arnabdas Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 <p>Thanks to all who posted in this thread <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg? msg_id=00En4V"> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00En4V</a></p> <p>I have gathered these options below, I intend to use them on both the FM3A and D200.</p> <p><b>1. </b>17-35/2.8D AFS ED (OUCH!) .. I'll have to wring my wallet dry but I've heard reports of sample variations. Is that still true?</p> <p><b>2. </b>mint used 20-35/2.8 AFD (ouch!) .. great, but perhaps not really ideal for closeup work on its own? Will the thinnest Kenko AF extension help in any way?</p> <p><b>3. </b>20/2.8 AFD - Seems okay but reportedly fragile? I'd like to buy it used but not if it is indeed has sensitive mechanics</p> <p><b>4. </b>20/2.8 AIS - much better build but will not meter on D70.. I can live with that. Will the PK-11A work with this?</p> <p><b>5. </b>20/3.5 AI - sounds reputed. Will consider along with 4. above.</p> <p><b>6. </b>28/2.8 AIS - this one has a good reputation too. But not as wide as I would like. Will still consider if it focuses close enough.</p> <p><b>7. </b>24.2.8 - what do you all think of this one?</p> <p>Any other ideas? I'm mostly interested to do habitat closeup shots of butterflies and such. My requirement is primarily closeup photography but if I get 1. or 2. I shall be tempted to try my hand at landscape photography too to get my money's worth. </p> <p>I suspect whatever wideangle I buy I'll still need some way to get a tad bit more magnification. Is it practical to try diopters with closeup lenses or am I limited to extensions?</p> <p>Thanks in advance for insights from you-all! I have as much familarity with wideangles as I have with the Hubble telescope :-)</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 For a full frame 35mm: 20mm f/3.5 AIS (52mm filter thread) + K1 ring. 28mm f/2.8 AIS (close focus to 20 cm) and plus K1 ring. Both have limited use on a APS-C sized frame (too narrow angle of coverage at close focus). If you find a 17mm lens that can be extended with a K1, you will get something close to the 20mm +K1 on a FF, on an APS-C dSLR. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 "Is it practical to try diopters with closeup lenses or am I limited to extensions?" Missed that! You are limited to extension rings. I also doubt if there is thin enough Kenko extension tube for any practical use with any of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I never tried it for macro, but when I had the 20mm 2.8 AFD, it didn't seem nearly as sharp as the Tamron 90mm macro I have (and I think you do.) The 24mm and 28mm 2.8 AFD versions both seemed sharper to me. My recollection of the 20mm was that it focused at something like 18 inches, with the 24 and 28 being similar. I once had a Sigma 24mm labeled as "macro" that focused closer (maybe 11") but only reached something like 1"4 or 1"5 and wasn't nearly close enough for what I wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 ...wide-angle lens for butterflies? How do you intend to sneak up close enough to use a wide-angle lens on a butterfly? Anything 90mm to 200mm (think Micro-Nikkor) will give you good glass, good working distance, but alas, no wide-angle effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 "How do you intend to sneak up close enough to use a wide-angle lens on a butterfly?" I might be able to do it, you never know... :D Sometimes I've really had butterflies sneak up on me instead. All insects are often quite approachable. Just that one needs a great deal of patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greglyon Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Arnab, speaking to the 17-35mm. It's truly an amazing lens! The only extensions I've been able to use with it are the Nikon 'K' series, especially K1. Anything longer (even the shortest Kenko) and you can't focus. I suspect the focal point ends up inside the lens. Even with the K1 I can almost focus on something touching the lens. The downside with the K rings is that you lose all metering, and they can damage parts of modern equipment. I look closely when connecting them to my D70 and lenses and they seem to work. Apparently some have been modified (filed) to clear contacts etc. I bought mine used and perhaps they've had the treatment because they seem to fit fine. Here's a test shot...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greglyon Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Hmm...given the barrel distortion I'm guessing that was actually shot with the 18-70, which means it was also at minimum aperture. Before anyone suggests looking at the exif data...the K1 precludes recording of lens info! The 17-35 works similarly though in terms of proximity to subject. As I'm thinking about this again, it'll be a fun and frustrating project for you to try photographing these little creatures from so close! between catching them just right and finding the right background (there'll be a LOT of background...) it'll be quite a task. Maybe crawling across the lens? I think that when you do get the shot it'll be quite memorable. