Good, cheap, older equipment for nature photography

There seem to be requests from time to time for recommendations for

inexpensive equipment for nature work. This means older, used

cameras and lenses. I wonder what the readers here would consider

to be good items to look for.

 

<p>

 

Buying into old Nikon gear gives you a large choice, but since it

is still in demand, prices may be higher than other lines. So

I wonder if there are any "bargin" systems out there. I know

Olympus made some good macro optics for example, and OM1 bodies

are not too expensive. The trouble with Olympus is that they never

made good, cheap, long telephotos. The obvious Nikon advantage is

that if you buy into the current AF system at some point, older MF

lenses may still be usable.

 

<p>

 

Can you in fact put together a system capable of yielding reults as

good as can be obtained with current cameras and lenses, and yet

not spend more than a few hundred dollars? Long telephotos for

wildlife probably are not possible at this price level, but very good

"normal" (50/1.8) lenses are available. How about macro and

wideangle lenses? Can you find bodies with DOF preview and mirror

lock up for under $200?

 

If I get some good suggestions, I may add an article to the

photo.net nature pages or extend the existing article on

equipment for beginners. Or do you think buying into an older

sytem is a mistake?

Sure, you can get a Nikon F or F2, maybe even with a good working meter, for $200 or less. A 200/4 is easily found for under $100 and a 300/4.5 for 2-3 times that. A 50/1.8 or 50/2 for as low as $30 in fine shape. It is a great way to get quality, solid equipment for much less than the new stuff. All the new lenses will work, too.

For a beginner, such a system will (if they are really interested) help them to learn how to get the exposure right. They won't have to learn that if they start with the new stuff in auto mode all the time.

Well, I certainly loved my old Minolta MD system, and sold it for less

than $1,000. The Minolta line-up of that era were of decent, though not overwhelming, quality. No cheap, long, razor-sharp telephotos, but that was pretty much the score back then (1970s). As good as the best of the current crop of lenses? No. Good enough to make salable photos? I think so - I've got a submission out nationally right now that includes a few photos made with that sytsem (20/2.8 and 28/2.8 primes). If any make it into the article maybe I'll point them out this fall.

 

<p>

 

Mirror lock-up? SRT 200 metal brick - a favorite of astrophotography fans for slapping on their telescopes back in those days...DOF preview? Most Minolta MD bodies had this - X700, XD-11/5, SRTs, for instance (not inclusive).

 

<p>

 

I'd hesitate suggesting someone who wants to put together a complete system taking this route, though. While there seems to be an inventory of new lenses still, I get the impression that supplies may be running out. And, finding specific used lenses can be difficult. If you want a vanilla 28/50/105 macro kind of system, no problem, but finding a reasonably-priced 20/2.8 may be tough.

 

<p>

 

A used FD (Canon) system has long lenses at other exotica available (20-35/2.8L) but won't be cheap unless you stick to vanilla primes. But you can get stuff like a 300/2.8, at least!

 

<p>

 

All in all, I end up recommending those looking for used gear to go Nikon if they're willing to forgo AF. I think it's important to consider resale value for anyone who's serious and Nikon used gear is probably going to hold up better over a ten-year period...

 

<p>

 

The MD system I sold included: 20/2.8, 28/2.8, Kiron 105/2.8 1:1 macro, 135/2.8, 200/4 (my Sigma APO 400/5.6 was sold to a biologist friend very cheap). All Minolta MD except as noted.

 

<p>

 

The only dud was the 200/4, which though not bad for a non-APO design was a bit soft by today's standards. It was typical for early 70s lenses of this type to not include low-dispersion glass, though.

About three years ago I sold my Nikon FM body at consignment for about $190. It was in very good working order. I'm sure it had DOF preview and multiple exposure. I don't remember if it had MLU. Of course, it didn't have AF, and metering was restricted to center-weighted.

