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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
opinions on the equipment list
hello,
about a couple of days back i posted a thread called "questions on SLR photography, n5005" on which some of you gave me sound advice. after spending some time looking around and reading various articles/reviews based on the responses, i have come up with the following list of equipment that i need to get for my trip (i'm interested in doing outdoor/nature photography in himalayan ranges, at elevation of about 3500-4000m). the camera (which i'm still learning) is a nikon AF n5005. it orginally had an AF sigma 70-200 mm zoom lens. i have not been able to find any reviews about this old (maybe 10 years or so?) lens on the internet. can someone tell me how good this lens is or is it pretty poor quality? based on what some of you (and others in other forums) suggested, i'm thinking the following things to purchase: 1. nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8D lens ($95) 2. nikkor AF 24mm f/2.8D lens ($260 or so) 3. 2 hoya 52mm haze UV (HMC) multi-coated glass filters ($18 each) 4. 1 hoya 52mm Moose filter ($40) (polarizer + warmer in one) 5. chest strap ($10) 6. 52mm lens generic rubber hoods? ($10-$20) (generic should be fine or something better?) i'll be playing with the following films to try them out: fuji velvia 100f and fuji sensia (slide) kodak porta 160vc (print) any other film that you think would be suited for an amateur doing nature photography? pls recommend. what's a good place to buy films in cheap bulk? is there anything else that i should REALLY consider getting (as a beginner in SLR photography) given my objective (i.e. nature photography)? any advice or recommendations on the above list would be really helpful to me given my limited knowledge in this area (just to make sure i don't overspend/underspend for my purpose). also most of the prices i've fetched are from pricegrabber.com, eopinions.com, or b&h photo video. if there other places where i can get better prices, please let me know. i will have a tripod with me. my last question is about batteries. the n5005 uses 4 AA batteries and being an AF camera it drains quite a bit. since i'll be at mid elevation in the winter, the batteries might drain quicker. i was originally thinking about taking a whole pack for AA batteries. a person recommended getting 2 packs of NIMH rechargeable batteries (2300 mAH) and an AA solar charger (btw, any ideas on something small that can be hooked on to an alpine backpack?). this seems like a very attractive idea but can anyone tell me how long a charge cycle would be and what the lifetime of such batteries are (i.e. how many rolls of film can i shoot (in AF mode) without recharging) in a camera like the n5005? how do you some of you cope with this issue on your travels to remote places? thanks for your time once again. pallav |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message
... On 8 Sep 2004 21:51:37 -0700, (Pallav) wrote: Pallav, Please see my comments in-line with your post..... [SNIP] Good advice from Roger, though personally much as I like the 35mm, I'd stick with the 24mm you plan. That is a matter of personal shooting style though. The 105mm he suggests is very nice, another alternative is I seem to remember Nikon having a very fine 75-150mm zoom which is very light. Either way, someting in that sort of range is nice for isolating landscape features. I second the vote for Lithium batteries too. Reading your post one piece of 'equipment' immediately came to mind. Not something to take, but something to study before you go: read "Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography". This book is by perhaps the master of mountain photography, who worked mostly in Nikon 35mm so there will be relevance to your equipment too. It is one of my favourite photography texts in any case, but the relevance to what you have planned is particularly striking. Have fun too... Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger" wrote in message
... On 8 Sep 2004 21:51:37 -0700, (Pallav) wrote: Pallav, Please see my comments in-line with your post..... [SNIP] Good advice from Roger, though personally much as I like the 35mm, I'd stick with the 24mm you plan. That is a matter of personal shooting style though. The 105mm he suggests is very nice, another alternative is I seem to remember Nikon having a very fine 75-150mm zoom which is very light. Either way, someting in that sort of range is nice for isolating landscape features. I second the vote for Lithium batteries too. Reading your post one piece of 'equipment' immediately came to mind. Not something to take, but something to study before you go: read "Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography". This book is by perhaps the master of mountain photography, who worked mostly in Nikon 35mm so there will be relevance to your equipment too. It is one of my favourite photography texts in any case, but the relevance to what you have planned is particularly striking. Have fun too... Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 10:01:15 -0500, Roger wrote:
