arvind_sankar

For the wedding, I'd suggest that you rent rather than buy. You can easily rent a professional flash unit with lots of power, quick recycling, and a flash bracket for a lot less money than a new speedlight. You can also rent a bigger body so it balances better: the lighter Nikon's tend to be a little top-heavy with a big speedlight attached. You will also be able to use all the pro lenses you want without breaking the bank.

Sorry for cross-posting, I posted it in camera equipment before

realizing there is now a minolta forum.

 

Can anyone comment on how this lens performs? Compared to say a 20/2.8

prime, and the Nikon 20-35/3.5-4.5? There seem to be no reviews of

this lens anywhere, is it new?

 

Thanks.

Can anyone comment on this lens? I'm thinking of getting it for a

friend with a maxxum system. There seems to be a dearth of information

on it online. Is it newly introduced? How does it compare to the

equivalent Nikon (for which there are lots of reviews, so I have an

idea of the quality)?

 

How much worse is it compared to a 20/2.8?

The photos here<br>

<a href="http://web.mit.edu/arvinds/www/html/natya/index.html">Natya images</a><br>

were shot with Provia 400F exposed at EI1600. For some of them I used an 80B (I think, can't really remember the filter number off-hand), but most are just shot straight under yellow stage lighting (I assume tungsten).

Does anyone have experience with this light meter? It's available

pretty cheap used, but what kind of batteries does it take, and is it

a 1 deg meter or not?

 

I searched and found one reference to an auto spot II digital, but I'm

not sure whether that's what I'm looking at, nor does it answer what

batteries would be needed.

Hey Jason, could you tell me where you see the cheapo 180/2.8s? I checked KEH but the prices there for the non-D version are $415 in E condition. The new D-type is $635 at B&H (grey market). That doesn't look very cheap to me, though every little bit helps..

 

I'm asking because I am also interested in getting a 180/2.8.

There's a good chance they'll scratch your negs, or cut through a frame.

 

My advice is to get it developed at your usual prolab, then pick a frame to enlarge. Or get a contact sheet made. Development is usually as cheap or cheaper than most 1hr places (except you don't get any 4x6 proofs), and contact sheet maybe $10 or so. They may also be able to do 4x6 proofs for a lot less than custom color prints, so check that out.

Has anyone ever actually scratched a reflex mirror by cleaning?

I'd just like to point out that the 105/2.8 AF Micro-nikkor is not a fair comparison for focus throws. Most of the focusing throw on this lens is reserved for the macro region, and it is very easy to focus manually in this region (distances of less than 2-3 ft). It might be fairer to compare its focus throw beyond the macro region with that of an AIS micro-nikkor, but I've never handled one of those.

 

That said, the larger point is valid, in that the AF versions of most lenses have a much shorter focus throw than the manual focus versions. However, most of the non-consumer zoom AF's, and the prime AF's, do have a decent focus ring, and reasonably long focus throw. I have AF 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8, and I've never had a problem focussing them manually. I don't know what the big deal is about the 50/1.8's ring, sure it might not feel as good as that of a 50/1.4 AiS, but it's good enough for me.

Look at <a href="http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon.html">Roland Vink's page</a> for weight questions. The 180/2.8 weighs about 750g, while the 80-200/2.8 weighs 1300g for the non-AFS and 1450g for the AFS version. The 180/2.8 does not have a tripod collar, so I guess Nikon decided their mounts could take the load. The F4 weighs more than the 180/2.8, so the centre of gravity would tend to be very close to the mount anyway.

It's rather easy to hand-hold a 105 or 135 outdoors: remember that you will be shooting at f/4 or wider for portraits, which will give you shutter speeds of around 1/500 or faster with ASA100 film, even in the shade or cloudy.

<p>

Indoors is a different matter, but you can get away with it if you have ASA400film and take reasonable care to steady yourself before you shoot (i.e. rest your elbow on a table or chair back etc); or if you use a flash, of course.

<p>

I went the other way: I have a 105/2.5 Ai, and wanted something a tad wider, so I got the 85/2 AiS which sells very cheap. There is a difference between the two only if there is no space to move back and forth: I doubt you can tell the difference in perspective between 10ft and 12-13ft by studying the picture. You can also easily crop the 85mm image to a 105mm field of view, so going such a slight amount longer might not make sense (going wider obv does, because <i>I</i> did so ;) ), especially since you a have an extremely good 85mm lens.