 

<p>

 

This was the best of about four offers received by the used camera dealer. For reference, I live in a small college town; that may tend to lower the price level.

Nikon has many possibilities, not only for the beginner, but all levels of photography.

 

<p>

 

Used bodies in the $200-$300 range would include: FM, FM2, FE, FE2, F, F2, FG,& FA.

 

<p>

 

I would, however, get a new 6006,for around $330.00, which offers AF, spot, center weighted and matrix metering and many other features.

 

<p>

 

Good lenses--I mean GREAT lenses for under $300.00 include: 50/1.8, 24/2.8, 85/1.8, 105/2.5, 135/2.8, 200/4, 35-70/3.3-4.5 AF-N, 75-150/3.5 series E, 50-135/3.5 (a bit more money), and others which don't come to mind right now.

 

<p>

 

For my money, the older, used stuff is in many ways superior to the new offerings. Offerings like dof scales, sure,tight focusing are only a few.

 

<p>

 

I've actually rid myself of many newer items and gone back to older lenses. A good way to go.

I think Nikon MF works out to be the cheapest in the long run but if you want a low initial price then I would try either Olympus, Pentax, or Canon FD.

 

<p>

 

An Olympus system could be quite a bargain. The OM1 is pretty reliable and the Zuiko wide-angles are good quality and cheap. Plus, as you mention, their macro system is excellent. The OM1 is probably the only body that has MLU(DOF is on the lens with Olympus) that can be had for under $200. A Nikon FM or EL2 would have MLU(pseudo in the case of the FM) and could be had for a little over $200.

 

<p>

 

If someone wants to do wildlife on the cheap, the only option is to go with a 3rd party lens. The Tokina 150-500/5.6 might be a good option but I'm not sure what mounts it's available in. It can be found for about $500 used.

 

<p>

 

The other way to get a bargain is to hunt. Keep a close eye on rec.photo.marketplace, local classified ads or local camera flea markets. I've gotten some great deals out of the local WantAdvertiser and I could inspect the equipment before buying. You won't get any bargains from the used places in Shutterbug.

I think one of the best used system for cheap nature photography would be Pentax. Besides my N90s I also have my old Pentax MX and Me Super. The MX has DOF Preview, is light in weight and easy to use. The ME Super is aperture priority automatic but has no DOF Preview. Neither camera has mirror lock-up but they are so vibration free that I don't think that is a major disadvantage. The big advantage is that Pentax like Nikon has kept its K-mount for all these years. There is a large pool of older K-mount lenses out there on the used market. In addition you can get an adapter that lets the old screw-mount Pentax lenses be used on the K-mount cameras. You do, I think, lose some fucntions. The older K-mount lenses, especially the M-series are great. LIght and compact yet sharp. My 28mm f/2.8 and 75-150 f/4 zoom (constant aperture, YEA!!!) are sharp and contrasty.

Since the basic mount remains the same you can scoop up lots of older manual focus lenses as they are traded in for autofocus equipment. And Pentax's new line of cameras are bringing back the glory of the past. The ZX/5 is another light weight, easy to use camera with autofocus. So if you ever decide to trade up you can get modern equipment that will work with your used K-mount lenses. Just like the Nikon system!

I would not recommend Pentax for somebody who has the money for a bunch of new stuff that he/she will use for the next 20+ years. Personally, I am not sure that Pentax is as seriously committed to the "pro" or serious amateur market as Canon or Nikon are. But, if you want a wide variety of good used equipment and can't afford the price of new equipment then Pentax is a great option.

The OM1 might not be a good choice if you're going to be in extreme cold. There was a group of guys here at CWRU some time ago that all used to do mountain climbing trips together. Two had OM-1 systems and both of these cameras, at different times, froze up at something like 60 below zero. The failure mode was deceptive because the cameras sounded like they were working but the shutters weren't opening fully. (Note that these OM1 systems performed splendidly in less extreme conditions).

