albert_smith

I have been wearing my D40 and 35mm f/2.0 AF lens for a few days now, and it has been used to shoot hundreds of shots. The performance is very good, and while I still love my f/1.4 AIS version, the ability to meter with the D40 makes this AF model a better choice when I am shooting digital.

 

The tiny D40 body with the petite 35mm lens gives me a small package that allows for high quality images. It is too small to leave home (unlike a f/2.8 zoom), and if you have it with you, it can be used to take photos.

 

I shot this two hours ago. Window light, ISO 200, f/2.0. I wish you could see this at 100%... evey hair in the narrow plane of focus is sharp.<div></div>

I like small lenses on my small FE2 / FM2 cameras. Stay simple, one medium wide and one medium telephoto.

 

I have traveled the world with simple two-lens kits. Instead of thinking in terms of what you can't shoot, think about what you can. I find that I shoot for the lens on the camera, finding myself getting to the proper distance even before viewing. This comes from a minimal kit, where you really know the lens(es) versus a bag-o-glass that makes you keep thinking about the "other" lenses rather than the one on the camera.

 

Based on my real world experience, I can live very well with either of these two kits:

 

1. 24mm f/2.8 AIS and 85mm f/2.0 AIS

 

2. 35mm f/1.4 AIS and 105mm f/2.5 AIS

 

FWIW... I own every AI / AIS Nikkor from 20mm to 300mm, many in several speeds, but I can do 90% of everything I do with film Nikons with either of those two kits.

I used the 35mm f/2.0 AIS lens as my standard for a decade with good results. When I started into auto-focus, I got the 35mm f/2.0 AF lens as my first lens. In my opinion, the AF lens was better in two ways. It was better at the first two f-stops, with better sharpness and contrast. I could lay two slides on my light table and tell which was shot with the AF lens in a second. Second, the AF lens was very good close-up. It was not a true macro, but it focused closer than the AIS version, and this made it more versatile. My lens developed sticky aperture blades (which I later found out was not only my lens, but somewhat common based on numerous threads on the web), so I got the lens I really wanted, the 35mm f/1.4 AIS.

 

I still use the f/1.4, and even put up with the hassel of using it on my D40 (manual metering), but have just rediscovered the AF lens. I put my sticky aperture lens on the D40 and shot a whole series at an event at f/2.0. The results were great, and much easier than manual metering with the f/1.4. I just used aperture priority and f/2.0.

 

If the D200 meters with AIS lenses and you can swing it financially, try to get the f/1.4. If money is the issue and you are going for f/2.0, I would get the AF lens.

 

FWIW... after that series with the f/2.0 AF lens all shot wide-open, I went out and bought a new one with a good aperture. I can see this lens living on my camera for a long time.

... And one more. I went to a show of Steve McCurry's work. It was great... I got to talk to him about the Afghan Girl photo. This (and the above photo) is again with the 35mm f/2.0 AF wide-open at the show.<div></div>

Only you can say if you need it. I had one 15 years ago which had the aperture blade problem, so I used that to justify my 35mm f/1.4 AIS which is a very nice lens. I just got a D40, and have been using the f/1.4 lens with good results, but I was going to an event last night that made hand-held metering impractical, so I put my old 35mm f/2.0 AF lens on the body and shot every shot at f/2.0 (any smaller and the aperture wouldn't close).

 

I had forgotten how good this lens was. Even wide-open, it was very sharp, and the manual focusing (required on the D40) was easy via the electronic rangefinder. The bottom line... today I went out and bought a new one with a good snappy aperture action.<div></div>

I have a Nikon DSLR, but I find that I am needing to use my 35mm f/1.4 AIS Nikkor to get the f/1.4 that I need for a moderate focal length view with good selective focus. It is a pain to a degree, metering with my Sekonic incident, focusing via the electronic rangefinder, but I get a look that I can't get with even an f/2.8 zoom.

 

If Nikon does not feel the need to inject at least one f/1.4 lens with a semi-normal focal length (shorter than a 50mm f/1.4 for DX), then my 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor will be going into its third decade as my "go to" lens.