<p>Re the 80-200, I agree that it's a pain to manhandle, but I wouldn't worry about it damaging the mount on an F4. The D100 might be a different story, though.

I don't think the lack of focus brackets means anything: the screens meant for manual focussing (the ones with micro-prism or split-image) usually don't have them, at least for the F4.

 

I actually bought a replacement beattie screen for my F4, and it made no difference to the metering whatsoever, and I'm darned if it makes any difference to the brightness. I couldn't be bothered to return it, though. It did have the advantage of both gridlines and split-image/micro-prism, which Nikon doesn't offer.

<p>In case any of you old geezers/farts are offended, it was meant humorously :)

<p>For me, chipping is pointless, because my AF body is an F4, and meters perfectly well with anything you can stick on it.

<p>I hadn't realized the old version of the 80-200/2.8 goes for so little, had just been looking at the newer ones, but I would probably prefer to get the 180mm lens anyway. Some of the mint 180mm AF's have gone on e**y for $300-350, while KEH wants $415 for E+. Is this sort of premium typical? Maybe I'll wait till KEH has one in bargain. Totally incomprehensible is the $100 premium for the D version...

<p>I did mean Provia 400F, which I'm satisfied with even at 1600. I've never tried E320T, does it push? I usually live with the yellow cast in return for speed. Sometimes I use filters if I can get away with shorter lenses. The filters I'm concerned more about is B&W stuff for general photography, not the stage stuff. Of course, the 180/2.8 is 72mm, so I could share filters between it and the 300/4.5... dang, maybe I should just switch to 4" gel filters.

<p>Thanks for all the responses, now I have to think about whether it makes more sense to upgrade to the 180/2.8 first instead of the 300/4!

People, I realize that bath A will get contaminated if I stick in the film into it again, which is why the water rinse in between. I will use it as one-shot if I do this, I'm not that dumb...

<p>

I'm trying to boost the highlight densities a bit above what the standard diafine processing will give, so I'm not interested in its compensating action, quite the opposite. The highlights are <i>not</i> developed to completion in a two-solution developer, that's why all the admonitions about gentle agitation. I suppose I could try giving more agitation in solution B.

<p>

Is there anyone who has actually tried this? Or at least tried it with some other divided developer?

I ought to clarify what I mean by stage photography. I do some amateur (i.e. I don't get paid for shooting, and get re-imbursed for film/dev only some of the time) shooting of student performances: these aren't like bands, mostly dance performances with reasonably good lighting (no funky red/blue neon stuff). This is Indian classical dance where facial expressions are very important. the 105mm usually gets me a bit more than a full figure (two dancers if they are next to each other), and the 300mm would let me capture a face or bust shot.

 

My 105mm is a 2.5, and the 200mm is f/4, so they're not _that_ slow, and I certainly can't afford an 80-200/2.8, which is why I'm looking into used primes. I'm also toying with the idea of trading the 200/4 (and gobs of cash!) for a 180/2.8, but thought I'd go with the added length of the 300 for now.

 

Re the differing versions of the AF lens, Roland Vink lists only one (but there are two weights listed for the AF-S, so maybe there are two of those), and Ken Rockwell claims that Nikon didn't screw up this lens by putting the almost-non-existent focus ring on it like they did with the first 180/2.8 AF.

 

I'm still looking for opinions on 3 and esp 4.

Has anyone tried putting film twice through diafine? I.e., three

minutes in solution A, three in B, 30sec water rinse, then back into

soln A for three min, finish up with three in B. AA suggests doing

this sort of thing with other two-solution developers for more control

over the contrast. I'm interested in knowing if this will increase the

highlight density a bit without further development of the shadows.

(need to process new 35mm tri-x shot at 3200)

I'll be using the lens on an F4s, btw. I also have an FM-10, but certainly won't dare mount the lens on it without a tripod.

I want to get a used 300mm lens, and it's going to be either the

300mm/4.5 EDIF Ai-S or the 300mm/4 EDIF-AF (non-AFS). Budget

constraints dictate that much. On KEH, both seem to go for about the

same price.

