Nikkor Telephoto Zoom with 52mm filter ring?

<p>I am trying to build a seriously minimalist landscape kit for use while backpacking. I'm having trouble with the telephoto end of things. Is there an autofocus telephoto zoom with a 52mm filter ring? I want to standardize my filter size to 52mm to minimize the number of filters I'm carrying (also, lenses with 52mm filter rings are small in and of themselves). The 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D would work if it weren't for the rotating front element, and the 55-200mm f/4-5.6G would work if it weren't DX (I'm FX and film). Has Nikon made such a lens?</p>

<p>Well, there's the very well-respected 75-150mm f3.5 - but it's manual focus only, so quite likely you aren't interested in it. But for landscape work do you really need AF? Or maybe it's the lack of metering with your camera body that's the problem? Of course, maybe it's not long enough for your needs either. </p>

<p>I believe there was a 75-240 AF lens (hmm, maybe f4-f5.6??) with a 52mm filter thread, but I've never seen one and do not know anything about its optical (or other!) qualities.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't necessarily need AF, but I do want a CPU lens because I want matrix metering on my D700. The D700 can matrix meter with non-CPU lenses, but really only with non-CPU primes, not non-CPU zooms. But if there are MF CPU telephoto zooms, I'm open.</p>

<p>And that 75-240 has the same problem of the 80-200: it's front element rotates with focusing. As a landscape photographer, I can't have that happen while a polarizer is mounted.</p>

<p>Sorry, I'm not aware of any cpu mf zooms from Nikon (doesn't mean there aren't any, however). But if you're open to a pair of mf primes (since the d700 will matrix meter with them), what about the 105 f2.5 and 200mm f4 combo; the lenses are relatively small, reasonably light, and much faster than the zooms. Optically very good (the 105, excellent) as well. Or depending on your needs, the 85mm f1.8 (mf) and 135mm f2.8 (mf) combo - really pretty small and light, and optically very very good. All are 52mm filters, mf, non-rotating fronts (IIRC - I won't swear to non-rotating fronts w/o checking). Not what you're asking about, obviously, but I thought I'd throw them into the discussion. You might find the 2-prime option isn't much, if any, heavier than a zoom ...</p>

<p>There was a 80-200mm/f4.5 AI that uses 52mm front filters, if I remember correctly. Kyle, I am afraid that you have too many requirements. To get what you want, you have to make some compromises.</p>

<p>I was afraid of that, but thanks for your help guys. Maybe the least objectionable compromise is getting a 70-300 or something like that and just carrying a second polarizing filter.<br>

<br /> Joel, as far as the multiple prime option goes: I already use a MF prime on the wide end (24mm f/2.8 AI) because I really want to have the depth of field markings on my wide angle lens. With just the one non-CPU lens in my kit, I can set it in the non-CPU menu of my D700 and forget it. Once I introduce multiple non-CPU lenses into my kit, I have to remember to change the camera settings every time I change lenses. Easy to do, sure, but not necessarily easy to <em>remember</em> to do. That's why I was thinking it would be ideal to have one non-CPU lens and one CPU zoom. But your point holds if I were to consider AF primes ... which AF telephoto primes have 52mm filter threads? I'll look into that.</p>

<p>Kyle,</p>

<p>I understand your want to keep your kit to a minimalist concept but I think you have things back to front. I think logic dictates that you choose your lenses for the purposes and requirements to suit your needs and then you go for a filter that will cover your lenses.</p>

<p>At least this is the way I approach my photography wether it be for home when I can use all my heavy gear of if I'm travelling and I need the lightest set up possible. I use a 77mm filter and step down to 62mm and 52mm respectively with simple, cheap but effective step rings.</p>

<p>Just my 20 cents worth....</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm not aware of any cpu mf zooms from Nikon ..."<br /> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm">one</a> , however I don't think it fits Kyle's requirements for "minimalist" (but it does take a 52mm filter). :-)</p>

<p>As Shun as indicated, you have too many requirements, and what you seek (non-rotating filter, 52mm, CPU telezoom) does not exist.</p>

<p>The Ai 80-200/4.5 is a constant aperture zoom, so it can matrix meter on the D700 with the appropriate non-CPU data entry. But the filter mount rotates with focus, and finding one that doesn't have a very loose zoom action will take some luck.</p>

<p>Thanks Matthew. I guess I should have emphasized that it wasn't that I really had my heart set on carrying one 52mm filter, but rather that lenses with 52mm filter rings tend to be smaller and lighter, and in backpacking photography every ounce counts.</p>

<p>The simplest way to state my question is the following: does there exist a Nikon lens like the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D (about that focal length range, small, light) without a rotating front filter ring?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help, guys. Looks like I'm going back to the drawing board to think with requirement of mine it would be the lesser evil to drop, or perhaps look for a different kit philosophy. After that, my lens hunt will begin anew.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... does there exist a Nikon lens like the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D (about that focal length range, small, light) without a rotating front filter ring?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sadly, no.<br>

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#70-xx<br>

(r after the filter size in the above table indicates a rotating filter)</p>

<p>Even though the answer is not what I wanted, thanks for that table, that's great. How had I not come across that before?</p>

