With "G" lens, does it make sense to invest in a new body?

[abbie_benson]

I was really interested in some day getting some of the new Nikon

lens that are being announced. I've been saving some money, but I'm

a little concerned that the new lens will not fit my F3. I called

Nikon and they were really helpful, they told me that the reason

they were going to the new "G" mount was to save weight, and make

the lens more competitive price wise. I can understand that, but it

got me to think that maybe I should use some of the money I've saved

and invest in a new body, or a used new body if you know what I

mean. I only have a 3 lens, and they are AI or AIS lens so they

would work with the newer film bodies. I could always keep my F3 as

a back up.

 

I looked at the N80 and didn't feel it was right for me. It felt to

light weight after hauling around my F3. I've seen the F100 on eBay

and it's not "too expensive" used. I'll have to save some more for

another lens, but Life is a trade off.

 

So I guess my question is: Does it make sense to buy a new film

body, like the F100 with all it's features, so I can pick up a few

of the new lens Nikon is talking about. Another Bonus is I know the

F100 will also be able to take advance of the VR features also,

where my F3 won't.

 

Thanks for you help

 

Abbie .. :)

[Guest]

Why not keep adding to the money you've put aside so that when you find a new lens you really want that happens to be a G, you've got some money for a body to handle it? Many new Nikkors are still non-G (to say how much longer would be to start a scrap) and can be used on your F3 without having to shoot at f/22 every time.

<P>

And why should your F3 be a backup body? - it's too nice for that. Use it as a second body so you can have two different films on the go: maybe two different shooting styles. After all, if you're all-MF now, you might not want to be having every shot autofocused for you.

<P>

I use my older AF camera mostly with AI lenses, but it's a bonus to be able to go all-AF, all-matrix if I don't have time. It won't VR and all the new stuff, but that's how I want it, at least for now. I've even been weighing up an older manual-focus body to <I>complement</i> it.

<P>Not sure which. I want 100% viewfinder and WLF option, that's really all I'm sure of. The F4's the same basic spec as my own camera except for the things that make it an F-series. The F3 seems perfect for what I want of it, but I keep thinking I'd like to have an F2AS for good low-light metering or the F Photomic FTn for that cool-looking prism.

<P>

By itself, it would have to be a very good G lens to warrant an F100 just so you could use it. But I'm sure you know that.<P>

Just a few thoughts.

[dan_andrews]

Abbie--

 

Only you can make the final call on this, but based on your question, I would say that you have plenty of time before making the jump to AF. Nikon still makes AIS lenses and the large number of used AI and AIS lenses will keep you happy for years to come.

 

If you want to use VR lenses and AF-S lenses, then the F100 is a good choice. Actually, in order to use AIS lenses and AF-S lenses, you only have two choices: the F100 and the F5.

 

On the other hand, do you need VR? If so, then you really have to consider a new Nikon body.

 

Your F3 is a greeat example of Nikon's finest design and manufacturing--if you KNOW you'll need features from a newer body, then you've already answered your own question. If you KNOW those features are available in one particular body, then you've already answered your next question.

 

I hope this helps--and happy shooting,

[douglas_green1]

Nikon's rationale for the G-series lenses is all about saving cost, and forcing obsolescence of their older bodies. The weight savings is miniscule. In most cases (but not all) the G-series lenses are shoddily made and are not as good as the non-G lenses. In my opinion, the ONLY way that they will get the message that this is irresponsible corporate behavior is to not buy those lenses.

[ebogaerts]

I agree with Douglas wholeheartedly. Nikon is out to get people to buy new camera bodies and lenses with the "G" series. I don't think it has anything to do with saving cost by eliminating an aperture ring. I don't believe that line of reasoning one single bit.

 

Case in point: Why are there ultra-expensive lenses made with the "G" designation? Is someone who's spending a large sum of cash on a lens going to care about a minor increase in price due to the inclusion of a manually-adjustable aperture ring?

