robert_bouknight1

I have some zooms, but I am able to use primes for what I shoot for the most part. So, I have concentrated on having a good set of primes ready for use, not so much for zooms. An opportunity came up to shoot the GSO Concert Band. In reviewing photo EXIFs from previous events, it was obvious that having a good fasti 70-200 would be optimal. I have a Nikkor VR1/2.8 somewhere in storage (I think), but did not have time to look for it before the rehearsal. So I used my 70-200/4 AFS VR, with good (enough) results, but still wanted to have a 2.8 for the event. I looked in the storage unit but could not find the VR1. So I ordered a used Nikon E FL VR version. Glad I received it in time to test, I thought it was soft at 2.8 and not really better than my F/4 version at f/4. I still had a little time, so I rented both a 70-200 S and 70-180/2.8 for the Z. Thought I would post my (informal test) thoughts on the four lenses here. Z 70-200/2.8 S: Outstanding. Very sharp, contrasty, and saturated at 2.8, notably so in actual use. I also got the impression that autofocus seemed to nail exactly where I wanted it a little better than the others. Its not light. I don't think it is better than my 105/1.4 for my general use, so I don't plan to buy. But would not hesitate to rent again if needed. Z 70-180/2.8: Simply not as good as the Z-S lens above, but a good bit lighter & smaller with good usability. I did not take great pains to measure and document, but I think it is not really 2.8. AutoISO seemed a little higher on my comparison shots, and the front element is not as large as the S big brother. Still, the size and weight make the lens attractive. If I did not already have the lens just below, I would consider purchase of one of these. 70-200/4 AFS VR F mount: I don't use this lens much since getting a 70-300 AFP for travel, but my example is still useful. It seemed to perform similarly to the Z 70-180, and is very usable wide open at f/4. I could have shot the event with this lens without complaint with the amount available light, though the newest Z-S version provided visibly better results, I think. The AFP is lighter, smaller, and goes to 300, so it will remain my travel choice. I might shoot the next concert with the F/4 version to save the rental fee, though. 70-200/2.8 E FL F mount. The one I bought and returned disappointed. I might rent another one sometime, probably just not a good sample. Bonus: 70-200/2.8 VR (I), from memory. I have had two, never really liked results from the first one compared to primes I have. But the one I (think) have now performs well for portraiture, IMO. Soft dark corners are not bad for individual portraits.

The concert was this week. Practice was last week. The Z7 is better at high ISOs than what I would have thought. Pic 2 is cropped a good bit, otherwise SOOC JPG.

Band Practice

Well, it does not appeal to me as a travel lens, but I can see some applications where a one camera 28-400 zoom range could be useful.

Thanks Greg and Shun, The 17-35 only fairly recently became not available, so not a surprise that parts are still available for it. I am surprised that Midwest could get parts, I thought Nikon cut off parts supplies to independents. Though my 14-30Z is probably better, I still like my squeaky 17-35, maybe I should send it in while I can. Lurking around ebay one can see which lenses tend to be offered with failed AF motors. Plenty of 17-35's, some 200-400/4s, 80-200/2.8s, and some others. Not that I keep records, but I have not seen many (any?) dead motor 300/2.8s or 200/2s. Keeping my fingers crossed for my 300/2.8, I don't use it much any more but could not get enough $ for it to justify selling. Its very sharp, and heavy enough to live on a monopod so a newer VR version is not worth the extra $ to me.

I am tempted by a few older AFS lenses that are more "affordable" now, such as a 200/f2. (I know I probably should get a 135 Plena instead, but I am happy with my 105/1,4 AFS, 135 is too close). Anyway, I had a 300/4 AFS motor fail, own a 17-35 that the previous owner replaced the motor in, and maybe I replaced the motor in a 28-70/2.8 (can't remember). On the other hand, my gen 1 300/2.8 AFS has very good AF operation and seems fine/bullet-proof though showing some cosmetic wear. Repair of failed gen 1 AFS seems to not be an option any more. I "know" I should avoid them, but maybe some such as a 200/2 first version seem OK? Other candidates would be 400/2.8 and other now more affordable long exotics? Wonder if some earlier AFS lenses tend to be more reliable than others. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Robert

Seems like plenty of them, why 13? Maybe all 13 are not going up at one time.

