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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:39 -0400, Rita Ä 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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
According to Rita Ä 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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"Rita Ä 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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
According to Neil Harrington :
"Rita Ä 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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message ... According to Neil Harrington : "Rita Ä 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
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"Robert Brace" wrote in message news:TKMZh.151789$aG1.107260@pd7urf3no... 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 | |
|
|
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 |