grant_bridenbaugh

I can only answer to my one personal experience with oil, so take this with a grain of salt...

 

I got a 50/1.8 with some oil on the blades about two years ago as part of a 'package deal' where I was intending to resell the individual parts. I figured the oil crapped out the resale value for that individual piece, so I kept it for myself. I've been using it ever since, with no problems so far.

I just purchased a second-hand 24-120mm AFS-VR lens, and am

preparing to run some test shots tomorrow to check VR function and

general sharpness of the lens.

 

My question at the moment is with regard to the AFS on this lens.

This is the first/only AFS lens I've used, so I don't have any real

point of comparison. However, my first impression when mounting

this lens and dry-firing a few shots is that the focus isn't

necessarily much faster (if at all) than other similar-range lenses

I've used. Quieter, yes. Able to manually focus adjust at any

time, yes. (If it matters, I'm using on an F100 body.)

 

I'm not sure what I expected, but I guess I'm kind of underwhelmed

by the AFS. Might my lens be not quite right? Or, is AFS just more

of a speed advantage where bigger lenses and/or lesser camera AF

motors are involved?

 

Thanks for any info/thoughts...

Keep your eyes open not just for the MB-20 itself, but for anyone selling a camera or whole camera package that happens to include one. Buy it, if the price isn't too bad, and re-sell (individually) the pieces you don't want -- you may well get the MB-20 for nothing.

FYI - My Frontier lab I often use, at my local Sam's Club (don't laugh, the staff at this particular one pay more attention than any 'photo' place in town; plus, they've gotten to know me and try to do me right) does up to 10x15. They used to max out at 8x12, but recently upgraded to allow the 10x15's. I imagine capabilities vary by location.

 

Their send-out service (don't know if it's Frontier-based or not, but I suspect it is) will do 20x30. Again, YMMV.

If the guy actually does have a FedEx account, and will arrange a pickup (shipping paid on his tab), send him a nice box of rocks. :-)

Since you can use MF lenses, I'd throw in a vote for the Kiron (also made with Vivitar and "Lester A. Dine" branding) 105mm f/2.8 AI-S lens. Goes 1:1 without accessories, it's sharp, and it gives a bit of working distance over the 55-60mm lenses (even if you don't presently think you'll want/need the working distance, who knows what you might find yourself wanting to shoot once you get started...).

Lex hit on one of the problems (as I see it) with Kodak's selling of UC400 at general retail. I posted something on this in another thread a few months ago, at which time I was filling my freezer with 3x36 UC400 from Target at something like six bucks a box. (Memo to Target folks: maybe next you should try stocking UC100, or perhaps NPC, or... It would be a hit -- trust me. *g*)

 

The 36-exposure thing is a downer for general retail sale. Costs more to expose, as Lex mentioned, plus it's just too much film for your average 'mainstream' film buyer. They already have their 24-exp in the camera for months before it's all used... 36-exp means they'll develop their Christmas pictures somewhere between Easter and summer vacation.

 

Price, though, is part of it too. Lots of people will just buy whatever is cheapest. Or won't do enough on-the-fly math to realize that the box with 'only' three rolls (3x36 UC400) has more film than the box with four (4x24 of whatever).

 

And, lastly, I expect that a good percentage of mass-market film buyers are equipment-, and/or technique-, and/or processing- (i.e. never get anything larger than a 4x6) limited to the point where they may not notice any consistent, meaningful difference between, say, a MAX800 and a UC400.

 

When you see a good deal like this, I wouldn't read too much into it. Just enjoy the chance to take advantage of someone else's marketing miscalculation. :-)

MC7 is an AF converter (at least mine is)...

 

Patrick:

 

Focusing at an effective f/5.6 (or thereabouts) is difficult for my N80 (which, I believe, has similar AF ability to the D70) in anything but well-lit conditions. I've used the exact same combination you describe on my N80. It hunts a little, but is usable, in outdoor bright light. Less light, and it's not really usable in AF mode. I tend to stick more to a 1.4x, which doesn't cut as much light, and doesn't hurt the AF as badly.