[klix]

Abbie - If you're curious about the "newer" features, I would suggest finding a place where you can rent an F100 and a G/VR lens and try it out. Then you can be better informed on whether you want to spend the money for it... good luck...

[ShunCheung]

Abbie, sorry about all the off-topic comments. The F3 was introduced over 20 years ago and there have been a lot of improvement in camera design since then. Whether you need the improvement is another issue. If you want to have fast AF, VR, matrix metering and fast flash sync while staying with film, the F100 is an excellent choice, especially your old AI/AI-S lenses will continue to work on them (but no matrix metering).

 

The real question is which new lenses do you have in mind? G lenses won't work on your F3 and neither will AF and VR. So the F3 will at best be a partial backup with some new features missing.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

<i>

I'll bet that after you use the F100 you'll never want to use the F3 again, just my opinion</i>

<p>

Here's another opinion: I bought my first F3 the year after my F100, and I bought another F3 last year. They're just different beasts, and they have different strengths. The F3 (for me) is probably the finest 'sports action' manual focus camera ever. Very solid and quick, with a beautiful focus screen in the 'E'.

<p>

The F100 is dandy for flash use and AF use, but the screen is less than ideal for MF usage. If you need the fast AF that an F100 provides, then by all means start saving up. As for the G/VR lenses, I guess I'd be asking myself what specifically I thought I was missing before I lamented not being able to use them on an F3.

<p>

For what I shoot, I have no use for VR, and I'm a little suspicious of the added complexity / frailty / flare-prone nature of them. I tend to be limited by subject motion as much as camera motion (from a monopod, anyway). The 'big gun' wildlife shooters I'm sure will have a different opinion.

<P>

'G' has no value whatsoever on its own, we just need to watch and see if Nikon continues to bring out decent glass that still has an aperture ring. If Nikon never introduced another lens, the 'back catalog' of used lenses can keep you busy for a lifetime.

[Carl Stone]

"I called Nikon and they were really helpful, they told me that the reason they were

going to the new "G" mount was to save weight, and make the lens more competitive

price wise."

 

I would not get too concerned with some of the conspsiracy theorists in this forum.

IMO, Nikon gave it to you straight.

[tcb.photo]

Hi Abbie,

 

If you want the features of the VR and AF-S lens then you'd have to get a newer body. Personally, even though I eally hate to agree with "A troll", the fact that the "G" lens will not meter on the older bodies bothers me also. But it's something we have to live with. Crying about it won't change it. Actually it will, but your perminately set on f/22 and that would really suck wind.

 

The F3 is a great piece of equipment.A legend really. You can always find a use for it. There are a lot of people who still use F's, F2s, Leica M2s and get the job done.

 

The F100 is an great camera, and you really can't go far wrong with it. If you bought one, and it didn't have any abuse problems I'd bet you would love it. But you'd still use the F3

 

Two bodies have a lot of benefits. I use my F3 for slide film and the f100 for B&W or visa versa. If one needs cleaned or adjusted then you always have another to work with.

 

Regarding Josh's recommendation to examine Canon equipment. There your getting into opinion, and everyones will be different. Those of us who prefer Nikon will think Josh is insane. BUT in honesty I do have to say that the Canon 17-40 f/4 "L" Lens really can't be compared to the Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5. If we are going to be honest the canon lens is a well designed fantastic lens. IF you want to concentrait on Landscapes, and it's within your budget, look at the Canon Lens. It is a wonderful lens.

 

But do you want to get pulled into two different systems? That can get quite expensive. If not, then are you ready to scrap you Nikon stuff? You always seem so proud of it.

 

Also, You can't compare the EOS 1n to the F100. the F100 is newer technology and is a better body. I know I once owned a Eos 1n, and the 1v. The 1V is a different story, but it's more "akin" to the F5.

 

Ultimately, you have to decide what you will need. If you want the Nikon Body, I'm positive you'll enjoy it and find it a great body to own. But you'll still take the F3 with you, it's like using a Leica M6. Nothing gives you a greater thrill than taking a decent photo with a "bare bones" body. Knowing that it was you who did it and not the camera.