 

I would be shooting hand-held most of the time, indoor stage

performances. I typically use either Provia pushed 1-2 stops, or

delta3200 at 1600, and get shutter speeds of around 1/125-1/250,

sometimes 1/500, at f/4. (A bit tight for hand-holding a 300mm lens, I

know, and if it doesn't work out, I might be forced to use my tripod,

or get a monopod.)

<p>

The advantages of the Ai-S lens seem to be lighter wt (990g vs 1330g),

better handling - I read on a couple of sites that the focus ring on

the AF version is a bit too far forward: can anyone comment on this?

and smoother MF (I <i>love</i> the focus ring on my 85/2).

<p>

The advantages of the AF lens are AF (of course!), better interaction

with teleconverters, 39mm filters (these actually seem to be cheaper

than 72mm filters - at least the Nikon ones at B&H: am I missing

something here?)

<p>

With my 105 and 200mm lenses (both AI), I find it quite hard to

manually focus on moving performers, esp when the lens is going to be

used wide-open with no DoF to cover me. I expect a 300mm lens should

be easier (more focus snap, otoh, even less DoF), but are there any

tricks of the trade that some of you old geezers who grew up on MF

could share?

<p>So, my questions are

<ol><li>How easy/hard is it to use the focus ring on the AF version?

<li>How much difference does the weight make?

<li>Have I got it right about the filters?

<li>Helpful hints about MFing in low light and at medium distances

(10-20m)?</ol>

Justin, only the SB-24, -25 and -26 will give you *full* compatibility with the F4. In particular, later flashes can't be used in rear sync mode, because the F4 doesn't have a button to set it (these three flashes have the button, later ones don't, and expect you to set rear sync on the body). This is the only capability of the F4 you will lose, though. All the newer flashes will work in manual/auto/standard TTL modes with normal sync.

If you agree with the responders who want you to get a "solid" camera, KEH is currently offering a bargain condition F4s for $429. Matrix, center-weighted (60/40) and spot with practically any lens that Nikon has made in the F mount (I've never tried a non-AI lens, I suspect you can't trust matrix with those, even if it works), P/A/S/M with all AIS and AF lenses except for the G series (which should work in P/S modes), A/M with AI lenses, AFS lenses work fully, VR not supported. The AF is ok, but not as good as N90s or N80.

Why aren't you considering one of the PC-nikkors -- the 28/4 or the 28/3.5 is the widest you can get in Nikon, but apparently the Canon 24T/S can be converted to F-mount.

Go into a dark room, cut the film into 5-foot pieces, spool it into reusable 35mm cassettes, and hand it off to your lab (or, alternatively, if you have access to a darkroom, develop the 5-foot pieces yourself). You can paste the resulting strips together, and you will lose only a couple of frames every 30 or so.

No, it's not bulk film, normal 35mm cassettes.

 

Lee, I don't understand what you mean by this is normal and not a light leak? It doesn't happen with my F4s, for eg, so I'm pretty sure it's not normal. Why should my film get exposed if it's not a light leak?

I have an FM-10, and I joined a darkroom course, so looked more

closely at the negs I was getting. I noticed that here are dark

streaks along the edge of the film (near or past the sprocket holes),

and the instructor suggested that the back was probably leaking a bit.

I went home and verified that the streaks are there on professionally

developed film as well, so it's not just me screwing up somehow in the

darkroom.

 

Ok, the question: is there any easy way of fixing this? It's a $200

camera, so obviously I don't want to send it out for repair. Also, is

there any chance of this getting worse over time? Right now it's far

enough from the image area that I can ignore it.

In manual exposure mode, the compensation dial has no effect on the exposure (either aperture or shutter speed). All it changes is the readout of the meter. There is no way on the F4 to set intermediate shutter speeds manually.

 

If you want a specific shutter speed that's not a whole f-stop, you'd have to go to aperture priority, and fiddle with the exposure compensation (or use the exposure lock) till you see the shutter speed you want.

 

If you want just to adjust the exposure by 1/3 stop, adjust the aperture ring instead (you can use the exposure meter to see when you have changed by 1/3 stop).