Which lenses to go with

Paul Rubin wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
If it's AI mount, it will mount, and function, not auto-focus (of
course), *and not meter*. That last is less trouble than you might
think once you get used to it -- in digital. You take a few test
exposures in a situation, and then you're good to go until you go
somewhere else.

Or point the camera in a slightly different direction from the same
place, or stay in the same place while the lighting changes because
someone opened the window, etc.

If the lighting is actually changing significantly, then of course it's
harder to keep up with by hand. But one of the things I've learned over
the years is that mechanically metering each shot (which of course takes
into account all those little things) produces *less* well-exposed
results than evaluating the scene by eye, metering intelligently
(average or spot or multiple spots, possibly with a correction), and
then sticking with that exposure. This is because the meter in your
camera is better at measuring light than you are, but far less good at
picking an artistically satisfactory exposure.

Manual focusing is also a big pain in
the neck with low-end DSLR's (I haven't tried with high end ones),
just because the focus screens aren't set up for it and the
viewfinders aren't nearly as good as MF cameras.

I've been using some of my old MF lenses on a Fuji S2 and now my Nikon
D200 since 2003, almost exclusively in low-light conditions. The
drawback seems to me to be less in low light -- I have a lot more
trouble with the auto-focus system in low light.

David Dyer-Bennet writes:
But one of the things I've learned over the years is that
mechanically metering each shot (which of course takes into account
all those little things) produces *less* well-exposed results than
evaluating the scene by eye, metering intelligently (average or spot
or multiple spots, possibly with a correction), and then sticking
with that exposure. This is because the meter in your camera is
better at measuring light than you are, but far less good at picking
an artistically satisfactory exposure.

That's fine if you're planning to spend all day taking an artistic
picture. Sometimes you're just trying to get a recognizable image
that you can clean up later in the darkroom (or these days with an
image editor), to record an event without giving a rip whether it's
artistic or not, and that's where you want autoexposure.

I've been using some of my old MF lenses on a Fuji S2 and now my
Nikon D200 since 2003, almost exclusively in low-light conditions.
The drawback seems to me to be less in low light -- I have a lot more
trouble with the auto-focus system in low light.

I've heard that the D200 has a much better viewfinder than the D50/D70
but I haven't tried one. I don't know about the S2. I've tried MF on
a D70 and it's very difficult to focus quickly and accurately with a
D70 compared with a traditional MF camera and viewfinder screen.

Paul Rubin wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet writes:
But one of the things I've learned over the years is that
mechanically metering each shot (which of course takes into account
all those little things) produces *less* well-exposed results than
evaluating the scene by eye, metering intelligently (average or spot
or multiple spots, possibly with a correction), and then sticking
with that exposure. This is because the meter in your camera is
better at measuring light than you are, but far less good at picking
an artistically satisfactory exposure.

That's fine if you're planning to spend all day taking an artistic
picture. Sometimes you're just trying to get a recognizable image
that you can clean up later in the darkroom (or these days with an
image editor), to record an event without giving a rip whether it's
artistic or not, and that's where you want autoexposure.

That's not for artistic pictures; that's for journalistic pictures, when
you *absolutely* have to come home with the bacon. When you can't
afford to count on the automation, because it's not as good a
photographer as you are.

I've been using some of my old MF lenses on a Fuji S2 and now my
Nikon D200 since 2003, almost exclusively in low-light conditions.
The drawback seems to me to be less in low light -- I have a lot more
trouble with the auto-focus system in low light.

I've heard that the D200 has a much better viewfinder than the D50/D70
but I haven't tried one. I don't know about the S2. I've tried MF on
a D70 and it's very difficult to focus quickly and accurately with a
D70 compared with a traditional MF camera and viewfinder screen.

The S2 is mechanically the same as the D100, based on the same body, so
while I didn't compare carefully, it's probably essentially the same
viewfinder.

What I really liked for focusing in the dark was my M3, but that was a
LONG time ago now.

I am looking seriously at getting the 100-300mm f4 tokina for outdoor
wildlife shots, and have seen amazing shots taken with it. The manual
focus isn't a problem, and I am sure that it beats the lower-end auto
focus lenses like the Nikon 70-300 non-ED (can't afford the ED
version), but if I am wrong, and the Nikon 70-300 non-ED out-performs
the Tokina 100-300mm f4 lens, kindly let me know.
On Jan 30, 9:30 am, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


If it's AI mount, it will mount, and function, not auto-focus (of
course), *and not meter*. That last is less trouble than you might
think once you get used to it -- in digital. You take a few test
exposures in a situation, and then you're good to go until you go
somewhere else.

I'm not sure Tokina ever made the pre-AI Nikon mount, it may not be
possible for it to be the wrong thing.