john_kuraoka1

The new lenses don't look like "T's" to me; they look like "S's." I

think we agree, though, that they don't look particularly like "N's."

<p>

Before we all get panicked about the G series, one thing to remember

about that 70-300G is that it'll have a suggested retail price of

$180. It offers low entry price and upwards (but not backwards)

compatibility. Photo.net people (indeed, advanced amateurs in general)

are not the market at which it is aimed.

I would suggest that you make your decision based on whether a

longer zoom range is of more or less value to you than a faster

constant lens speed. That's a more-important practical difference than

the relative merits, in two completely different lens designs, of

hybrid aspherical vs. low-dispersion elements. As for me, I choose

zooms based on convenience, and with a budget of $350 would look for a

used 24-120.

I may be one of the few people here who have actually owned a Hoya HMC

lens. It was a zoom from the early 1980s (the original sales receipt

was dated). It was optically ok and mechanically a tank. Close

focusing was rather distant, though. The original dealer was a camera

shop in England, so the Hoya-branded lenses may not have made it to

the U.S. market.

<p>

Under the Hoya HMC label, there was (reading from the back of the

little brochure, dated 1981): 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 135/2.8,

200/3.5, 300/5.6, 400/5.6, 28-85/4, 35-75/4 Macro, 70-150/3.8,

75-205/4 Macro, 75-260/4.5 Macro, 80-200/4, and a 100-300/5.6

Close-Focus. No variable-aperture zooms listed. Quite an extensive

line-up.

To answer Ronald's follow-up question: Each aperture blade produces

two starpoints -- one in each direction. With even-numbers of blades,

the starpoints merge. For example, with eight blades, you'll see the

outward starpoint caused by blade #1, but the inward starpoint will

run into the outward starpoint caused by blade #5, immediately

opposite blade #1. With odd-numbers of blades, the starpoints are

staggered, so you can see both radiants.

The number of aperture blades. Even numbers of blades produce the same

number of star points; odd numbers of blades produce two points per

blade (one in each direction). So, in your examples above, your Nikon

lens has seven aperture blades, your Ricoh has six, and your Tokina

has eight. Stopping down more accentuates the effect.

Tokina model "names," in approximate order from higher grades to lower

grades: ATX, SMZ, SZX, SZ, SL, EMZ, ELZ, ELF. Sometimes M = "macro"

and L = "non-macro," but not always. "RMC" was a level of

multicoating. Tokina's names for low-dispersion glass are HLD and SD.

The only way to tell if a lens is a dog or not, is to test it

personally.

I have had experience with both screens, as well as the P screen. The

R looks like an E with a split-image rangefinder in the center. My E

screen is brighter than the R screen I had, enough of a difference

that the E is considerably easier to focus. The R's split-image went

dark with my 300/4, as I recall. If it's the split-image rangefinder

you want, you might consider the P screen, which has a crosshair grid

(four segments) and a central 45-degree split-image rangefinder with a

circle of coarse gradation around it. It's lesser known than the other

screens, but I think it's a better grid + rangefinder compromise than

the R.

When weight and space is at a premium, I make sure all my lenses

accept the same size filters (e.g.: 24/2 and 50/1.4 both take 52mm

filters). Then, I take a Nikon A2 (roughly an 81B, only pinker,

like a Tiffen 812) and a polarizer. That's it. If I could take one

more filter, it'd probably be a +2 diopter. As far as mixed lighting

goes, when in doubt I err on the side of warmth.

There was also 300/4.5 ED non-IF, but I believe it was not offered as

an AI-S lens. Still, that does confuse matters since the differences

between AI and AI-S are so subtle (two sets of orange minimum aperture

numbers = AI-S).

I don't know what your budget is, but the Tamron 70-300 LD f/4-5.6 is

a very nice lens with decent optics and build quality. Street price is

a little under $200 now. I've run about 12 rolls behind mine, and so

far I'm impressed with what it can do. Keep in mind, though, that

these xx-300 zoom are not a cheap way to get to 300mm. If you're going

to use 'em as a zoom, they're quite useful; if you're going to use 'em

as a 300mm lens, you'd be better off getting a fixed 300.

There were two AI-S versions of the 300/4.5. One was non-ED, non-IF;

the other was ED and IF. Both lenses accept 72mm filters.

<p>

The EDIF version can be distinguished by a thin gold band around the

front of the lens, just behind the slide-out lens hood. It is also

lighter and focuses closer (to 10 feet instead of to 12 feet). If

you're looking at a bad scan of a photo, the EDIF version can be

distinguished by its profile. It is slim through the body, widening

out considerably at at the lens shade.

<p>

The non-ED, non-IF version, on the other hand, has a straighter, more

tube-like profile.

<p>

I owned the 300/4.5 EDIF. I now own the 300/4 ED. All in all, I think

I prefer the older lens for its amazingly nice, light, quick handling.

The Nikon 100/2.8E is a wonderful lens. I think it's the equal of the

vaunted 105/2.5 in every way except build and maximum aperture. And in

some ways, such as compactness and light weight, it is superior.

