robert_thommes

I like to go to new places to see what they have to offer photographically. However, there is no question that with me, I do my better work after going back to the same place over and over. A lot has to do with the amount of time that I have alotted to be there. But basically the first trip is pretty much a "get acquainted" shooting trip. I may get some really fine images, but chances are that they were more a matter of luck than real skill. Each time thereafter my shooting seems to get more specialized. I might skip over several subjects that truely excited me in earlier visits. Or maybe I might feel that I had exhausted those subjects in liu of others. If I had found something of interest enough so that I felt I should return a second time, then the chances are it's probably worth even returning to again and again. I recently spent a week in Yellowstone--my first time there. I felt that I hardly scratched the surface. However, a trip like that is not something I can do often. So I have no idea when I might go back. If I lived nearer to the park, I'd probably be there every chance I could. It is an endless reserve of photographic possiblities.

Scott, I would be positively thrilled to have a portfolio of images like you have graciously posted for our perusal. These are fantastic. If this is what the range of a 300mm lens can produce, I'll stay with it for awhile. By the way, care to devuldge where the mammal shots were taken? Yellowstone(ish)? Thanks so much for sharing your images with us. And thanks to the other posters who included images as examples of this lens's capabilities.

I have read "mixed reviews" about this particular lens's ability to

produce with the addition of teleconverters. Most indicate that the

results may not be the best(whatever that means). I would very much

like to know if results might be decent with a mere 1.4X or 1.5X TC,

not a 2X TC.

1) What kinds of results might I expect when using this lens with a

TC? Would these results be at all considered publishable? 2)

Specifically which TC would perform the best with this lens? 3) Is

there a 3rd party TC that would offer satisfactory results. 4) If

this lens is considered "non-TC friendly", exactly what would be the

shortcomings visable (that I might notice) in the images taken with

this duo? I'm looking for enlargements no greater than 11 X 14s.

And finally, please restrict your comments to this particular version

of this 300mm lens. Thank you.

I'm contemplating the purchase of a 300mm lens for my nature shots

thinking that it is the perfect length for my needs. But before

making the investment, I would like to see some pictures of just how

you have used this lens in capturing your nature images, and more

specifically, which "nature" subjects find you using this particular

lens. So might I ask that you post some of your (300mm)pictures

and/or steer me over to some site that might have several images

taken with a 300mm lens. This would be most helpful, and I'm sure,

of interest to any readers of this question. Thank you.

I truely appreciated the responses to my recent question about this

lens. Now I'd like to take this one step further. I would like to

see some actual pictures taken with this particular lens. I'm

interested in how the lens is used to capture whatever the image was,

and, in general, the end result of the image as best can be presented

having been scanned for display here. I would greatly appreicate

seeing some of your(the readers) works, but if there is a site that

also might have images shot with this lens, please send me there as

well. I thank you very much for your time and effort in this regard.

Doug, in the past when using my tele lenses, I have found that if I shoot a subject close, by that I mean about as close as it'll focus, my shots are what I'd call tack sharp. I can enlarge the shots and they stay sharp all the way up. On the other hand, if I use the lens to bring in a more distant object, attempting to blow it up usually results in fuzzier images. A while back I took several shots of a badger very close up. Blowing it up way past 11X14, the hairs were still sharp. But when in Yellowstone, taking shots of distant landscapes, the larger the print, the fuzzier it got. Granted, these were 3rd-party lenses, not a Nikon brand.

Thanks very much for all of the above feedback to this point. However, could we now be a bit more specific as to things such as optimum aperture settings, and faster or slower film usage. I do use a tripod almost religiously. I've also noticed that when using tele lenses in the past there is often a vast difference in sharpness and contrast when taking pictures of subjects closer verses further away from the lens. Also, is this the version of Nikon's 300 f4.5 MF lenses that does NOT do well with TCs? Thanks again.

I am in the process of purchasing this particular Nikon lens and

would like to hear, especially from actual users of this lens, the

best ways to get the maximum quality from it. Sharpness and contrast

are my main concerns. Are there some "proven" techniques that I

should consider? How about any differences in tecniques when taking

close-ups(not particularly macro) vs. distant shots. Since this lens

has a rather mediocre speed, is there a 'best' film speed to use with

it? Or doesn't that matter all that much? I'm aware that many have

used this specific lens(EDIF), and therefore, must really like it

since it 'delivers' for them. Please share your secrets of success.

Pictures taken with it would be a real plus. Thank you

I see that there are several variations that make up the catagory of

older Nikkor 300mm f4.5 MF lenses. I'm also aware of cost

differences as well within this little society of lenses. Excluding

the ED and EDIF versions, and settling in on the Ai and Ais versions,

just what might I expect from these lessor expensive f4.5s from a

sharpness and color standpoint? Are they still considered "good"

performers? Would they out shine, let's say, the newer Sigma 135-

400mm zoom lens, or other similar lenses(at 300mm)?