<p>

Both of these guys bought Nikon MF cameras (I think they're F3s) and have had no trouble since. I believe that one of these guys has the external battery pack that you can carry inside your coat. The F3 is pretty expensive. The FM and FM2 are less money, will perform just as well in extreme cold and have the advantage that they're not dependent on batteries to power the shutter. The F2 is also great in the cold and is purely mechanical, but a nice one in good shape can be fairly expensive.

<p>

I'm most familiar with Nikon, so I'll try to lay out the options as I understand them, keeping in mind the price limitations. The FM can be found for around $200 used. This is just as bomb-proof as the FM2. The only operational differences are that the FM has a 1/1000th max shutter speed and a 1/125th flash synch as opposed to 1/4000th and 1/250th for the FM2. Neither the FM nor the FM2 can do TTL flash, but you can use non-TTL auto to do fill flash. Both bodies have DOF preview and mirror pre-fire.

<p>

For less extreme conditions, the FE and FE2 are nice cameras, though they're a bit difficult in low light because the meter readouts are not illuminated. The FE can be had for $250 used. The FE and FE2 have the same operational differences as the FM and FM2 except that the FE2 can also do TTL flash. The FA is probably the Cadillac of Nikon MF bodies in that it can do matrix metering, program and shutter priority AE with AIS lenses, but it's seldom less than $400. The FE and FM (and the F3) all have the flip-up AI tab that allows you to mount pre-AI lenses without modification. The FE2 and FM2 have the fixed tabs, so you must have pre-AI lenses modified to AI before they'll mount on these cameras.

<p>

The F2 had several incarnations. The F2A and F2AS are the AI versions; all others are pre-AI. The F bodies are all pre-AI. The Nikkormats, while hefty, are still quite good if you can find one that hasn't been heavily used. All the Nikkormats except the FT3 and EL2 are pre-AI cameras. Nikkormats can often be found for less than $200. All these cameras (F, F2 and Nikkormats) are, like the FM and FM2, purely mechanical, relying on batteries only to power the meter.

<p>

As far as lenses, some of the better Nikkor lenses can be found for reasonable prices. The 55mm f/3.5 Macro ("Micro" in Nikon parlance) can often be found for under $200. You can also find good deals on lenses like the 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 300mm f/4.5 and most of the series-E lenses if you keep your eyes open.

<p>

I purposely left out the explanation of the differences between AI, AIS, and pre-AI. If you need this info, e-mail me.

A used FG or FE or FM style body would be about $200, maybe a little more (FG is less, but lacks DOF preview, still, I use it to this day! A cool little camera in black!) A 75-150 Series E zoom, about $150. A decent wide angle would add another couple of hundred. A 5T diopter, about $40, or one might choose a 55/2.8 AI or AIs micro for less than $250 (a great lens at infinity also, one of the all time classics!)

A 300/4.5 non-ED could be added as well for a good price...not the ultimate, but good enough to have a lot of fun with, and produce quite decent images besides.

 

<p>

 

As to whether this is good beginner's advice, I suppose it is, if the person can look the equipment over and can spot difficulties it might have. I've seen various articles about how to check the shutter, aperture blades, etc., that might be a good idea to include in the article. I personally have had pretty good luck doing this, the only exception being buying items I really didn't understand (like a pre-AI F body and lens before I knew what AI was) through the mail sight unseen.

 

<p>

 

I would recommend that the novice steer clear of all F series bodies until they get a firm grounding in which body has what attributes, and what their most common failure modes are (e.g., the infamous ring resistor in CdS meters in F and some F2 finders.) Skip anything pre-AI...cheaper, yes, but not worth the hassle of manually indexing each lens change for maximum aperture.

<P>Being a relative newbie to 35mm SLR photography, I would say that purchasing older equipment is a mistake when fine used modern equipment is available.