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I used the 20mm f2.8 AF for many years before upgrading to the 17-35mm. It was plenty rugged for my outdoor work and I wouldn't call it fragile at all. It performs very well up close but I can definitely tell the difference between the slides taken with the old 20mm and the 17-35mm. The 17-35mm is sharper up close, has superior bokeh (more round as opposed to harshly hexagonal), and better color fidelity. My opinion, FWIW: If I lost my camera gear tomorrow and had the option of buying a 20mm cheaply or incurring some credit card debt to get back into the 17-35mm, I would bite the bullet and charge it. This lens really is that good and once you get used to it, it will ruin you for all others. Arnab, money comes and money goes, but a good lens is forever, buddy. I bought mine used for $1K and you could do the same. Come on, just do it and be happy forever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 You guys had better stop it! My NAS is acting up again!<p>How's the 17-35 for architecture? The main concern is - how much distortion is there?<p>As for the 24mm f/2.8, it also has CRC, and focuses pretty close. It's not very flare resistant though, so you need to keep it away from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_petty1 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 I bought the 17-35/2.8 used on photo.net simply because it was offered at a wonderful price in mint condition from a seller I knew. It was kind of a "spur of the moment" purchase as this was a lens I figured that I might purchase "some day". I have used this lens and enjoyed it IMMENSELY over the past year. I can ID this lens from my 4x6 prints! Its true, once you get one it will spoil you for sure. If all my lenses were going overboard, I'd try to save this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilly_w Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 The D200 Owner�s Manual (all AF body manuals?) likely advises against mounting the K1 ring for fear of damaging the electronic contacts. The electronic contacts of an AF lens, however, will rub the K1. The redeeming factor is that the AF contacts on lenses are spring-loaded and thus retract. Mount enough AF lenses onto a K1 and witness the thin, shiny line. I don�t think this is a problem, yet caveat emptor. A Dremel tool will make short work of the offending metal. Coat w/ black paint for that OEM look. As for getting close to fleeting butterflies and the like, I�ve had reasonable results shooting from the hip, so to speak. With the K1 you loose meter coupling and are relegated to stop-down. Throw in a need-for-speed (approaching subject), viewfinder darkness due to f11 or f16 (for adequate DOF) and the traditional eye-to-finder, focus-and-frame method soon comes up short. I�ve used the considerable DOF and wide angle coverage to my advantage by simply estimating the proper focus distance and then rapidly but carefully aiming with an outstretched arm, be it overhead or at ankle level. Compare this to the traditional eye-to-the-finder approach and you�ll find you can get awfully close very quickly w/out the butterfly fleeing the scene. Conversely, approaching slowly w/ camera/hand combo isn�t nearly as intimidating as camera/head/body combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Shooting butterflies with a 20mm is abit difficult, no? If you catch them, do please post them Arnab:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_cullen Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 RE: your # 4. From all I've read the AI and AI/S Nikkors indeed do not meter on the D70 (or D70S, D50 or other NDSLRs) but are supposed to meter on the D200 which is what you intend to use. I've also read that becuase if the lack of metering on most NDSLRs there are lots of AI and AI/S lenses on the used market. I posted yesterday in the "why won't they meter?" thread that I tested the 55/2.8 AI Micro on the Canon Digital Rebel with an adapter and it metered just fine. So you might find a real macros lens for your D200. BTW, has anybody seen my questions in that other thread? Scott Cullen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Leslie, No butterflies- <p> <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3552724-lg.jpg"></center> <br> <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3549632-sm.jpg"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks Vivek. What are they doing exactly;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Re. architecture, the 17-35 can produce freakish results if pointed the wrong way. I think it is inevitable with any lens that has such a field of view. Actually, I have grown fond of these results and sometimes go for the efffect that only a 17mm can provide. That being said, as long as you keep the camera parallel with the plane of travel (level on the horizontals and straight up and down on the verticals) there is very little distortion, just lots of field of view. It's when you move it off these 90-degree axes that you get the wierd look. One last thing: I have yet to see a wide angle lens that doesn't have tilting and shifting movement that didn't keystone; it's just the nature of the beast. Field of view is far more important to me, at least, than distortion, most of which is correctable in photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Leslie, They were happy. And I did not disturb them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thanks everyone! The general consensus is clearly pointing towards a specific direction. Greg Lyon: Thanks for the first-hand account with the (modified?) K1. <P> Erik Loza: <I>"Arnab, money comes and money goes, but a good lens is forever, buddy. I bought mine used for $1K and you could do the same. Come on, just do it and be happy forever!"</I> <P> I bow to these words of immenase wisdom. I think I have made up my mind. <P> Thanks all ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now