 

As to the situation you describe in your last sentence, this lens/tc combination won't 'tell' the camera what the effective aperture is. I believe certain Nikon TCs will do this. It doesn't matter much, though, as far as I can tell. If you're using the camera's meter, I don't think it matters a bit. If you use a handheld meter, or are shooting 'sunny 16' or somesuch, you just have to make your own 2-stop compensation for the TC when dialing in your camera aperture and shutter speed.

Lex, Thanks for the specifics. Thanks, others, too...

 

Len, as to the question of why I would need VR using ISO400 film... A few times it would be handy: Evenings. Indoors. Stopped down for more DOF. Stopped down for more sharpness. etc...

 

Also, it's probably a good thing other times, too. Isn't the "1/FL" shutter speed rule a guideline for 'acceptable sharpness'? I bet there's still room for improvement, even when one meets the guideline (i.e. 1/125 at 100mm handheld gets me 'acceptable' sharpness, not necessarily optimum sharpness). Hence, the advice often given to use a tripod whenever possible, right? For me, 'whenever possible' translates to 'when I want to', which is only occasionally. For the other 95% of my shots, I'm thinking VR is probably the next best thing to it. I suppose I'll find out. :-)

Just looking for some feedback on my thoughts... For background,

I'm not a pro shooter, or even a well-heeled amateur. Just someone

who's trying to take better-than-snapshot images on a reasonable

budget. Currently I shoot with an N80, usually with UC400.

(sometimes use ISO 100 film, but all negative film in any case).

Lenses at moment are Sigma 70-210mm 2.8 APO (everyone who badmouths

Sigma should feel this lens' build quality and see the results), a

Sigma 18-35mm wide zoom (don't use it a lot, so can't justify big

cash for a pro-level wide zoom), and a Sigma 28-200 all-around (the

most recent, 62mm version).

 

On some occasions, I carry only the body with the 28-200 as a

handy 'walking around' setup when I want to concentrate on the

experience (i.e. with my family and munchkin) rather than gear.

 

I've been considering deep-sixing the 28-200 in favor of the Nikon

24-120 VR, to fill the same spot in my bag -- mid range and

sometimes solo use.

 

I'm pretty certain that the Nikon will be at least the equal of the

superzoom optically, and the speed is the same. AFS will be nice,

and the VR will be hery helpful, I'm thinking, as nearly all my

shooting is handheld.

 

My question isn't so much the Nikon vs my current lens... More, is

this a good choice (given my needs/use) versus other upgrade options

in the same price range (ie 35-70 2.8, etc)? I know I could get a

faster lens, or one that's optically better, but for my use are the

AFS and the VR (and the range) worth more? What advice would you

give?

 

Thanks... :)

Hi there... Just a quick question, for those knowledgeable about

Sunpak and/or Nikon.

 

I am looking at a Sunpak macro flash that has the NE-2D module

attached. On doing a bit of web searching, I saw a list of

different Sunpak modules. Showed NE-2D for "Nikon TTL MF & non-

assist AF" and NE-1AF for "Nikon TTL AF, with AF assist".

 

I am reading this to mean that either unit will allow TTL flash

control for Nikon AF bodies, with the only difference being that the

2D unit won't handle/transmit signals to the AF assist light (where

equipped) on a given flash.

 

Am I reading this right?

 

Thanks for the help...

Hi, all... I apologize if this is a dead horse subject, but the

search function hasn't been very kind to me.

 

I recently acquired a 105mm Lester Dine macro lens (I believe it to

be one of the variant labels of the well-regarded Kiron lens; I hope

so, at least) in AI-S mount. Unfortunately, my dim brain didn't

recall when buying the lens that MF lenses won't meter whatsoever on

my N80.