 

<P>For reasonably-priced wildlife photography, maybe only Canon and Nikon exist. I have a Contax, and I was well aware that the majority of superb Carl Zeiss lenses lay in the wide-angle area. I eliminated Canon early on in my decision-making process due to issues concerning eyepoint problems related to my eyeglasses.

 

<P>Servicing older equipment is an issue, especially in quiet areas (i.e., away from major metropolitan areas). I question flash-metering in older cameras. Purchasing an older camera system for a modern beginner is about as friendly as getting a used Osborne computer running WordStar on CP/M.

Remember that the original question was how to get good equipment at the cheapest prices. New equipment is comparatively expensive, unless one is willing to look at third-party gear, which I personally think is a very-viable solution, if you are selective, to cutting down on expenses.

 

<p>

 

Older gear is just fine. While I usually prefer to use my newer AF SLR I still find my MF SLR to be just as capable of handling the job under most circumstances. And in fact their simpler controls may be less intimidating to users than the clusters of dials and buttons that adorn many of today's cameras.

 

<p>

 

A good, high-quality used SLR, such as a Nikon FE or FM; Olympus OM-1 or 2; Canon A-1 or AE-1 Program; Pentax ME Super or MX or K1000; and so on would be a good place to start. For a macro lens I would look at a used Tamron 90mm f/2.5, Vivitar/Panagor 90mm f/2.8, Kiron/Vivitar 105 f/2.8, or Tokina 90mm f/2.5, etc. macros. For a good tele zoom there seem to be a lot of Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5's around at decent prices. Kiron tele-zooms can be good buys too, especially if they have Kiron's exclusive zoomlock. Plenty of good, cheap 28mm from Vivitar, Kiron, Tokina, etc. can be found. I know that I'm suggesting a lot of third-party stuff, but it is good stuff if you know how to be selective.

 

<p>

 

Of course one should also look around for used camera-maker lenses too, which can often be had at very reasonable prices. (I've seen Olympus 24 f/2's sell at very-low prices from time to time.) For super teles I would stick to the camera-makers' lenses. Used Nikkor and Canon 300s with ED glass can be found at prices that are about half or less of what a new one would cost. Of course one could also look at 500mm f/8 catadioptric lenses. I've seen decent used ones--Tamron, Nikkor--going at fairly-low prices.

I am glad that somebody brought up this subject. Ten years ago (in the days of new kids and first house) any new equipment I might have bought would probably have been used. One thing I would watch very carefully is what you pay for used equipment. In my area some of the used equipment sold by local dealers is not much cheaper than new, grey-market equipment sold by New York mail order houses. In the case of my Nikon FM2 I found that the local used dealers were actually more expensive than grey market prices for a new FM2! Still if a local dealer offers you good advice then don't scrimp on rewarding him. He's earned it. Of course, you can also buy private party which is usually cheaper but takes more time and effort.

As further evidence that good old Nikon stuff can be had for a limited investment, I bought an F2 with a 135 Nikon lens last weekend at a photo show for $165. Everything works great. Many 50mm lenses were available at under $30, which would still keep the total under $200. Not only that, it could be sold for basically the same amount if I didn't want it anymore. (But I do. I like it, and it takes nice pictures.)

Another option available in cities is to rent more expensive stuff over a weekend. Here in Dallas, one can rent all varieties of 35mm, medium and large format cameras, lenses, lighting and other accessories at fairly reasonable prices. I rented a 16/2.8 fisheye last weekend for $20 and had more fun than I've had since I got my first SLR. You can rent a 600/4 there if you want to.

I'll try not repeat the other Nikon bargains that have been listed. The AI but non-ED versions of some Nikkors can be real (relative) bargains. The 180 2.8 and the 50-300 5.6 are good examples. Yes the ED lenses are better, but you can find the non-ED versions for 1/3rd the price or less. AI'd lenses can be real bargains if you're careful --stick to the stuff from the seventies with the NIC integrated (multi-) coating. You can even find some AF Nikkor bargains. The first version of the AF 80-200 2.8 with the rotating front-element is a good example.

