je ne regrette rien Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I use quite an extended MF film system: one F3HP and a lot of lenses. The ones I use most are 20mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8. I also own others, but these are the ones I use most. I almost never use the 24mm 2.8 and the 35mm 2. Now I got an excellent F5 with a 28mm 2.8 AF-D (semms not as good as the AIS version), sold another F3HP quite well, and would like to buy some AF lenses, mainly prime. But prime lenses don't seem to be very popular nowadays, so I don't really know what to consider: some zooms (17-35 2.8, 28-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8). Some primes to add to the AI/AIS I already have? I definitely will keep my F3 and MF lenses. Any advice? Thanks Luca Alessandro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwcombs Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Luca, you have some very fine MF primes. And those will work well in manual focus on the F5. The choice of primes in AF are redundant to what you have in MF, so that does not make any sense to duplicate. The three zooms you listed are all excellent glass in AF. The 17-35mm AF would be my first choice. The 80-200mm AF would be my second. And if you're so inclined, perhaps look at a 60mm AF Micro or 105mm AF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh_davis Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 You have some excellent glass there already! Myself and several others like Bjorn Rorslett's www.naturfotograf.com site for information on lenses and his reviews include both the AF and MF lines of primes and zooms. Because of what you have already, a zoom or two might be worth a look. Bjorn thinks the 17-35 f/2.8 is a masterpiece. Happy shooting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Unless you really want to buy a whole bunch of new AF lenses, you just could pick up a 17-35mm and 80-200mm, and then leave the rest of that stuff at home. That's all I ever carry. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Thank you all for your responses! I myself like Bjorn's site very much and use it as a reference. But still, I would really like to take advantage of AF. Luca Alessandro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 With your F5 I would seriously consider consider a couple VR lenses: The 70-200 f/2.8 and the latest 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Any G lens is essentially unusable on your F3 or any manual-focus Nikon as there is no way to set the aperture. And except for the 80-400, all VR lenses are also G lenses. Therefore, if you want to use any AF lenses on both the F5 and F3, essentially all VR lenses are out. So I would go with the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S with aperture ring if you want to use it on both bodies. If you prefer the VR feature, get the 70-200mm/f2.8 G AF-S VR. If you like really wide lenses, I would get the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_ng Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 If you want to take advantage of AF, I am guessing you will only use it in situations where you only get one opportunity to take the photo, with a limited time to set up. In that case, choose a general purpose AF lens. You don't need all 3 f/2.8 lenses. Just get the ones that you will need for those fast focusing situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I don't have enough miles on an F5 to be sure about this, but here goes: Another reason I swapped out some of my MF lenses for AF lenses was for seamless operation with TTL flash and ambient metering. On the N90/N90s/F100 bodies that I do have some 'miles' on, I noted that it was much easier to use the automation features with flash if you had a lens with a CPU in it. A lens not yet mentioned is the 35-70/2.8 AFD. It also has pretty decent MF 'feel', though some object to the 'push pull zoom'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 One more thing: If you love your 85/1.4 and use it a lot, consider adding the 85/1.4 AFD (I did). Having the fast AF makes the fast 85 a more useful 'journalists tool' IMO. You have to be a bit cautious where the AF chooses to place that narrow DOF, but the F5 has a nice viewfinder to help you evaluate it quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wuyeah Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I don't know what to suggest to you, seriously. I love AiS lens built and feel much better than modern AF lens. From what you have, you already have taste of the best. When I use AF lens, most of time i will go back to MF mode, but I hate the feeling of it on AF lens. Get 17-35 for sure is what i can tell you. 80-200 next if you got the fund. 28-70 is an interesting lens. I love its feel of body built, but as a lens, it is less desirable compare with 17-35 or 80-200mm. I returned mine because i have found flar & ghost issue on it. I also own EF 24-70 so I did not exchange for another. To me, the 17-35 is near a must buy if you want zoom. When i carry 17-35 & 80-200mm togather, I have found i shot more picture from 17-35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Thank you for your contributions. My working hypothesis is a) start with a 80-200 2.8 AF D as a general purpose tele to carry around (though heavy: 1,3 Kg) b) get the 85mm 1.4 AF-D which MF version I really use a lot and like, but also struggle with the shallow DoF wide open c) get the 50mm 1.4 AF-D as an all-purpose lens, fast and with excellent ratings. Then there is the wideangle question. I use the 20mm mostly for indoor photos, but it is impossible to use it as a portrait lens, so the MF is fine. The 35mm is too close to the 50mm and I don't use it much anyway. I suppose that the distortion of the 17-35 at superwide settings (17-22mm) is still high, making it unsuitable for portraiting . The 28mm is not very high-rated, maybe I should consider the 24mm AF-D, which scores better in evaluations and has CRC. So, the final AF "picture" could be (over time, considering my budget limitations) - 80-200 2.8 AF-D (usable on F3 HP) - 85 1.4 - 50mm 1.4 (quite cheap and good quality) - 28 2.8 AF-D (already have it, not the best lens, but there are trade-offs) - 24mm 2.8 AF-D (the better AF wideangle) We'll see. Thanks, Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Sounds like fun, but trust me on this: Skip the wide primes and just get the 17-35mm, instead. The distortion is not an issue until you go beyond 20mm (which it would be, anyway) and then, only if you point it off-axis. It will walk circles around the 24mm and 28m you have mentioned. No kidding: If my 17-35mm fell off a boat or something an someone offered me a 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm (all of which I have owned) for free, I would still pass on them and pay cash for another 17-35mm. Yes, it's that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Interesting challenge, Eric. But let me ask you: when I take pictures of people indoors with the 20mm, they look terrible when they are not placed at the centre of the frame. At the margins of the frame they become terribly large and distorted. Nothing to do with the vertical distortion when the camera is not dead level. What can you advise on that?Thanks, Luca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 At 20mm, anyone will look like a Dali painting. It's not the lens you want to use for this type of work. I can get away with using this zoom at the long end on the DSLR for candids from time to time, but not on a full-frame camera. Use the 80-200mm (or an 85mm) for this type of portraiture. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I wouldn't say you have to 'center' the subject with a 20mm, but not letting your subject stray beyond the 'third' line is a good practice. I like that for certain kinds of 'man at his desk' environmental portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 Eric, you nearly convinced me. The 17-37 2.8 AFS is my target now. It's not cheap though ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey_edelstein1 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 You could investigate getting some of your lenses chipped. Look on Nikonlinks.com for Bjorn Roslett he has a lot of info on getting lenses chipped. 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