 

Given the price of used, older model film bodies, I figure I can buy

a body to use just with this lens (and any other MF lenses I might

pick up down the road) and still not have half the money into the

lens/camera combo as I would spend for a used AF 105mm

Nikon/Sigma/Tamron(90) macro lens.

 

What I'm wondering is, which older AF bodies will meter with this

lens, and without jumping through a lot of hoops? Or, would you

recommend a MF body? (I only ask about AF first because I'm more

familiar with them.) The only one I know for sure is the N70, and I

hate its interface. Do any of the older, simpler models meter

easily (N4004, etc)? I know the AF kind of stinks on these cams,

but for what I want it for, that's not a problem.

 

Thanks for any input/advice.

I'm with Shun. Get the one you're leaning toward. You've seen 'em, played with 'em, and obviously have at least an idea of what you want, so who am I to talk you out of it? :-)

 

If you find you like it, and are satisfied with the shots you get, great! (Optically, you'll likely find it's pretty good, despite the fact that some people talk about it like some free prize at the bottom of a Trix box.)

 

If you find yourself wanting better low-light ability, or feel you're lacking sharpness, you can change to whatever will alleviate that problem (and sell the zoom for a good percentage of what you paid for it), be it a faster zoom or a prime or three. As you've seen, though, there will be a tradeoff.

 

Speed. Light weight. Ability to zoom. Pick which two matter most, because if all three came together, we'd all own one and there'd be no need for this discussion. :-)

 

Bottom line - the best rig is the one you actually use. The camera you take out with you because it's manageable and you enjoy using it, will get you lots better pictures than the one that sits in your closet because it's too unwieldy or you're bored with it.

Erick,

 

<p>If you'll notice, I mentioned 'zooming with the feet' OR changing lenses to preserve perspective as options available to the scenic, portrait, etc shooter.

 

<p>You're picking a nit (one that's not really even in my message) and skipping over the whole point.

 

<p>Shooting stuff that stays put and gives you time to carefully arrange and prepare -- be it changing lenses or changing location -- for optimal composition, is a much different critter than shooting 'here one second, gone the next' material.

 

<p><i>"I don't do street photography but it seems many who do are quite happy with the faster prime lenses and cropping if needed, even if this means losing some sharpness."</i>

 

<p>This would be OK, I suppose, if you're packing the 50/1.8 and run into a scene that frames best at 70mm. What about when you run into the shot you can't frame without going to 30 or 35mm? 'Reverse-crop'? If only there were such a thing...

 

<p>If you're willing to, as you say, "lose some sharpness", why not use a zoom that lets you compose those fleeting images the way you'd like to on the film (or sensor), instead of relying on post processing?

 

<p>Or, maybe I'm just nuts. :-)

Agree with many of the others above -- "zoom with your feet" is a poor auto-response to just peel off to anyone who asks about zooms. In some cases, it's appropriate, but often times not.

 

The key factor is, how/when/where will the person asking the question be doing his shooting? Circumstances are everything.

 

If one's photography is primarily scenic, portraiture, or other type where shots can be planned out, set up, examined, re-composed, etc -- then "zooming with the feet", or changing to a different fixed lens if one doesn't want to change perspective, is perfectly feasible and will likely result in some marginally higher level of image sharpness and available exposure options (due to faster lens).

 

If, on the other hand, one shoots primarily active subjects, candid shots, walking around type stuff, the zoom is invaluable, and more than worth the slight speed and sharpness tradeoffs. Two guys together at the place/party/event/street/whatever, going for the same shots of the same 'moments' -- the shots obtained by the guy using a quality zoom will look much better than the perhaps slightly sharper, but often poorly-framed/composed ones obtained by the fixed user, and will look worlds better than the shots that the fixed user simply didn't get at all.

 

If you don't know when and where someone intends to shoot, or what they want to do with the images, or similar information, your advice is as likely to be detrimental as helpful -- however well intentioned it is -- IMO.