<p>

My experience with one (metal ring version) was that it was slightly

softer -- not less resolution, but a touch less contrast -- than the

105/2.5. Using the lens hood helped considerably -- the "proper"

Nikon-built lens hood is a flimsy rubber hood (not at all like their

usual HR-series rubber hoods), so save yourself some money and get a

generic one. I also used the metal hood for the older 105/2.5 and it

worked very well.

Bad fingers --- of course that was supposed to be "L37c," not "L27c."

Nikon made an L37, an L39, and an L37c, but never an "L27c."

The L27c and L1bc are NIC ("Nikon Integrated Coating") multi-coated.

The older versions of these filters (L37, L39, L1b) are not

multi-coated.

Try cutting-and-pasting

this URL into your browser ...

<p>

http://www.photo.net/photo/pentax/cen18-28.html

I just tried a quick-and-dirty shoot-off between a cheapo Bower

diffuser, a Hoya Softener A (which is supposed to be similar to the

Zeiss Softar 1), a Tiffen Pro-Mist 3, and a 4-point cross star. These

are four very different filters. I shot at f/8 and f/11, with flash.

Film was Kodak Royal Gold 400 (fairly contrasty to begin with).

Processing and printing was at a local lab with whom I have a long

relationship.

<p>

I liked the Hoya Softener A, because it looked softened without

looking unsharp. The Bower Diffuser was next -- I could hardly tell it

was softened until I looked at the unfiltered shot. It seemed to get a

more-defined soft look at f/11 (at f/8 it just looked a little out of

focus). With both of these filters, the eyes appeared sharp but some

light crows-feet around the eyes were definitely lightened. The

Hoya Softner A held the eyelashes better than the Bower Diffuser. The

Tiffen Pro-Mist 3 is a strong mist filter. It might be appropriate for

certain types of shots -- I particularly like a shot I made with it of

Christmas lights and cut glass -- but as a soft focus for portraits

it's a bit much. The cross-screen was a throw-in, because I've heard

that it works. There is indeed some softening, but what bugged me was

the four-pointed highlight in the eyes. I wouldn't like all my

portraits to have a star-shaped highlight. Then again, you might

decide to make that your "signature look!"

<p>

Just thought I'd add these thoughts to the database.

Sometimes the dots indicate later versions. Sometimes the dots

indicate some sort of improvement. Sometimes not. I've heard lots of

apocryphal stories and some reliable first-hand accounts (concerning

"black dot" F5s), but can only point to one example from personal

experience: my F3 E screen box has a red dot, and the screen is

slightly but visibly brighter than an older F3 E screen that lacked

the dot.

I suspect that what you have is a "T-mount" lens. The lens screws into

an adapter that then fits the lens to the camera body. You can get a

replacement T-mount adapter at any good camera store for about $20.

There were a couple other adapter systems, notably the Tamron Adaptall

system and the Vivitar TX system, so you'll want to be certain you're

getting the right replacement adapter for your lens. A trip to your

local camera shop is probably in order. I'd avoid the on-line auctions

unless you know exactly what you need and how much it's worth.

I had this identical combination: N90s, Tokina 400/5.6 AT-X AF, Tamron

1.4x AF-d TC. It autofocused fine, but slowly.

One of the advantages to Canon's diopters is the availability of

larger sizes. Nikon currently has 2-element diopters (designated "T")

in 52mm and 62mm. It is quite popular to get the Canon 77mm 500D and

match it with a Nikon 80-200/2.8. If you're looking at 52mm diopters,

I can't imagine that Canon's 250D and 500D are so superior to Nikon's

3T and 4T as to justify the significantly higher price. As for

<i>why</i> a product is priced where it is priced, I don't think any

of us here would have an answer.

It looks as though you've got the pros and cons figured out already,

hence the lack of response. The Promaster will give you dedication

with both cameras (although I don't know what that does for the

Yashica), and, I would imagine, the ability to use the N70's cool

flash features. It is, however, not a first-rate brand -- long-term

reliability may be an issue. The Vivitar 285HV is a great system

flash, very rugged and dependable, and you may well keep it as a

second flash even after you get your Nikon Speedlight. However, it

lacks any TTL dedication.

After-market "britescreens" are available -- ask B&H for a catalog and

you'll find them. They're expensive. Some people say they're brighter

but harder to focus. I have not used one; the E2 screen in my FA is

bright enough.

Sigh, OK, I'll play. Used Nikon FM, 28/2.8E, 100/2.8E. Looking over

your list, you could handle 1 through 6 with the 28 (reversed for #4).

The 100 handles #7 and #8. Both of these lenses are available used at

prices far below what their performance might warrant, and both take

the same size (52mm) filters. Total cost: $350-ish in nice condition,

$250-ish for beaters. Instead of the 100, you could consider the

75-150/3.5E zoom for a few more bucks (it also takes 52mm filters).

Film, tripod and a couple good books, and you're all set.

I've seen the very accessory you describe, made entirely of plastic

and priced at a couple dollars, in various mail-order catalogs. It

might not be worth the hassle of crafting your own.

One key advantage to the Nikon filters is that they are considerably

thinner than standard B+W filters. This makes a difference with a wide

zoom like the 24-120 or (I imagine) the 28-105. If you get the B+W

filters, get the thin ones.