 

Best of luck

[chuck]

IMHO, if you really need a new body anyway, it makes sense to buy one that will fit the "G" lenses. However, if you don't really need a new body, then it does not make sense to buy a new body just to fit the new "G" lenses until you have identified a specific "G" lens that you absolutely need, and of which there is no non-G equivalent. Judging from your post, I would wait.

[jsbc]

Well...

 

1) If you are around for the long-haul, why not wait a while for a digital solution? Maybe the D100 or its replacement?

 

2) Unless you want pro bodies (F5, D1, D2) the F100 is the only common denominator which will enable you to use the Ais lenses and the G AFS VR lenses. The newer bodies cannot use Ais, and the older AF bodies cannot use AFS / VR lenses.

 

3) If you want to get the F100, might as well get it now and use it asap. Wait around and you'll be coerced or persuaded into using digital cameras with the DX lenses. (Nothing wrong with that, since they will be lighter etc). But then it may be better to get the best digital system, including Canon, rather than one that is shares the same mount as your F3.

 

Because it ain't compatible.

[douglas_green1]

I too sold my F100 (and my n80), and kept my 2 F3s and my FG. I personally have no use for any of the additional features of the F100.

 

I prefer manual focus to auto focus for 99% of my work. I prefer center-weighted metering to matrix metering. And I prefer to remove the motor from my camera for about 75% of what I do (for quietness, and lighter weight). I also like to use the F3's action finder.

 

I very occassionally will use an n90s for shooting sports, but I can't think of any other reason why I'd prefer an AF camera.

[ShunCheung]

Your preference highly depends your subject matter and your style. My preference can hardly be more different from Douglas Green's. Since I shoot a lot of wildlife action, fast AF and long lenses are critical to my work, which means F5, F100 (and some D100 in these days), all AF-S lenses. I also use the spot meter extensively to analyze exposure in different parts of the frame. I haven't used an MF body in over a decade although I still have an FE; even my F4 has been sitting on the shelf for years.

 

I am sure someone who shoots fine arts or portrait will have different preferences from mine. In those cases some 25-year-old camera and lenses may be just fine. There is no "right" answer, and until Abbie provides more information, I don't think anybody can provide good answers.

[Carl Stone]

The only one that you need to justify your purchases to, is you. The F100 is a great

camera, and much more advanced than earlier models. It makes perfect sense to buy

an F100 if you need, or even just want, one. As time moves on, the older cameras

WILL be less able to use newer technology as it becomes available. It's a matter of

choice, unless you want to have a mix of old and new, which many folks have. One

thing to be aware of is that some people are unreasonably in favor of old equipment,

and insist that Nikon is purposely out to upset their apple cart anytime a new product

comes out. It never occurs to them that technology always moves forward, and that

they have their head stuck in a dark place. If Nikon had listened to them, we would all

be using pinhole cameras, because new advances would be denied just to satisfy a

selfish few. However, using older equipment still gives great results, and there's no

shortage of it. An F100 is a more versatile camera than the older models, if that is

important to you as you grow your particular system.

[ebogaerts]

"I called Nikon and they were really helpful, they told me that the reason they were going to the new "G" mount was to save weight, and make the lens more competitive price wise."

 

I would not get too concerned with some of the conspsiracy theorists in this forum. IMO, Nikon gave it to you straight.

 

-- Carl Stone , September 10, 2003; 11:02 P.M. Eastern

 

Well, I don't argue about Nikon saying that the "G" lenses were made to make them more competitive price-wise. But I don't believe for one stinkin' minute that it has anything to do with saving weight, or that any of the non-"G" autofocus lenses (especially most of the examples in the "G" lens price class) were hefty in weight.

 

Do you think they were too heavy? I think the weight issue has more to do with Nikon getting rid of the metal lens mounts and going with that "high density plastic" than with the elimination of a manually adjustable aperture ring.