<I>"...but sent it back with the nicest letter, full of encouragement.."</I><P>

 

I too was the recipient of one of these letters. I sent in a letter in defense of prime lenses several years ago after Pop Photo did an article on how there was no justification for their continued use. Keppler's letter was not just a form letter, but a point-by-point comment on my points. He said that he'd like to publish it, but that it was too long. Two months later, the entire letter was published taking up most of the space for the letter-to-the editor section.<P>

 

I'll miss him.

Spinal Tap...<div></div>

Say that both lenses are equal, maybe, maybe not, but say they are. Now ask yourself if this focal length would serve you better on an SLR or on a rangefinder.

 

I have both Leica Ms and Nikon SLRs, and I use the 90mm Elmarit M on the Leicas. It is a fantastic lens.... sharp, contrasty and pretty much perfect even wide-open. On my Nikons, I use 85mm and 105mm lenses, and while they may be a stop behind the Elamrit M in performance, I use them more often based on the SLR viewing of the Nikons.

 

The SLR gives an enlarged view with these lenses making focus and composition easier than the framed crop in the finder of the M camera. The ability to see the selective focus effect in the SLR is nice too. The "everything-in-focus" view in the Leica means that you often don't see the true shot until the film comes back. Rangefinder people will say they can imagine the actual in and out of focus effect, but it is still a guess compared to the SLR.

 

The Leica M is great with my 35 and 50mm lenses, but most often, I grab my Nikon for the medium telephoto shots that show the strength of the SLR. So don't just do a direct comparison of the two lenses, but compare also the process of making them work. The SLR sings with a medium telephoto.

I think that this is going to be a new trend. I have many AF Nikkors that I bought and basically put away during my film days. I came to the conclusion that I really got on well with my AI / AIS manual focus Nikkors and my F3 / FE2 bodies.

 

Now that I have a digital Nikon SLR, I have dusted off many of these older lenses, and began to reuse them. The digital capture cuts off the edges of the image, and often the weakness of the lens was outside of the central part of the image, so the lens that was not so good with slide film is now pretty good with the DSLR.

 

Besides the 70-210 that Mike brought up in this thread, I also have been enjoying my 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 Nikkor, which is now a 42-105mm zoom in a very compact package with good macro at every focal length. And I never thought that this lens would be brought back into play, but I have been taking photos with my 24-120 Nikkor, a lens that I gave up on in the film days. The soft edges are now gone at 120mm, falling outside of the capture area, and giving me a nice 180mm lens.

 

I am glad that I didn't get rid of these lenses, even though they sat unused for up to a decade.

When local (national) retailers offered the D40 kit for the price of a Canon

G9, I figured this is the time and I got one. The Camera is pretty intuitive,

and I was able to get it out of the box and shooting in minutes without opening

the manual.

 

The one thing that was not working for me was the ability to view the images on

my T.V. set via an AV input. First, there was no AV cord in the box (all of my

Canons came with one). No problem, I thought, I'd just use one of the Canon

cables. I plugged it in to the camera and set the T.V. to the standard AV

setting I use with my canons...nothing. There was no signal, even though the

camera's LCD did not come on, which is normal for AV output viewing. Now, I

open the book and see that there is a Nikon cable required, the EG-D100. I

figured that I'd have to get one the next time I was in town.

 

Today, I was still trying to figure out why it was not working and then I had

an idea. The Canon camera has video with audio, so there are two connectors to

the T.V., yellow for video, and black for mono audio. I had the yellow plugged

into the yellow input to my T.V. as it is always used with the Canon, and the

black left dangling since I only shoot photos. I took the yellow plug out of

the T.V. input, plugged the black audio input into the T.V.'s yellow (video)

input and hooked up the Nikon D40...There were the photos in glorious color on

my T.V. Nikon inverted the signal output.

 

So, if you get a Nikon D40 camera, and you already own a digicam that you view

on your T.V. via an AV cable, you don't have to buy a Nikon cable. At least

for Canon users, just plug the audio (black) into the video input on your

television.

/./.<div></div>

///<div></div>

I have been doing a series on spiders, and while I have a full-up Nikon (film)system with macro lenses and flashes, I decided to do the whole thing on digital. I use the Canon A630 P&S, and have not been let down. The camera has a single button to go into macro, but I use manual focus and adjust the focus by moving the camera into the subject until it is sharp on the LCD. This camera also has a pivoting, swing-out LCD which is nice since the camera can be held for the composition while viewing can be from any good position independant of the aim of the lens.

