rick_walker

Thanks for the information, guys.

Does the filter ring of the Pentax 645 AF 80-160mm 4.5 lens rotate

as you focus the lens? Also, does anyone know how the optical

design compares to the manual focus version of the lens? Thanks in

advance.

Hi, Harry. I think you'll really enjoy the 6x7. The quality of photographs it can produce is truly remarkable. Unless you need movements, I suspect it will suffice.

 

My most used lenses for landscape work are the 55mm, 75mm, and 135mm. If you assume that your 35mm work would be cropped to an 8x10 kind of aspect ratio, these lenses equate to 24mm, 33mm, and 59mm. Based on your stated preferences, both the 55mm and the 75mm would get a lot of use. Which one you start with is up to you. :)

I think the 85mm 1.8 complements the 80-200mm 2.8 very well. While the 80-200mm (and 70-200 VR) lenses are very sharp and flexible, they're also pretty large. Not only can this be inconvenient at times, but these lenses also rather intimidating to subjects. The 85mm lenses are much less threatening when used in a portrait setting and are a real delight to handhold.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the speed of both lens are comparable", but if you're referring to focusing speed rather than aperture, I would say the 85mm 1.8 is faster focusing than the 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D.

Yes, that lens will work fine. Any AF lens other than a G-series lens will work fine on the FA. AIS and AI lenses also work fine, and a non-AI lens that has been modified to work with AI bodies will also work. The latter just won't support the early version of matrix metering in the FA nor will it give you full read-outs in the viewfinder. It will support all automation modes, however (M, A, S, and P).

I'll second everything that Dave said and add a couple more zoom choices. The 35-70mm 3.5 AIS and 28-50mm 3.5 AIS are also quality lenses and work well on the FM2n since they don't have variable maximum apertures.

 

The 35-200mm Nikkor actually has a pretty good reputation, but I don't recommend using "all-in-one" lenses. Most of them have pretty distant close focusing distances and are unpleasant to carry around on a camera all day.

 

If it were me, and I wanted a nice, relatively affordable lens outfit to use with an FM2n, here's what I would look at:

 

24mm 2.8 AIS; either a 35mm 2.0 or 50mm 1.4 AIS (I would prefer the 35mm); 80-200mm 4.0 AIS; Nikon 5T close-up filter to use on 80-200mm.

 

This set will cover just about everything you would want (with the exception of bashful wildlife) and do it with quality.

The 35mm 1.4 AIS would be my first choice, but if it's too expensive, how about the 35mm 2.0 AIS? It's not quite as nice, but it's still an excellent lens. Since it's an f/2.0, it has good low light capabilities, and it also has the virtue of being compact and light in weight. If you wanted, you could add an 85mm 2.0 AIS lens very inexpensively, and these are also very small and lightweight.

 

In the 50mm lens range, the f/1.4 would be my first choice, but frankly they're both good. I don't find the f/1.4 too soft to shoot wide open - just be sure you're using an adequate shutter speed and focusing carefully. Afterall, there's not much depth of field at f/1.4.

 

The 55mm 2.8 micro is certainly a great lens, but if you're shooting available light photography, something a bit faster might be better.

I've owned all three and still have the EDIF AIS and the AF-S. All of them are very good lenses with the AF and AF-S having the best optical performance. My favorite? The AF-S, especially when used on AF bodies, but it's also quite nice when used on MF bodies. I found the AF lens to have too little resistance when focused manually. It was quite a bit harder to get precise focus because of that. There's no problem with the AF-S. The resistance is just right and it feels very good. Couple that with the 77mm filter ring, the 5 ft minimum focus and the AF-S motor (just in case you get an AF body in the future), and it's a great choice. In addition, its optical performance with the TC-14E is unbelievably good. I did replace the collar on mine with the Kirk tripod collar: it's not just decent - it's superb. I'm not sure if the factory collar would have been a real problem or just an imagined problem, but I didn't want to worry about it.

 

How different is the AIS lens as compared with the AF or AF-S lens? You can see a difference, but it's not huge. I haven't noticed a problem with uneven illumination, so it can't be too bad.

 

Overall thoughts and the decision process I would use:

 

You'll never get an AF body and you don't intend to use the lens with teleconverters: 300mm ED-IF 4.5 AIS

 

You want to save some money, but you'd like to be able to attach a teleconverter and still get good results: 300mm 4.0 AF

 

You want the best in every way: 300mm 4.0 AF-S

 

After having used the AF-S lens, there is no way I would contemplate going back to the 300mm 4.0 AF. It was a good lens, but for me there's no comparison.

The other problem with such adapters is that they usually only work at close distances. There were a few designed with some optical elements that allow for infinity focus, but with some degradation in sharpness.

 

The more practical approach is to not bother with adapters.

I'm also an owner of both. As others have mentioned, these are both tremendously good lenses. I've not seen a problem with infinity focus and the 105mm 2.8 micro. It seems quite sharp at all distances. Afterall, that's why Nikon designed CRC into this lens - so it would be sharp at infinity as well as close-up. I do feel the bokeh on the 2.5 is a bit better, however, and have seen circumstances where it shows up stronger than in the earlier sample photos (thanks for providing those, Richard).

 

If you're limited to one, here's the thought process I would use:

 

- Primary intended purposes: landscapes or close-up work. Lens: 105mm 2.8 micro

 

- Primary intended purpose: Portraits. Lens: 105mm 2.5

 

If you want one lens that does both pretty well, the 105mm 2.8 micro would be my choice.

I own one of the early 49mm ones. It's excellent both mechanically and optically. I have no complaints about its sharpness and contrast at any distance.