 

<p>

 

For camera bodies, if you want a "system" camera stay away from the F and F2. They start out cheap, but if you want to add a chimney-finder or a motor-drive you'll start to go broke and you can forget about the Data-back for the F2. Don't get me wrong the F and F2 are great cameras, but trying to hunt for (working) accessories for them is not easy or cheap. If you can settle for the basic body/prism they'll do fine, but if you want to build a "system" the F3 will be cheaper in the long run.

 

<p>

 

I still think the N6006 is a bargain as are the N8008(s) and the N2020. Just as long as AF is not your primary concern. Only the N8008(s) has DOF preview though.

I must agree that the standard glass lenses (i.e. non-ED) are worth considering. The 75-300/4.5-5.6 takes great shots and can be had for as little as $375 used. Is it as sharp as a 300mm f/4 AF?? No, but it's versatile and won't scrape the floor of your bank account. FWIW, Moose Peterson loves this lens.

<p>

This lens is just barely less sharp than the Sigma 70-300mm APO/SLD lens, but only when wide open. By f/8 it's pretty tough to see any difference in sharpness. However the Nikon lens renders color that's typically Nikon where the Sigma is a little less vibrant and contrasty.

<p>

I bring this up to point out that many of Nikon's non-ED lenses compare favorably to the premium, low-dispersion lenses from the 3rd party lensmakers.

There have been lots of good, informative posts here. One poster

said to avoid non-AI Nikons. I would argue with this point. The

semi-automatic lens indexing on the Nikkormats and old Nikons is

not that hard. Mount the lens, turn the aperture ring to minimum,

then maximum. You will find you do it out of habit when you mount

a lens (as I find myself doing on my autofocus Nikons from time to

time); it becomes second nature.

 

<p>

 

The Nikkormat EL and the Nikon EL2 (which is AI) are worthy bodies

to consider. They have aperture priority, the latter can take a

winder (as can the Nikkormat EL-W, which is otherwise the same as

the EL), and are cheap. They also have depth-of-field preview and

I do believe they have mirror lockup, too.

 

<p>

 

A Tamron 500/8 SP mirror lens makes a great wildlife lens, too, with

sharp images, for under $200.

 

<p>

 

Jim

Just wanted to correct my previous post, I meant to refer to the 50-300 4.5 instead of a (non-existant) 5.6 lens. Also I wanted to add that you can save about $200 by get the non-HP version of the F3, which should be satisfactory for non-eyeglass wearing photographers.

In regards to the old Nikkormat EL one of our fellow contributiors said:

" They also have depth-of-field preview and I do believe they have mirror lockup, too."

 

<p>

 

You are correct. DOF preview was on one button and a small lever on side of the the lens mount raised and locked the mirror in place. The camera was very well built, solid and rugged. I sold my EL last year along with the 55mm f/3.5 Micro lens. One of my many mistakes.

it is generally easier to find a body and have it reconditioned,

 

<p>

 

especially if it is a manual one than a lens that works with that

body. if i were starting out, i might opt for an good old nikon

 

<p>

 

manual body. there is a huge selection of ai and ais and non-ai

 

<p>

 

nikkors that all have f mounts and will fit, i think, most all nikon

 

<p>

 

cameras ever made. with that much selection you should be able to

find a lens to suit that is cheap and in good shape.

 

<p>

 

f3,s are getting cheaper now as so many want the same features

 

<p>

 

in an autofocus + spot-metering which i would choose over most other

 

<p>

 

features if i had to pick one. unfortunatly the f3 did not have

 

<p>

 

a spot meter but did have mirror lock ,dof preview and one of the

 

<p>

 

best meters ever made and the body would survive a tornado.you can

 

<p>

 

pick up an f3hp for around $400 in ex+ shape if you look around

 

<p>

 

but the fm2 and the fa are nice cameras for much less.