<p>Michael -<br /> That's absolutely cool, I knew about the 500mm but not this one! And only 16 kilos, too!</p>

<p>Kyle -<br /> You're quite right, remembering to change the camera setting is an additional problem. If you're open to a 72mm filter, the 180mm f2.8 AF is a wonderful lens, and _relatively_ small and light. But you'd still have the problem of a short telephoto prime - the 85mm 1.8 is very good, but it's a 62mm filter and so a third filter size to carry :-(.</p>

<p>Matthew -<br>

You're right, using step-down adapters works well - except that it interferes with using the appropriate hoods, which I always find to be a problem. But if you have hoods in the larger filter size which still shade the smaller lenses effectively then you're good to go.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The lightest choice seems to be ONE large polarizer, and a few step down rings.</p>

<p>The 55-200 VR is vignetting free on FX/film from about 135mm-200mm. On my N90 with 92% viewfinder I get no vignetting in the finder at 105mm and use it on it regularly, but I'd go 135mm to be safe.</p>

<p>The 80-200 f/4-5.6 AF-D was a lens Galen Rowell used and the reason why I got one, for landscapes and backpacking it is v good. Granted for a cheap lens the color and bokeh wished it was better ;D But v sharp, esp for b/w photographs got favourable comments from a judget at my camera club. Handheld taken. </p>

<p>Really I think if you want the ultra compact you may need 2 sets - FX and DX. </p>

<p>That 80-200mm is maybe the best compact. There are others but they may be bulkier and heavier. Some of the others mentioned while they are 52mm, they may well be larger and heavier. </p>

<p>For DX the 55-200 is maybe one of the smallest ever made for that focal length. <br>

I think without doing more reearch those 2 are your best. </p>

<p>If you are shooting film manual focus the E Series lenses are pretty compat too. But they will be primes and less FL ie. it might be a 100mm f/2.8 only and not a zoom.</p>

<p>The 80-200mm f/4-5.6 is 330g.</p>

<p>75-150mm Series E is 520g (manual focus). 85mm f/1.8 manual focus - 414g. 135mm f/2.8 manual focus is 430g.</p>

<p>20mm f/4 - not cheap I think - 210g. 100mm f/2.8 Series E - 215g. These I think may be the lightest of the lightest. Both manual focus. Your 2x 80-200mm may be the lightest.</p>

<p>If it was me and I still use film. For each trip if I were to cut my weight down, I take the film or the digital then I just one one of the tele lenses.</p>

<p>You said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6D would work if it weren't for the rotating front element</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it's front element rotates with focusing. As a landscape photographer, I can't have that happen while a polarizer is mounted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not?</p>

<p>Much, too much, is made of this whole "the front element rotates when focusing". How much does focus change when you recompose, when you're landscape shooting? Typically, not enough to move the focus ring more than a couple of degrees. And how often do you shift focus without changing composition? When you change composition, you have to readjust the polarizer anyway, because it's sensitive to direction.</p>

<p>I do mainly landscape and cityscape, I find that I spend hours scounting for right vantage point and what lens and angle .. come back sunset time. I set up everything and wait for the light maybe 30mins, maybe 1hr ... so a little polariser adj is nothing .....</p>

<p>Putting a CPU in the 75-150 is easy.</p>

<p>I've backpacked with equipment and I understand your issues. Here is what I'd would suggest. Get a the 28-105MM AFD. This is a very high quality lens for landscape work. It has a 62MM filter thread. Sell the 24MM AIS and get a 20MM AFD, it has the same filter thread. On the longer end, go with the 180MM AFD, or the 200MM AI. You can use adapter rings (up or down) for those lenses. This would give you a high quality, light weight kit for your needs.<br>

Anthony</p>

 

<p>I often carry a prime wide angle, a 50-135mm 3.5, and a 200mm 4.0 AI for landscape work on a D200. The 50-135mm is a 62mm filter fit, and it is heavy, but the front element does not rotate and the image quality is excellent (one of John Shaw's favorites at one point).</p>

<p>When you start worrying about little things such as the front element rotates, you are merely making life difficult for yourself. (That was why I said there were too many requirements.) Yes, a rotating front element is slightly annoying, but as Joseph points out, how big a deal can it be? Simply adjust your polarizer after you compose, zoom and focus.</p>

<p>I can understand the need to standardize filter size, but I would rather make sure that I have lenses of the right focal length and good enough optical quality.</p>

<p>I have a 35-105/3.5-4.5 zoom with a non-rotating front element which takes 52mm filters. Its performance is mediocre - better than paperweight quality and good enough for film.</p>

<p>If you want good performance, think about standardizing on 77mm filters. What do you really need other than UV filters for protection and a circular polarizer? By the way, I didn't select these lenses (17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 300/4) based on filter size. It was the other way around. I have a 52mm and 62mm B+K polarizers in my kit for those occasional primes, and a B60 for my Hasselblads.</p>

<p>Edward, when you standardize to 77mm filter, it also means you are dealing with very large lenses such as those f2.8 zooms. Those wouldn't be my choices for hiking although I have done it.</p>

<p>Additionally, the OP shoots film and FX digital. Film may require a couple more filters, especially if it is black and white.</p>