Though I have an extensive set of very good manual focus Nikkors, I didn't (and still don't) use manual lenses often on digital, it was just too difficult to achieve accurate enough focus to withstand pixel peeping later on. It did seem to me that it was a little easier with the D3 (_, S,and now X) than with D600 and D800 bodies. I have never used a Df. I did OK with an AI converted 28/2 as a carry one lens/body setup, though. I did about as well with the DSLR viewfinder as I did with the electronic rangefinder dots, it seemed to me. I did and still do use MF lenses more often when I got a Sony A7(I) to see what mirrorless was about. One button zooming to 100% view does allow for precision as long as the subject/photog distance does not change much for low DOF situation. I now think that eye focus AF with Nikon Z does yield a higher percentage of in focus portraits at shallow DOF than what I can do with any manual focus setup, though it seems I did pretty well with a Leica M3 and APO 90/2 back in the day. Probably never looked as zoomed as 100%/45MP, though. PS The A7 failed, and the A7RII I replaced with was failing when I bought a Z. Finally heading to my two points with this ramble: 1. It seems that acceptable depth of field focus decreases with increasing MP. Guess this makes sense, DOF was just what was considered "acceptable" focus, think the term was circle of confusion. It seems to me that 45MP puts as much or more emphasis on focus accuracy than actual lens sharpness. 2. Many lenses, including many AIS Nikkors and especially AF lenses, are geared much too fast to focus with a high degree of accuracy without a tripod and static subject. A number of AIS lenses had the focus ring sweep narrowed when compared to earlier lenses. A good example would be the 50/1.2 AIS, too fast IMO. My AI'd PC 105/2.5 lenses are probably the easiest SLR tele lenses to use that I have. Some older RF lenses are very easy to focus. The 85/1.4D seems easier to focus by hand than the 105/2DC, darn it. Currently, I am piddling with a 400/3.5 AIS that I got cheap recently. It is interesting to me that I do about as well with quickly focusing it with highlight as I do focusing carefully at 100% on a Z7. Though I am sure I would get better results with an AF tele, I plan to take the 3.5 to a soccer game to see what AF hit rate I can achieve. Lastly, the 35/2.8 AIS I had was not a good lens. I accidentally left it outside in the rain for a week, and cheerfully threw it away. I would have kicked myself in the a__ had it been a 35/2 classic.

You have an F4 that still works? I used an F4 for a while, not even sure if I had any AF lenses for it. I was mostly using rangefinder cams at the time, the Nikon system was not seeing much action. I did not have good luck with these, tried several (that were not mint), they all broke. I think I tossed the bodies when I moved a few years ago. I'm thinking many F4 bodies were abused news getters that did not have an easy life. Plus, they were so big/heavy, they did much damage to each other if the photog was carrying two. The F4 was more massive than an F3, for sure. Since I am now used to the 2 wheel camera operation, F5 and F100 bodies are easier for me to operate. Reminds me, I have film in an F5 that I need to finish out, getting to be too long.

We had Nikkormats and F2 at the college I took photos for in the late 70's. Actually it seemed that the Nikkormats were more reliable but it could be that the F2's were grabbed first and saw a lot more action including extensive use with motor drives. One problem with the earlier Nikkormats was that one needed to be very careful to thread film fully onto the take up reel. I know I had to shoot a group again after I developed a blank roll. I like cameras that have a removable cold shoe, or no shoe over the eyepiece. A time or two something has caused a flash shoe on top of a prism to hit my upper eye socket. These days I keep a little rubber level in the shoe socket to smooth out the top of a cameras.

Hopefully the batteries in the meter head have not leaked out. The F meters are getting iffy anyway, if it works it would be best to compare to something else to verify. I like a good old 50/1.4 stopped down a little, and the 55/3.5 is very useful, mine sees operation almost every week.

Thanks everyone for the input. After posting, I remembered debating with myself getting an 80-400G a few months ago. And I realized that I decided against since I have a good example of the 70-300 AF-P that performs better than one would expect. I keep forgetting about that lens, I only use it when travelling somewhat light. While I have an older, heavy, but outstanding 300/2.8 AFS and a decent 300/4AF, I don't have anything longer than 300mm with autofocus. So, really the 200-500mm makes more sense for me than an 80-400G, maybe, see below. I have 70-200 AFS 2.8 & 4 lenses, but I don't use those much since getting a 105/1.4. The 105 is good enough to justify foot zooming or crop to replace the 70-200s. So, another way to ask the question: Is it worth it to replace the 70-300 AF-P with an 80-400G which would be somewhat larger and heavier but adds "33%" length? The 80-400 would have to be notably better than the 70-300AFP in the shared range for me to consider this swap. On occasion, I shoot sailboat racing. I do think 300mm is a bit short for this application, A zoom is about a necessity for when boats approach a mark. Might be difficult to deal with the 200-500 on a small chase boat that bobs around. Thinking the 80-400G would be perfect for this application. Sorry for the ramble, I guess it is easy to justify multiple lens choices.

Shun, LoL, I recorded a large (100+ instrument) brass band concert Saturday night with my somewhat new to me reel to reel in parallel with digital recording. I was the assistant sound guy, a new and fun gig for me. I did not know that they wanted photos, also, or I would have had a Z in quiet mode with me, probably. Next time.

I know, I should probably get a 100-400S or 180-600Z instead, but I still want to be able to put the lens on a DSLR. I am sure that a 200-500G is better optically, but I think I would miss 80-200 part of the zoom range more than I would benefit from the 400-500. Anyone out there still use the 80-400 by choice? I am thinking a single body with 80-400 would be a lot more portable than two bodies, one with 70-200 and the other with a 200-500. I would use the lens on 24mp or higher bodies.

That was a tough fall! Hope you did not get pneumonia. Joseph smith does make a good point, though I think the risk of lens damage is fairly low. Of course, you could use the camera with no risk to lenses with a "dumb" F or other mount adaptor. Likely the camera won't live it's expected lifespan. Also, people seem to pay high prices for water damaged cameras on ebay sometimes.