Thanks for sorting this out for me.

I know that this is a question that many of you do not like to be

asked. Nevertheless, I feel I must; rather than to throw money into

the wrong pot.

I'm wondering if I could expect significant differences in image

quality and color saturation between a Nikon 300 f4.5 lens(Ais)and

the newer Sigma 135-400 lens(at it's 300mm setting). There are

certainly a number of other differences between these 2 lenses, but

I'm only concerned in sharpness and color here.

Thanks so much.

In the reader's opinion, what would you recommend as the best Fuji

400 speed print film for outdoor nature subjects. Anything from

mammal's(portraits) to sweeping landscapes. Does Fuji produce a film

of this speed to handle the contrast of a bright sunny day? I feel

that I need a faster film to offset my slower lenses. Reala has done

a fine job with my faster lens, but all my others(and they are the

longer lenses) are 3.5-5.6ish. Would a 200 or 800 ISO do better for

me? I've read nothing good about 200, but many rather positive

comments about 800. Would the NPH (wedding??) film be a good

candidate for my non-wedding subjects?

Thanks

I have a Vivitar hotshoe flash unit that is compatable with my N6006

body. On the back are 3 flash options. Full, -4, and TTL. I

understand the first 2, but I'm confused about the "TTL". If I'm

shooting in AF in aperture priority mode, and have the flash unit set

on TTL, will the flash somehow determine the amount of light needed

to produce an "average" lighted photo? Is it that simple? Is TTL

pretty much the idiot mode? In other words is it simple enough to

say that in a darker room the flash potential will be brighter.

While the opposite is true? If I want to simply compose and shoot

and not worry much about making any flash adjustments, is this the

setting for? Or not? I really need your help on this.

Thanks for clearing this up. Bob

Before we go much further with these comments, let's not lose sight of the reason for this question in the first place. Breaking it down, I'm basically asking what speed print film can be left in the camera most of the time to cover most of my shooting situations; enabling me to get good results? Or, better yet, is there just one?

200 ISO would seem like the logical candidate only because it's smack dab in the middle between 100 and 400. Thanks agian.

Is 200 speed print film winnerof the award for "best mediocre film"?

Is it the "jack of all trades", but "master of none" film? Obviously

100(and slower)speedfilm was created for more saturated color,in more

controled conditions, and for use with faster lenses. While higher

speed, let's say 400 ISO film, excells in darker conditions, perhaps

where motion is involved, and especially for the slower(can I

say 'consumer')lenses are used. On average I probably shoot

something like(atleast) a roll a week. I have a stock of 100 ISO

(Reala), and 400 ISO (Superia), and NPH films. But based on my brief

definition of what speedgets called on for what situations, I always

seem to have the wrong film in the camera and ready to go for the

situation that I have at the moment. So then we need to rewind, and

then repull the film tab, and put in the 'other' film of the moment.

So it would seem to make sense for me to resort to a 200 ISO print

film and be ready for anything at anytime. Except, no one seems to

feel that 200 ISO is really any good. Or am I wrong? Being that I'm

not an avid user of this speed(200), maybe you could recommend a

brand that is capable of producing very good photo results.

Is my quest for a 200 speed a valid one? My lenses, for the most

part are "consumer" speed lenses. I have a f1.8, but the others are

3.5-5.6ish. So maybe I'm better off keeping 400 ISO in the camera at

all times except for maybe when I'm venturing into that "special"

project where that "special" film is required. What do you think?

Thanks, BT

I'd like to know if 200 speed color print film is even worth fooling

with. I've heard it being boo-hooed as a poor "jack-of-all-trades"to

other faster and slower films. I often switch between 100 and 400

speed films myself and would rather not mess with changing film as

often as I do if a 200 film would satisfy all my needs in one. But

if it would, which specific Fuji or Kodak would be the 200 film of

choice? I work in a store that sells both brands of consumer films.

So they are handy and a bit more economical to me. By the way, my

lens's speeds range from 3.5 to 5.6.

I welcome you comments.

First, let me explain that I am referring to equipment that is of 3

different brand names. The camera is a Nikon N6006, the flash is a

Vivitar 636AF(Dedicated TTL), and the sync cord is un-named.

I have 2 questions. 1) What exactly does "dedicated" mean on the

flash? Will it read the amount of light that it will need to emit,

then make necessary settings for a "correctly" illuminated photo?