 

None of this matters of course because as was stated in another thread there is a ton of non-"G" glass available both used and in autofocus primes. :)

[abbie_benson]

Thanks for all the information. I do think that I'll stick with the Nikon brand, but I'm going to pick up a nice used F100 to start with. Since it will use my AIs lens also, it makes sense. Plus I can load both bodies with different film.

 

I really thought about what Josh said about the Canon lens and body, but I really like my 24mm and don't see a need to replace it with a zoom, even a good zoom. For me the lens I want is the 80-200 f/2.8 AFS Vr lens. It's a focal length I feel I need more. It also seem to be a nice lens. So After I get my F100, I'll save a few more months and get one of those. Then save for the next lens...:)

 

Thank you all for your thoughts

 

Abbie

[scott_warn]

My answer is very simple. If your only Nikon body will not accept the "g" lens that you desire then your best choice is to look at a Canon camera. They have a much wider selection of image stabilized lenses, better AF control schemes, and don't plan on making all their older AF bodies incompatible with any new lens.

 

As to Nikon's answer that they are doing this to save weight, that is bunk. With the modern high strength plastics used in the current lenses the weight of the aperture ring may be 1/2 ounce, NOT a significant amount. What it is all about is saving Nikon 20-30 bucks per lens, that makes sense in an economy lens but in a 1400 dollar lens it is plain stupid. Nikon has managed to alienate all of us users who have older bodies. I have an F5, N90s, N8008s, and a string of F2's and F's. That is why all of my AF lense have aperture coupling prongs mounted and all of my MF lenses are AI compliant. Until Nikon came out with the "g" mount I could modify any of my lenses to fit any body. I would not expect the AF, or the VR, to work on my F2 but I mainly use that camera on a tripod when I am in the mood to slow down and study a subject. Why on earth should I not be able to mount a new lens on that body and use it as a simple manual focus lens? I don't care about Nikon keeping the "g" mount for the cheap lenses, they can have those cost savings. What really peeves me is that Nikon has decided that all new glass have the "g" mount, both the cheap zooms and the premium lenses. One lens that would make me drool would be a VR version of the 300 f4, problem is that it will be in that damn "g" mount when Nikon gets around to making it. If I didn't have over 30 years of Nikon equipment with the resulting expense, I can assure you that I would be switching to Canon equipment.

 

My feeling is that Nikon wants to push all of their users into new bodies. That will backfire because Canon is way ahead of Nikon with the selection of IS lenses and the features of their AF systems. The F5 is the only current AF Nikon that matches up to Canon for speed and it only offers 5 segments to Canon's 45.

[ShunCheung]

Speaking of Canon, the already made all of their MF equipment not compatible at all with their AF equipment when they made the FD to EF change some 15 or so years ago. Now they are introducing EF-S lenses that are not compatible with most EOS bodies, including the 10D which was just introduced a few months ago and has the same CMOS sensor as the 300D, for which the new lens is intended. The fact of the matter is that things change and there won't be compatibility forever. Moreover, the 11 AF points on the new Nikon D2h look a lot more useful than some 45 AF points all crowded in the middle of the frame.

 

Abbie, there is no 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. There is a 80-200 AF-S non-VR and a 70-200 G VR. As we all know, the G is not compatible with your F3. So your choice is either compatibility with the F3 or no VR. Personally I don't find VR very useful and don't own any VR lens, but that also highely depends on your style. Either one of those lenses is great and so is the F100, assuming that you are not interested in digital at this point.

 

The caviet is that in case you are hooked by modern lenses, there is a chance that you'll want more down the road. :-)

[josh a.]

Finally a voice of reason. Abbie, you really should rethink the Canon lens? What Scott has said is true. Just go and look at a Canon EOS 1N. Rob is wrong, it's a better body than the F100 (No mirror lock up). why would you want to pay more money for lens than you have too?? Canon developed the IS and USM - silent and image stabilization.