 

<p>

 

jeff hallett FL

Another possibility is to get the cammera which I got for free from my father. A Konics Autoreflex T3 which can be as low as $98 for a body, and $120 for 2 or three lenses. A good 50 mm lense, with a maximum f of 1.7 can go for under $25. The advantage here is that they take sharp pictures, and are very sturdy. My t3 is at least 20 years old and takes good pictures. The thing is build like a tank - feels like it is made of solid steel. The lenses (if you don't us Tamaron, but origion konica lenses) are also incased in steel. I have used a Nikon, and it felt like a plastic toy in my hands.

There are two obvious choices: Olympus and Pentax. Both made small, beautiful and reliable cameras in the late seventies and early eighties. The Olympus OM-1 and Om-2 are classics. The OM-2 has OTF (off the film) metering, something that should be standard on any nature photografhers camera. Great camera and system for macro work. The Olympus system is very extensive, and there are high quality telephoto lenses available if you wish to use more money on the system at a later stage. You can also upgrade to the superb OM-4. However, Olympus cameras are not compatible (as yet) with an AF system such as is the case for Nikon and Pentax.

The Pentax MX is a true beauty. All mechanical and very well made - it was in fact intended for professional use. The K2 is an apperture priority model with mechanical x-synch + B. It also has DOF-preview and mirror lock. The Me Super is also a possibility. The Super A also have DOF preview. Contrary to urban myth there is loads of lenses for Pentax cameras; Pentax have made over 100 different lenses that fits cameras with K-mount. Everything from fisheye to 2000mm telephoto lenses, including ultrafast ED lenses from 200mm to 1200mm and super telephoto zooms. They are not cheap though. Pentax AF and MF cameras and lenses are compatible, even more so than Nikon.

I believe for NATURE photography (in the real outback) it's reliability what's most important.

I understand that plastik camera bodies are generally out of place. One should take two or three bodies and at least one should always be mechanical and independend of batteries. Buying used stuff is only cheaper when it is certified or overhauled by the manufacturer, anything else is a risk.

I am surprised that more people aren't talking about the canon FD

system. I personally use a Canon AE-1Program. It has DOF preview,

but no mirror lock up. It has three modes - program, shutter

priority, and metered manual. I would be the first to say it isn't

the best camera in the world, but it seems to be solid and

reliable. Best of all, canon made an enormous selection of quality

lenses for it, and, since they obsoleted the mount, they are very

reasonably priced, especially when compared to Nikkor lense. You can get and AE-1P body in really good shape for $200, and useable but not

so pretty one for less. An AE-1 body (no program mode, less elegant

control dials) runs even less. A 50/1.8 can be had for less than

$50, a 28/2.8 less than $100, and a 200/4 for about $100.

 

<p>

 

The way I figure, the only limit on lens quality is my wallet - if

I had the money, I could get a 300/2.8 or a 400/4.5 or any of a number

of fast/expensive/high quality lenses. Thanks to Canon switching

mounts, there seeme to be no shortage of people selling off their

FD mount lenses, flashes, etc., etc.

The Canon FD system was a fine MF system with many fine lenses -- the problem is in getting service for the older Cameras. Parts are in many cases no longer available etc...

 

<p>

 

 

Grover Larkins

When I got serious about photography, I bought a Nikon EL2, and I loved it. Mirror lock-up, depth-of-field preview, automatic exposure with between-step shutter speeds and exposure lock, all on a totally manual camera that wasn't going to do anything behind my back while I was learning. It took great pictures, too ... until the meter died the second week after I bought it. All of a sudden I had a twenty-year-old camera that needed parts, which the repair shop searched for a month without finding. Because I had a 60-day guarantee on the purchase, I was able to return the camera. I miss it, but I'm not replacing it with another old one. I spent more money for a 6006 with fewer of the features I care about, because I can count on being able to get parts for it.