you are.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

John Navas wrote:
On 2 Jan 2009 12:10:42 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

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?

Really?

I'm not making any claims, I'm asking your opinion.

Stabilized?

Yes.

Same level of quality?

As far as I can tell from looking at other's web posted photographs,
but I'm asking your judgment.

What lens would that be?

There's only one 18-250mm DSLR zoom on the market AFAIK, although it
has been rebadged by some makers. It's well known to be unexpectedly
good in image quality for its range. If you're not familar with that
particular DSLR lens competitor to your P&S zoom range claims, a lens
that was developed specifically for that purpose, then you really
should update your arguments in case they're out of date.

And the aperture issue isn't dismissed so easily.

My argument was that for practical purposes using a two stop higher
ISO on a camera with a sensor large enough to do so without
introducing extra noise would be effectively equivalent in quality. It
also wouldn't be so much different in DoF either. If you think I've
forgotten some important issues there I'd be glad to hear them.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 3 Jan 2009 16:18:34 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:
On 2 Jan 2009 12:10:42 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

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:

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?

Really?

I'm not making any claims, I'm asking your opinion.

Stabilized?

Yes.

Same level of quality?

As far as I can tell from looking at other's web posted photographs,
but I'm asking your judgment.

What lens would that be?

There's only one 18-250mm DSLR zoom on the market AFAIK, although it
has been rebadged by some makers. It's well known to be unexpectedly
good in image quality for its range. If you're not familar with that
particular DSLR lens competitor to your P&S zoom range claims, a lens
that was developed specifically for that purpose, then you really
should update your arguments in case they're out of date.

I'm not into guessing games, sorry. If you're going to spend that much
effort on indirection and innuendo instead of just answering the
question, then I'm done with this.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others