 

My "hit rate" is pretty high after some practice, and after I learned to wear my reading glasses while checking the LCD.

 

I will post a reduced size JPEG and some details sections from that image to show the sharpness, but trust me... the computer image pales compared to the 11 X 14 inch print that I made straight from the SD card.<div></div>

thought that the hanging pans made a nice frame for the people...<div></div>

<I>He says that Dept. of Homeland Security isn't nutty about "regular folks" having access...</I><P>

 

Regular folks? Oh man, am I regular? How can I find out?<P>

 

If I am irregular, can DHS recommend a good model for me?

Many people are talking about aperture, but the other factor is the focal length. Because of the tiny sensors, the focal lengths are very short, so even at the long end of the zoom you are still getting the DOF of a wider-angle lens.

 

For example, my Canon A630 has a zoom that at the long end gives the angle of view of a 140mm lens on film... But, the actual focal length is under 30mm. It doesn't matter that it is on film or a digital sensor, the sub-30mm lens gives the same DOF for a given aperture and distance, which is to say not too selective.

 

Besides the focal length, don't forget the distance that you use the lens. The Canon S5 has a 35mm equivalant of over 400mm, but the actual lens' focal length is 72mm. A 72mm lens on film can give selective focus if you move in and open wide, but don't forget that with an angle of view of 400mm, to frame a face, you have to go pretty far back, so now you are using a 72mm lens from a long distance. The DOF will be deeper than if you used a 72mm lens from a few feet.

 

You can get selective focus in some situations, mostly in very close (as seen above), but any basic 35mm camera with a simple lens can allow for more control over DOF if selective focus is the desired result.<div></div>

<I>...but could you tell me where the first picture was shoot?</I><P>

 

The first picture in this thread was shot by me in Korea in 1987. I lived in Korea for three non-consecutive years from ealy 1980 through 1997, and the country looked nothing in 1997 like it did in 1980.<P>

 

FWIW, the photo was taken in the town of Suwan, which has a Korean folk village that tries to retain a traditional Korean motif. Now 20 years on since I took that photo, I am not sure you could see the same view today.

///<div></div>

My two Canon A-series digicams use the number of the photo taken to I.D. each JPEG. For example IMG_0750.JPG is the 750th shot made with the camera.

 

I know that the A40 is several generations earlier than my current PowerShots, but how are the photos tagged for identification? Maybe the answer lies there.

<I>with atleast 10x optical zoom...</I><P>

 

<I>it should not be too much bulky...</I><P>

 

<I> NO professional use...</I><P>

 

The Canon SX100 IS meets your requirements. It has exactly a 10-to-1 zoom (out to 360mm on a 35mm camera), image stabilization (needed when you get to the long end of the zoom), and at 8 megs, you can get nice photos easily up to 8 X 10. The current price here in Florida is 299 Dollars at every store that carries it. Take a look at the link below.<P>

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx100is.asp"> SX100 IS specs from DP REVEIW</a><P>

 

<I>By the way what is IS100 ,IS 400 ?</I><P>

 

I'm assuming that you mean ISO. This is a number to indicate the light sensitivity of the capture... low number, low sensitivity, and high number, high sensitivity. You can set it for say, ISO 100 and shoot all day out doors. indoors, you may wish to use a higher sensitivity to allow the lower light to be recorded better, but this can also lower the quality of the image due to noise. A lot of cameras allow for "auto ISO" (my newest canons do), which will allow the camera to adjust as needed based on the light. Most advanced users prefer to control this, but as a person that does not wish to learn every aspect of photography, auto ISO can be a way to start until you wish to get more involved with the process.

I posted this before, but my Dad has been gone for a decade (this year), so new images are impossible. This is a candid during a day trip to St. Augustine, Florida.<div></div>

<I>OfficeMax had one this week for $199.</I><P>

 

I second this recommendation. That $199 gets you the A630 bundled with a Canon 4 X 6 Printer. Not bad for a Camera (alone) that cost $349 upon release.<P>

 

I am very satisfide with my A630, and am seriously thinking about getting another (at that sale price) just to have incase mine fails.

/./.<div></div>

///<div></div>