Does it do this automatically? And 2) Is there a simple way to test

the operation of the sync cord? I'm not sure if it is sensitive to

anything more than acting as a simple(all or nothing) power cord to

the flash. Yet I 'thought' that it might have been an off-brand

version of Nikon's SC-17. But am not certain.

I have read and read about these things, and seem to be getting more

and more confused the deeper I get into my research. So kindly keep

it as simple as possible. Don't get me wrong here. I have taken

decent flash pictures. The thing is that they are all as a matter of

chance. I don't have a clue as to what I'm really doing. So as you

can see, I need help here. Thanks much.

A couple of years ago I purchased a sync cord with the impression

that it was a viable alternative to Nikon's own SC-17. However, just

last week I lent the cord to a friend, along with my Nikon N6006, and

Vivitar 636AF TTL dedicated flash. When she showed me her test

shots, all were very overexposed. Very bright---as though way too

much light was on the subject. Now, the flash unit was manufactured

to match up with Nikon's N2020 AF body. But I was under the

impression that my N6006's circuitry was similar, and therefore,

compatable with the Vivitar flash. So, could it be that the sync

cord was at fault. Was it not carrying all the messages from camera

to flash as it should? Could it be that there is no real substitute

to Nikon's SC-17? Or could it be that the flash and camera are not a

good match up, so that even that a SC-17 won't function properly? Is

my only real solution to purchase a Nikon speedlight and Nikon sync

cord, and quit trying to hang on to some of my hard earned dollars?

Help!! Thanks much. Bob

I'm interested in putting together some information dealing with

the "film of choice" of the nature photographer. What is your

favorite film for those sunny days, cloudy days, and for making

enlargements of your subjects? Is there one film that you prefer

over all others? Which one film might you choose if you could only

pick one(specific speed especially)? Feel free to comment further if

you wish.

 

Thanks for 'playing'.

 

Bob

I'm wanting suggestions as to the best methods for "field testing" a

couple of lenses. The specific lenses that are up against each other

at the moment are a Vivitar 200 f3.5 MF, and a Nikon 70-210 f4

(constant ap) AF zoom. The difference in cost is roughly 8 to

1 ;Nikon is obviously the "8". Since I'm mostly interested in their

responses at 200mm, that is the range for the test. I just completed

a simple head to head competition where I took several shots of the

identical subjects with the identical f-stops and shutter speeds.

The only difference was that I had to focus manually for the Vivitar,

and I used AF for the Nikon. The results were too close to call;

especially in view of the fact that the MF lens is so much less

expensive than the other. But expense is not what this is about. I

want to determine the BEST lens here.

So to get serious enough to find a true winner, I need your help in

determining, 1)what I'm looking for in a test such as this,2) how to

test them, 3) plain suggestions on anything that I should be

considering beyond the concrete test, and 4) any other info. you

might think important to this process.

When all is said and done, one lens will stay and one will go. I

shoot nature most seriously and have not found there to be much

advantage when considering MF or AF to this point.

As always, thanks for any feedback you might send my way. Bob

I understand that this particular zoom lens--the Nikon 70-210 f4

(constant ap.)AF--alleges that it "works well with teleconverters".

I would like to know which 1.4X TC is the most compatable, and just

how good is this match? Is it equal to a 300mm f5.6 prime lens(3rd

party)?

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Bob

For several reasons, this particular lens sounds as though it would

be just what I needed. But I would very much like to hear from

actual users of this Sigma lens. Not what you've heard, but what

you've experienced. I've "heard" that this lens, for a zoom, does

rather well all the way out at 400mm. What's your experience? How

about at 300mm?

Please tell me what you've learned about it.

 

Thanks

I guess I should have stressed the fact that cost is very much an object here. Would the FG be worth considering? Bob

I have a very important family event coming up for which I have been

asked to act as photographer. It's one of those "one time only"

events. So I can't afford to be caught with a camera that decides

not to function in mid stream. I would like to ask what you think

might be the least(in price and in operational skills required)that I

might be able to get by with in order to cover my bases. I currently

have a N6006, but would not be at all adversed to using a manual

focus camera as back up. I've also thought of an N70. I realize

that the best no-nonsense choice would be another N6006, but I would

like to get something a little different. The very reason that I'm

considering a MF camera is that I'm an avid nature shooter, and could

possibly use a MF body as a back up to my AF camera on cold days;

when my AF might be a bit prone to function improperly. I do have

time to "practice" with it before the big event.

Kindly offer me some suggestions? Also would it be just as prudent

to have a back-up flash unit as well?

 

Thanks for your comments. Bob

A simple question. Can the newer Nikon "G" series lenses work on the

N6006 camera body? What advantages and disadvantages are these new

lenses?

Thank you