marklcooper

Mike - I believe my 17-55 serial number is US 407434. I purchased new from Amazon on 9/11/2008 Sold by J&R Music and Computer World. Hector - I believe Mike is talking about the Nikkor 17 - 55 I purchased when he says the earliest are now 20 years old. Yes, in 2008 when I did my research, the 17 - 55 f/2.8 Nikkor had been out a while. From memory, it had excellent reviews. The biggest complaint in 2008 was the lens was so large. I was not concerned about size at the time. I purchased the battery grip at the same time. At the time I believed (and still do believe) that a large camera/lens outfit is more stable than a small outfit. I'm more comfortable shooting with my D300 w/battery grip and 70 - 200 f/2.8 than my dinky little smart phone.

Thanks for the input everyone. Mike - I don't have another body to try it on. The fact that all my other auto-focus lenses work on the D300 leads me to believe it is a lens issue. Having used the Sigma 30 f/1.4 almost exclusively for the last 6 months I feel the Sigma doesn't auto-focus as quickly as the 17-55. I've been using aperture priority single-point focus almost exclusively for the last 9 years, so I'm used to being careful where I place my focus point. The Sigma just doesn't seem to have as good a success rate. I'm still happy with it though. Back in 2007 - 2008 when I did my research, Tamron just didn't have the reputation that Nikkor, Sigma, and even Tokina had. Because I usually have my SB -900 and battery grip mounted on the camera, smaller lens size isn't much of a concern. When I start my day I never know where I'm going. My County IT office is right next to our 9-1-1 call center. Our village K-9 officer asked one morning if I could take a group photo. I said ooookkkaaayyyyyyy….

My 17-55 f/2.8 lens purchased new September 2008 along with my D300 does not always auto focus. Maybe even mostly does not always auto focus. This lens was on the camera 95% of the time. I've now taken to using my Sigma 30 f/1.4 as my go-to lens. My other lenses are the Tokina 11 - 16 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR first generation. I've wiped the camera and lens contacts. All my other auto-focus lenses work properly on the camera. I'm hesitant to send the lens off to Nikon because: 1 - I really haven't looked into where to send it 2 - I don't know the procedure with Nikon...is a deposit required for them to look at it. If the lens is too expensive to repair, how do I get it back? 3 - The Sigma 17 - 50 f/2.8 is under $400. Is my 10 year old Nikkor comparable spec-wise with a new Sigma purchased today? The local weekly newspaper got a new editor a couple months ago. I'm now a stringer for the paper and they're actually paying me for the photos they use per their suggestion VS using them for free. I'm not able to get the shots with the 30 like I used to with the 17 - 55. This was most notable the last several days when the 'Eyes of Freedom' traveling memorial arrived in town. Perry County Welcomes The Eyes of Freedom — Perry County Ohio . The extra 25 mm reach on the 17 - 55 over the 30 is just so handy sometimes. Any suggestions? Comments? Thanks in advance, Mark

<p>Here in SE Ohio it was close to 60F and sunny yesterday. We have ducks outside in a pen. We're feeding them a 50/50 mixture of layer crumble and cracked corn. For some reason the honey bees have taken a liking to the duck feed. I normally don't post oversize pictures, but this one was processed for another online forum and exceeds the size recommendations for this forum. D300 with 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR1, SB-900, outdoors, full sun, handheld. </p><div></div>

<p>I have some observations, then some questions.</p> <p>Kenneth has eliminated lenses, film, and film processors as an issue. The common denominator here is the camera.</p> <p>Do the marks appear towards the beginning of the roll? The end? Randomly?</p> <p>Do they appear when the lens is supported by the hand vs unsupported?</p> <p>Do the streaks appear when Kenneth has a tighter grip on the camera?</p> <p>Are the marks consistently in the exact same location?</p> <p>It seems like a light leak would induce light streaks vs dark. If something (shutter, film carrier) is swiping across the film surface could that scrape off any coating on the film causing dark streaks?</p> <p>My first guess is something is scraping the film. The streaks appear darker at the top of the frame and lighter towards the bottom.</p> <p>Good luck!<br> Mark</p>