My personal favorites for mountain photography were a 35mm f2.0 AFD lens for environmental shots that included friends, etc and some scenics. This coupled with a 105mm f2.5 MF AIS (gauss formula) lens for isolating details in the panoramas. The 105 is a well built lens and may exceed your weight restrictions. While I use a 24mm lens, it is rather sparingly because the panoramas get just too filled with detail. It's great for an occasional shot. However if you are doing climbing (technical or traversing) while roped to the other members of the party it's great for capturing the crew. Hey Roger, pardon me butting in here, but how does the 35mm f/2 AF-D compare to the older MF version? I have the latter and I use it as the main lens on my F2, but instead of having it AI'd I thought of getting the auto focus version so that I could use it on my other two Nikon bodies (F4s and D70). I can get one at a relatively cheap price (used). Are these the lenses that have the oil problem? -- Dallas www.dallasdahms.com "Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded" - Sixto Rodriguez |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:51:03 -0500, Roger wrote:
Dallas, I just re-read you post and my short answer is get the 35mm f2.0 AF-D. It's performance is good enough (there is no 35mm Nikkor that is great short of the 35mm f1.4 and it has aperture range caveats). I like my AF-D very much and I use it on a F3, F100 and F5. As far as the oil goes, if you can't see it in the aperture blades, I don't think you will have a problem. AFIK oil on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is no longer an issue for lenses manufactured in the last several years. Roger -------------------------------------------------- Now for the long answer which you can probably ignore.... I was trying to multitask and I really didn't weigh my thoughts against your other AF equipment. My version of the 35mm f2 AF-D has never had an "oil" problem. I've had it for several years. I haven't heard of that being a problem for at least a couple of years now (for new purchase lenses). I have and use regularly a 35mm f2.0 AIS lens. The optical formula differences between the AIS and AF-D lenses is obvious. The front element of the AIS lens takes up nearly all of the 52mm lens diameter while the AF-D is much smaller. I find the center of the AF-D to be very crisp over the aperture and focusing range but the corners go a bit soft with wider apertures. It is however, my favorite lens for coverage and utility. It is light weight but well constructed and has a good manual focus feel - the focus touch is very light and not viscous like the manual lenses so if you are using it in a hyperfocal MF mode, you will need a piece of black electrical tape to "tack" down the focus point. I just keep one on the lens barrel. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is far better than a pre-AI 35mm f2.8 lens that I used for a long time on a "F". However, that may be comparing apples to oranges. I haven't tested a 35mm f2.0 pre-AI. The build quality of the f2.0 AIS lens is excellent and mine has suffered some unexpected abuse without showing any sign of "encounter". I find the "bokeh" while not great on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D to be better than on the 35mm f2.0 AIS MF lens. For that reason and the AF-D's slightly better flare resistance, I'm more inclined to use the AF-D. In the US the 35mm f2.0 AF-D lens is very reasonably priced and in my experience I'd opt for the AF-D lens rather than convert the pre-AI. Optically, I prefer the AF-D over the AIS only for the "bokeh" (out of focus qualities) which frankly aren't great on either lens. I also have seen 35mm f2.0 AIS lenses on the used market for about $120 US. That's what I bought mine for and that's just a bit more that a AI conversion job costs here. I know my answer isn't very crisp. I just see a lot of variables in the choice. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is good enough to always be mounted on my F3. Regards, Roger Your answer was very informative, Roger. Thanks very much for the input. When I bought the F2 it came with the 35mm f/2 but it had a bit of fungus. Luckily I have come across a very good repair guy locally who also does a very nifty little AI conversion for practically nothing (he simply files down a section of the mounting ring and it seems to work just like a regular AI lens). After he cleaned my 35mm it's on the F2 almost all the time. While I haven't used a the F2 a heck of a lot, this lens just seems to be perfectly suited to the camera. It has a very nice feel to it, plus it produces what to me are very pleasing images. Hence the interest in the AF-D version. The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux. Decisions...decisions... -- Dallas www.dallasdahms.com "Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded" - Sixto Rodriguez |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:51:03 -0500, Roger wrote:
Dallas, I just re-read you post and my short answer is get the 35mm f2.0 AF-D. It's performance is good enough (there is no 35mm Nikkor that is great short of the 35mm f1.4 and it has aperture range caveats). I like my AF-D very much and I use it on a F3, F100 and F5. As far as the oil goes, if you can't see it in the aperture blades, I don't think you will have a problem. AFIK oil on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D is no longer an issue for lenses manufactured in the last several years. Roger -------------------------------------------------- Now for the long answer which you can probably ignore.... I was trying to multitask and I really didn't weigh my thoughts against your other AF equipment. My version of the 35mm f2 AF-D has never had an "oil" problem. I've had it for several years. I haven't heard of that being a problem for at least a couple of years now (for new purchase lenses). I have and use regularly a 35mm f2.0 AIS lens. The optical formula differences between the AIS and AF-D lenses is obvious. The front element of the AIS lens takes up nearly all of the 52mm lens diameter while the AF-D is much smaller. I find the center of the AF-D to be very crisp over the aperture and focusing range but the corners go a bit soft with wider apertures. It is however, my favorite lens for coverage and utility. It is light weight but well constructed and has a good manual focus feel - the focus touch is very light and not viscous like the manual lenses so if you are using it in a hyperfocal MF mode, you will need a piece of black electrical tape to "tack" down the focus point. I just keep one on the lens barrel. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is far better than a pre-AI 35mm f2.8 lens that I used for a long time on a "F". However, that may be comparing apples to oranges. I haven't tested a 35mm f2.0 pre-AI. The build quality of the f2.0 AIS lens is excellent and mine has suffered some unexpected abuse without showing any sign of "encounter". I find the "bokeh" while not great on the 35mm f2.0 AF-D to be better than on the 35mm f2.0 AIS MF lens. For that reason and the AF-D's slightly better flare resistance, I'm more inclined to use the AF-D. In the US the 35mm f2.0 AF-D lens is very reasonably priced and in my experience I'd opt for the AF-D lens rather than convert the pre-AI. Optically, I prefer the AF-D over the AIS only for the "bokeh" (out of focus qualities) which frankly aren't great on either lens. I also have seen 35mm f2.0 AIS lenses on the used market for about $120 US. That's what I bought mine for and that's just a bit more that a AI conversion job costs here. I know my answer isn't very crisp. I just see a lot of variables in the choice. My 35mm f2.0 AIS is good enough to always be mounted on my F3. Regards, Roger Your answer was very informative, Roger. Thanks very much for the input. When I bought the F2 it came with the 35mm f/2 but it had a bit of fungus. Luckily I have come across a very good repair guy locally who also does a very nifty little AI conversion for practically nothing (he simply files down a section of the mounting ring and it seems to work just like a regular AI lens). After he cleaned my 35mm it's on the F2 almost all the time. While I haven't used a the F2 a heck of a lot, this lens just seems to be perfectly suited to the camera. It has a very nice feel to it, plus it produces what to me are very pleasing images. Hence the interest in the AF-D version. The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux. Decisions...decisions... -- Dallas www.dallasdahms.com "Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded" - Sixto Rodriguez |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dallas" wrote in message
news [SNIP] The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux. How are you getting on with that Angenieux? Is it as nice as I would expect? (given how much I like my 70-210mm one.) Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:19:50 +0100, Bandicoot wrote:
"Dallas" wrote in message news The thing that is stopping me though, is that I now have the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6 AF, which is a very, very nice zoom lens, so most of the time I will be using that. I love prime lenses too, but they would have to be pretty extraordinary for me to want to use it over the Angenieux. How are you getting on with that Angenieux? Is it as nice as I would expect? (given how much I like my 70-210mm one.) Peter Well it's early days still, so I haven't been able to really put it to work yet. What I have noticed though is that it is considerably sharper than the 18-70mm DX I got with the D70. I was taking some shots of the kids in my garage studio last weekend and the ones taken with the Angenieux are really nice. When I get around to putting some more work into my website I will send up some samples. -- Dallas www.dallasdahms.com "Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded" - Sixto Rodriguez |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon EOS D10 vs. Fuji S2: Opinions? | David Sleeter | Digital Photography | 7 | July 23rd 04 12:25 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | In The Darkroom | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Fuji S2 and Metz 44 Mz-2 Flash | elchief | Photographing People | 3 | April 7th 04 10:20 AM |
Opinions on Jobo LPL C 7700 Color Enlarger & Other Equipment | Andrew McCall | In The Darkroom | 1 | February 23rd 04 08:34 AM |