Phone & Mobile
589 topics in this forum
-
- 4 replies
- 542 views
-
- 8 replies
- 733 views
-
- 9 replies
- 795 views
-
- 7 replies
- 932 views
-
- 9 replies
- 829 views
-
- 6 replies
- 817 views
-
- 5 replies
- 765 views
-
- 6 replies
- 835 views
-
- 4 replies
- 604 views
-
- 2 replies
- 680 views
-
- 4 replies
- 719 views
-
- 6 replies
- 693 views
-
- 2 replies
- 686 views
-
- 2 replies
- 630 views
-
- 3 replies
- 710 views
-
- 7 replies
- 811 views
-
- 4 replies
- 589 views
-
- 1 reply
- 630 views
-
- 3 replies
- 619 views
-
- 6 replies
- 860 views
-
- 0 replies
- 682 views
-
- 5 replies
- 792 views
-
- 7 replies
- 801 views
-
- 2 replies
- 680 views
-
- 1 reply
- 564 views
(800x800).thumb.jpg.c94833d6ea93605f47351873a94fc0cc.jpg)
-
Who's Online 17 Members, 0 Anonymous, 626 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
By gregverena, -
-
-
-
-
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
By robert_bouknight1 · Posted
I admit that I am a sucker for a deal on things that used to be expensive. The latest, a 400/2.8 AFS from about 20+ years ago, arrived last week. A 300/2.8 of the same generation has served me well for many years, yielding great results with D3s and D810 cams. I had high expectations for the 400/2.8. The lens arrived with better cosmetics than I expected, a quick check indicated that the AF seemed fast and accurate. Yesterday, I loaded it up with some other gear to shoot a HS soccer match for a friend. I did not find out about the event until Saturday night, so no further testing other than the quick initial was done to prepare. First, I am out of practice shooting soccer. It has been probably 15 years, I believe I used a D200 and 300/4 AFS back then. Many times I was too late tripping the shutter. I started with the 400/2/8 on a Z7II (which I have never used for action), and a 200-500 AFS/VR on a D850. Both rigs on monopods, good light let me set 1/2000 initially at f2.8 then 3.2 on the 400/Z7II, and 1/1600 at 5.6 on the 200-500/D850. Later, I moved the 200-500 over to the Z7II to have a comparison. I did not move the 400 over to the D850. In hindsight, I should have. The photos with the 400 look nice on my 24" monitor before zooming, but don't look perfect zoomed to 100%. Probably the most sharp photos were delivered by the D850+200-500 combo. Today, I did some more static testing with a heavy tripod The 400/2.8 does focus accurately on both the D850 and Z7. The lens definitely has a little glow at f2.8, but probably looks better at f4 than the 200-500 does at 5.6. I pulled the 300/2.8 out, it looked similar to the 400 at 2.8 today, but I think the 300 gets sharper quicker when stopped down. The 400 did pass a flashlight test today, pretty clean inside. I cleaned a thin oily layer off of the front element before today's testing, but after soccer photos. Looking more carefully at the soccer photos, the 400 does not have much DOF at f3.2 even at half way across a soccer field. I think the Z7II may have been spotting the plane of focus just barely behind my chosen running player. In fairness to the Z7, action AF accuracy seemed more acceptable using the 200-500 (at 5.6). The day was a test of the Z7II as much as the 400/2.8. Actually the Z7 seemed to focus on action better than I thought it would, so I did not change to the D850. I should have swapped to have a better lens evaluation. For the record, I was using Dynamic area AF-C on the Z7 and AF-C D9 on the 850. Guess I will have to try a Z8 or Z9 someday, but I am not shooting much sports lately. So does anyone have any experience with the pre-VR 400/2.8? Is a typical 400/2.8 notably better stopped to f/4? I don't really need a 400/2.8, but can justify keeping this one for the low price I paid. Maybe I should think of it as a very heavy 400/3.5 with an emergency f/2.8 mode. -
-
(800x800).thumb.jpg.c94833d6ea93605f47351873a94fc0cc.jpg)
By Sandy Vongries · Posted
Actually, I was given a PP100 by a professional photographer who owned a camera store. He was so enraged by being unable to figure out the cartridge life that he was going to take it to the dump. This was a gent with notable expertise. It prints excellent and durable photos. I have a dozen on display that don't appear to have changed in years of exposure to late afternoon sun. I suppose I'll need to update, it is no longer new and time marches! -
By DB_Gallery · Posted
Since the Superachromat 250 and 350 lenses are great option for high resolution sensors like that found on the X2D, I have been digging around for info on how much they cost new before being discontinued? It's more of a curiosity thing than anything important. I have been eyeing the 350 SA for years but prices for a good clean one with rubber focus limit knobs still intact were hard to justify until I got the X2D and the prices dropped. So I now have a really clean 350 SA and Apo 1.4EX on the way, very excited to use it on my X2D and V system film bodies. Anyone remember what the Superachromat lenses cost new before they stopped making them? -
-