<p>My D300 crapped out around 2012. Leaving it out in the rain one weekend did not help<g>, but it lasted another couple years. I replaced it with another D300. I have the battery grip for the D300. The grip really balances out the 17 -55 f/2.8 and the 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR1. I've handled the D7200...just does not get it. I really do not have a need for FX. Realistically, my D300 should satisfy my needs for another 5 years. I'm an amateur. I do event photography on occasion for my county government. Gratis. I've printed 24" x 36" with good results. For Internet use, the D300 is more than adequate.</p> <p>If Nikon released a D400 next year I'd be hard pressed to justify a purchase.</p>

<p>I have a D300 with a Nikkor 70 - 200 f/2.8, a Nikkor 17 - 55 f/2.8, a Tokina 11 - 16 f/2.8, and a Sigma 30 f/1.4. The 17 - 55 is my hands-down favorite. Good quality. Good range. Good low light capabilities.</p> <p>Back in my film days with my FE, my go-to lens was a Nikkor 50 f/1.2. I'm big into available light.</p>

I've printed multiple 24x36 on a 24" CAD inkjet printer with excellent results. No cropping on these images. Lots of light, outdoors, ISO 200, handheld. I've also done some 24x36 canvas wraps with excellent results. The key D300 feature for me is with my usual 17 x 55 f/2.8 lens and a battery grip the camera fits my hands well. Mount the 70 - 200 f/2.8 and its still a nice fit for me. I've handled the D3200 and the D7100 and they just are too small for me. Maybe I could adjust with time, but the D300 does everything I've asked of it. Granted, all my lenses are 2.8 or faster. Mark

Check with any local photo stores. Midwest Photo Exchange put me in touch with two local clubs. Taking a wild stab in the dark here, but within an hour or two of Columbus we have the Columbus Zoo, The Wilds, and Hocking Hills. Maybe if you have a zoo, wildlife sanctuary, or a scenic vacation spot in your area, they may know of a photo group that shares your interest. Good luck, Mark

<p>And another of White Dog. Prior photo was D300 with 70-200 f/2.8. So used to having the 17-55 f/2.8 mounted.</p><div></div>

<p>John P. of Ashland. I live in Amish country in Perry County. I've taken several photos of the Amish around here (at farm equipment auctions, traveling down our State Route, etc.). I always end up deleting them from my camera due to the Amish aversion to having their photos taken. Did you get permission to take the pic of the Amish boy? Just asking.....trying to resolve my internal moral dilemma regarding pictures of the Amish. Especially with a face showing.</p> <p>Now to another dilemma. We own a just about 100% pure white Australian Cattle Dog. 100% purebred. AKC registered. One of our Blue Heeler studs is in the blood line. We have 3 adult Blue Heelers, 2 juvenile Blue Heelers, 1 juvenile Red Heeler, and the latest addition is a White(????) Heeler?????? </p><div></div>

<p>Maybe someone else commented negatively on the photos a year later? Putting a bug up your clients' you-know-what, causing the clients to second-guess their happiness with your work??</p> <p>Just a thought.</p>

<p>Jim,</p> <p>You need to do what works for you. I have found my 17 - 55 to be a bit short at times, but I just move a little bit closer. Same with my 70 - 200....sometimes 70 is too close, so I just step back. Not a big deal. My big criteria is low-light capability when needed....hence f/2.8 at all focal lengths.</p>

<p>I just don't see the rationale for purchasing something older than a D300 (my camera of choice). I added the battery grip. The D300 with grip nicely balance my 17 - 55 f/2.8 and my 70 - 200 f/2.8. I have handled the D7100 and was not comfortable with it. I've printed up to 24" x 36" from my RAW files converted to TIFF and some tweaking. I have fiddled with a friend's D3200 and it was like playing with a toy. I've not handled a D600/D800 so I cannot comment on them, but if they're smaller than a D300 I just don't see them working for me. I'm about average in size (5 ft 9 inches). I don't think I have overly large hands. I have had 10+ years of classical piano lessons so my hands are pretty agile. I really like to be able to fill both hands with my camera.</p>

<p>The typical camera/lens conundrum. The lens is going to be expensive for use in a church/gym situation. I have a D300 and use either a 17-55 f/2.8 or a 70-200 f/2.8 for use in this situation. Unless you are right at the sidelines, the 70-200 is the way to go in my opinion. I have the Nikkor version of this lens. Expensive and it's a tank. You can save money without sacrificing quality by going with the Sigma or Tamron version of this lens. You can probably purchase this lens for $1000 or less.</p> <p>In addition, this lens will work well at outdoor evening games.</p> <p>Good luck - Mark</p>