 

Plus remember the new Rebel Digital, a inexpensive way to go digital in the future.

 

Josh

[Carl Stone]

"Moreover, the 11 AF points on the new Nikon D2h look a lot more useful than some

45 AF points all crowded in the middle of the frame."

 

Minolta also has multi segment metering, even more segments than Canon, but so

what? Nikon's 5 segments go all the way to the edge of the frame. Now with the D2H,

it's getting even better.

 

What a laugh, to see someone suggest that we should all move to Canon, just

because of Nikon's G lens incompatibility with older cameras. My inclination, is to ask

them if they want cheese with that whine.

 

Fast action isn't the only place where VR shines. Hand holding in low light, is also a

good place for that technoogy. Some folks can manage slower shuttter speeds than

others, when it comes to hand holding. But the VR technology can level the playing

field, and then some. People with strictly manual cameras miss photos because they

can't keep up with the action, and that's the truth. Sure a good pic shot in manual

mode is a work of art, but let's give the Devil his due, auto modes also produce

excellent photos.

[tcb.photo]

Abbie

 

Get what you like, not what others - including myself - like. In the end, it matters more about what feels good in your hand than in anyone elses.

 

IS or VR, USM or AF-S, are nice functions, but shouldn't be the major factor in you decision. I think an autofocus camera is a good option to have, as is your F3. Two bodies are very convenient. But just because Canon makes more IS lens (AF-S to us) than Nikon shouldn't be the deciding factor in switching brands. Allot of people still use Tripods and monopods, and take fine photos. The fact that "G" lens won't work on my F3, bothers me too. But not enough to go out and buy all new equipment. One of my favorite lens is the Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 D. Not AF-s or VR, but a damm good piece of glass.

 

I'm also of the opinion that you should worry about what's available in digital, when your ready to buy a digital. Right now Canon maybe ahead of Nikon in the variety of models available. But in two years that could all change. Ultimately, what really matters is the person standing behind the camera, and what your needs are right now.

[david_h._hartman]

For me there are only two compelling AF-S G VR lenses on the market, well one is till coming.

 

The AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR and the AF-S 200~400/4.0G ED-IF VR. The latter has an announced list price of $6,700.00. I now have about $1,000.00 saved towards some wild glass. If the price of the 200~400/4.0 VR settles at $6,000.00 will I ever own one? Who knows?

 

I don�t see any other G only lenses that I want. I already own an AF 80~200/2.8D ED so the 70~200/2.8 VR falls off as a lens to buy. I can gain a couple of stops by using a monopod. I�ve wanted to get past 300mm for almost as many years as I�ve owned an SLR. With a TC-14E II I could get a 280~560/5.6 zoom with VR.

 

---

 

The N80/F80 is the first Nikon I can recommend. Since you are used to the quality of the F3 you aren�t likely to like that light a camera. The F100 on the other hand uses all your current AI and AIS lenses. The F100 lacks ADR (aperture direct readout) but other than that it�s a fine camera for use with your manual focus lenses. Having a second camera body is a very good option.

 

If you pick AF-D lenses with care many have a reasonable a feel and long enough throw on the focus so they are quite at home on an AF or MF camera body. I�m thumbs up on the F100 and thumbs down on most G type lenses. I own a number of MF cameras and an F100 and F5.

 

Hope this helps,

[Carl Stone]

I don't know how old you are, or how long you intend to use your equipment, but,

unless you are ready to live with older technology for the rest of your photographic

life, then you should consider that at some point you'll want a more advanced camera

that will take advantage of the newer lenses. Folks talk about whether or not a lens

will meter with certain bodies, and I very well remember when bodies didn't have ANY

metering abilities. When the first behind the lens metered cameras came out, there

were a few die hards that pooh poohed them, and said that they'll never eliminate the

need for a hand held meter. So much for that idea. Never is a long time, and

technology advances at a rapid rate. It is simply unrealistic to think that any one body

will suffice for all of your future photo needs and wants, unless you're not planning

on doing photography much longer.