Nikon announces new 300mm f/2.8 VR G Nikkor

Dallas wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:17 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article et,
says...
I think we can be pretty certain by now, the Gs are here to stay. Not
so good if you have old film bodies; otherwise perfectly OK.

Well, Nikon has to start making lenses like this to keep up with Canon.
This means abandoning some backwards capability. But I suspect if you're
going to buy a 300 f/2.8 VR you've got enough cash to dump towards a
compatible film or digital body.

I didn't like the idea at first, but as you rightly say, it's not all that
much trouble to get a new body. In this case what will make the D2X very
attractive to Nikon owners is that they can still use the old MF lenses
with metering. That alone would be worth it to me, and simultaneously
****es me off that they couldn't put it into the lower end DSLR's like the
D70 and D100.

I don't see why you would have a problem on the D70. Perhaps it is not
directly giving you automatic exposure, but you can still use manual settings.
In fact, after one image, you can use that LCD on the back to see if you are
close on your exposure settings. You should have enough latitude that rough
manual settings should allow for many good images. While I normally bash on
chimping, this would seem to be one instance in which it would be an
advantage.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:57:11 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

Dallas wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:17 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article et,
says...
I think we can be pretty certain by now, the Gs are here to stay.
Not so good if you have old film bodies; otherwise perfectly OK.

Well, Nikon has to start making lenses like this to keep up with
Canon. This means abandoning some backwards capability. But I suspect
if you're going to buy a 300 f/2.8 VR you've got enough cash to dump
towards a compatible film or digital body.

I didn't like the idea at first, but as you rightly say, it's not all
that much trouble to get a new body. In this case what will make the D2X
very attractive to Nikon owners is that they can still use the old MF
lenses with metering. That alone would be worth it to me, and
simultaneously ****es me off that they couldn't put it into the lower
end DSLR's like the D70 and D100.

I don't see why you would have a problem on the D70. Perhaps it is not
directly giving you automatic exposure, but you can still use manual
settings. In fact, after one image, you can use that LCD on the back to
see if you are close on your exposure settings. You should have enough
latitude that rough manual settings should allow for many good images.
While I normally bash on chimping, this would seem to be one instance in
which it would be an advantage.

It's more of an inconvenience than a 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

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:57:11 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

Dallas wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:17 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article et,
says...
I think we can be pretty certain by now, the Gs are here to stay.
Not so good if you have old film bodies; otherwise perfectly OK.

Well, Nikon has to start making lenses like this to keep up with
Canon. This means abandoning some backwards capability. But I suspect
if you're going to buy a 300 f/2.8 VR you've got enough cash to dump
towards a compatible film or digital body.

I didn't like the idea at first, but as you rightly say, it's not all
that much trouble to get a new body. In this case what will make the D2X
very attractive to Nikon owners is that they can still use the old MF
lenses with metering. That alone would be worth it to me, and
simultaneously ****es me off that they couldn't put it into the lower
end DSLR's like the D70 and D100.

I don't see why you would have a problem on the D70. Perhaps it is not
directly giving you automatic exposure, but you can still use manual
settings. In fact, after one image, you can use that LCD on the back to
see if you are close on your exposure settings. You should have enough
latitude that rough manual settings should allow for many good images.
While I normally bash on chimping, this would seem to be one instance in
which it would be an advantage.

It's more of an inconvenience than a 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

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:57:11 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

Dallas wrote:

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:01:17 +0000, Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article et,
says...
I think we can be pretty certain by now, the Gs are here to stay.
Not so good if you have old film bodies; otherwise perfectly OK.

Well, Nikon has to start making lenses like this to keep up with
Canon. This means abandoning some backwards capability. But I suspect
if you're going to buy a 300 f/2.8 VR you've got enough cash to dump
towards a compatible film or digital body.

I didn't like the idea at first, but as you rightly say, it's not all
that much trouble to get a new body. In this case what will make the D2X
very attractive to Nikon owners is that they can still use the old MF
lenses with metering. That alone would be worth it to me, and
simultaneously ****es me off that they couldn't put it into the lower
end DSLR's like the D70 and D100.

I don't see why you would have a problem on the D70. Perhaps it is not
directly giving you automatic exposure, but you can still use manual
settings. In fact, after one image, you can use that LCD on the back to
see if you are close on your exposure settings. You should have enough
latitude that rough manual settings should allow for many good images.
While I normally bash on chimping, this would seem to be one instance in
which it would be an advantage.

It's more of an inconvenience than a 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

TP wrote in message . ..
http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_06.htm

Alas, it's yet another G lens. But it has VR, "Nano-Crystal" AR
coating and a 'meniscus' protective glass element. Wow!?!?!

Hm.. just about 5 years late compared to Canon's 300/2.8 IS?

TP wrote in message . ..
http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_06.htm

Alas, it's yet another G lens. But it has VR, "Nano-Crystal" AR
coating and a 'meniscus' protective glass element. Wow!?!?!

Hm.. just about 5 years late compared to Canon's 300/2.8 IS?

(DM) wrote:

TP wrote in message . ..
http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_06.htm

Alas, it's yet another G lens. But it has VR, "Nano-Crystal" AR
coating and a 'meniscus' protective glass element. Wow!?!?!

Hm.. just about 5 years late compared to Canon's 300/2.8 IS?


So what? Does that make it a poor lens?

(rhetorical questions, no answer sought or needed)

(DM) wrote:

TP wrote in message . ..
http://nikonimaging.com/global/news/2004/0916_06.htm

Alas, it's yet another G lens. But it has VR, "Nano-Crystal" AR
coating and a 'meniscus' protective glass element. Wow!?!?!

Hm.. just about 5 years late compared to Canon's 300/2.8 IS?


So what? Does that make it a poor lens?

(rhetorical questions, no answer sought or needed)

Well said
If you can take decent photographs with a lens its a good lens.
You can have the best lens in the world .. BUT if you have no idea how to
use it then its the worst lens . lol blame the tools and get into the loop
of buying more cameras and lens in the hope that your photographs might
improve.

So what? Does that make it a poor lens?

(rhetorical questions, no answer sought or needed)

Well said
If you can take decent photographs with a lens its a good lens.
You can have the best lens in the world .. BUT if you have no idea how to
use it then its the worst lens . lol blame the tools and get into the loop
of buying more cameras and lens in the hope that your photographs might
improve.

So what? Does that make it a poor lens?

(rhetorical questions, no answer sought or needed)