As long as the meter coupling prong hasn't been removed, AI, AIS, and non-AI will all fit the EL and couple with the meter. You're correct about the EL predating the FM, by the way.

I've used my 17-35mm 2.8 wide open, and it's definitely sharp - just like my old 20-35mm 2.8. It's a great lens.

I have an 80-200mm 4.0 and find it to be a great match for my F3HP. I'm very happy with its image quality and flexibility. The combination of the 24mm, 50mm, and 80-200mm works extremely well for travel.

The 70-200mm 2.8 VR is an incredibly good lens, but as others have mentioned, it won't work on your FM3A. There are several ways you could go. If you want to get a f2.8 lens, I would recommend a used 80-200mm f2.8 two ring lens. They're going pretty cheap right now and are quite excellent. The two ring configuration and the built-in tripod mount make it very suitable for use on a tripod. There's no trouble using this lens in manual focusing mode - I did it all the time for about five years with this lens. I wouldn't recommend the one touch versions of this lens as they lack the tripod mount. Not only does that put additional stress on your camera body, but more importantly, it's very inconvenient when shooting verticals.

 

Another alternative if you just want a quality zoom lens in this range, but don't absolutely need an f2.8 lens is to get a used 80-200mm 4.0 AIS lens. You can find these pretty inexpensively and they work very well with an FM3A. That will enable you to save your money for a point in time that you get an AF body, and then you can get the 70-200mm VR lens. Like I said before, the 70-200 VR is a great lens and certainly worth purchasing, but you'll need a recent AF body to make it work. The VR works very well and there's no problem using it on a tripod - just make sure to flip the VR off when you do that.

I have one of the 500mm AF-S lens cap/covers on my 500mm 4.0 P and it works well and fits fine, but it's also $20 more (at B&H) than the Moose one. I don't see much of a difference other than that the Nikon cap is long enough to cover the lens with a reversed hood attached. If that's useful to you, you might want to go with the Nikon one. The Moose one doesn't appear long enough to do that.

The TC-14A will work, and the TC-201 will also fit, but may vignette a little. I don't own a 50-300mm, so I can't vouch for how well these converters work with this lens. If I had to guess, I would expect somewhat lackluster results, especially toward maximum aperture.

 

Here's a handy reference sheet for Nikon lenses. Click on the "accessories" link at the top to look at teleconverter compatibilities.

 

http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon.html

Mine doesn't light up either. Too bad!

Hi, Ted. I was at Bosque del Apache last November and really enjoyed it. It's a fantastic place to shoot. I think you'll find 400mm to be a bit short, however. Aside from some environmental shots, you'll probably want to shoot at longer focal lengths, 500mm+. Here are some photos that I took on that trip:

 

http://www.geo-vista.com/bosque%20del%20apache.htm

 

All of them, except for the second photo in the second row, were taken with a 500mm 4.0 P lens, and several of those also included a TC-14b converter. The problem is that you've simply can't get much closer in many cases.

 

A fast lens definitely helps. I shot these photos with Provia 100 pushed to 200 and often had to shoot wide open or close to it to get a decent shutter speed. The best shots happen early, so the extra speed is very helpful.

 

Incidentally, the 500mm 4.0 P can be a real bargain right now. I picked up mine in Ex+ condition on eBay for about $1350, and it's a wonderful lens. It also has the virtue of metering with more recent bodies such as the D100.

 

I've heard some people say that the 80-400mm 5.6 is good with 1.4x converters, so it might be a valid option. The aperture will be a bit slow, since you'll likely want to stop down more than you would with a fixed focal length lens, but it might be workable.

 

A very inexpensive, but good option is a used Sigma APO Macro 400mm 5.6 lens. That specific model lens is very sharp and well made and often sells for around $225 to $250 on eBay. It works well with the Sigma 1.4x EX converter and could be a nice bridge to something more expensive at a later date. If you go that route, make sure you get the APO macro version, not the APO or non-APO ones. There's a big difference in quality.

I have one, and although I've never done any rigorous testing of it, the results look very good. It seems very sharp and contrasty to me.

I was there in April and took an F100, a 17-35mm 2.8, and an 80-200mm 2.8. Those two lenses worked great for photos in the area. I wouldn't have wanted to skip the 80-200mm because the rolling hills and villas look magnificent with a bit of telephoto induced compression. That lens was also good for capturing interesting details.

 

Tuscany is a beautiful area - enjoy it.

 

P.S. I'll second the recommendation for Bob Krist's video. It's excellent. Here's a webpage that includes that video as well as his Spirit of Place book. Both include many images of Tuscany and are definitely worth purchasing.

 

http://www.bobkrist.com/index2.html

Here's one interesting test that I found. It's autotranslated French, so the phrasing is a little awkward:

 

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?lp=fr_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pictchallenge.com%2Fvr70200v4.html

 

At least for the lens samples used in this test, the 70-200mm VR + TC-20E outperformed the 80-400mm VR at 400mm and was virtually identical at shorter focal lengths.

Like others have said, the F4 isn't the best AF camera, and it won't work with VR or the newer G lenses. It's still a fantastic camera to use, however, and you'd be foolish to not pick it up at $300. Get yourself a used SB-24, 25 or 26, and you'll be in great shape. I love using my F4 for landscape work with MF lenses. It may seem like a strange application for it, but it works incredibly well in that capacity.

I've got one sitting on the shelf that I haven't used in a while. It was a good lens for its time, but it's outclassed in almost every way by the 35-70mm 2.8. By the way, it won't do 1:1. 1:4 is about as close as it gets.

I hate to say it, but you're not likely to get good results with that lens and teleconverter combination. I've tried it and the results were pretty awful.