jos__javier_vicente

<p>Let's face it, this trend -heavier & bulkier- started long ago. Do you remember the film body F5?<br>

When I climb, ski or run, my main target is being successful at the route and coming back safe. The photo gear is just for my memories and MUST be easy to use and unobstrusive. What fills these requirements largely varies from one person to anoter, but I've never seen people skiing steep slopes carrying 3 pro zooms...<br>

Today's digital P&S are much more capable than the old film P&S, but not that easy to use, specially if you have to rely on LCD screen in the snow. And regarding DSLRs, each one has its own preferences, but I've yet to find anything that matches the capabilities in a compact size of a Nikon FE + 20 mm + 50 1.4.<br>

That said, I mostly use a DSLR in the mountain, unless I go running. And even if I miss having a compact package "in the wide side", I enjoy the new life that my 35-105 has now on DX.</p>

<p>My understanding of your problem is that too much contrast in the scene exceeds the dynamic range of the sensor and the meter chooses to properly expose for the area in focus, maybe a person, thus the sky is washed out.<br>

If you want to properly expose for the sky, I can think of several different methods:<br>

A) Portrait: Point your lens to the sky, then lock exposure or just use mode M, then recompose and use fill-in flash to light your subject that probably will be too dark otherwise<br>

B) Landscape: reduce the contrast of the scene by using degradated filters.<br>

For a bigger control, you can shoot raw and afterwards post-process. Have in mind that burned areas lost all of the detail but you can recover some detail in the shadows, so some degree of under-exposition is preferable if you take this approach.</p>

<p>From my own experience, I found the AF 35-105 N (non D) a good partner for MF cameras as a walk around lens. Tough, metal-barrel, flare-resistant and sharp, with just a trace of corner softness at infinity and 105 unless stopped down. I used it with the short hood that fits the 28 mm lenses in 52 mm thread. Some dislike the push-pull design, not me. Main drawbacks can be the long focusing distance, around 135 mm unless in the 'macro' setting (at 35 mm) and the MF feel, which I found to be just acceptable. Some people claim about sample variation, mine was good. The macro setting will be as close as 1:5 or the likes, too far for real macro and not better than using a 4T at 105 mm.</p>

<p>The MF version of this lens may be quite similar, although I think it has a two rings design and macro at 105, same as the early AF version (not completely sure about this, please check it out if interested in any of these lenses.)</p>

<p>I guess your best bet for a sharp, light and flare resistant lens would be the AF 28-105 D, but probably the MF feel is quite poor. No experience with it, but it receives good reviews from expert people.</p>

<p>Although I didn't do any serious test about this, my experience suggests that extension tubes work better with lenses that 'pop' when focused at short distances while the diopters are best suited for lenses that you better like close to infinity. Completely subjective, I use a 4T on AIS 50 f1.4, AIS 200 f4 and 75-150 E and prefer extension tubes on AIS 50 1.8 short barrel and AF 85 1.8.</p>

<p>It also depends on how much magnification you expect to achieve. With a 300 mm, I'd expect the diopter to put you much closer to 1:1 than the tube.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your opinions. As the general consensus seems to be "upgrade your body" that's something I have to think about. Not that I'm gonna upgrade right now, but maybe it would be wiser to save the money and have the funds when the moment arrives...</p>

<p>At this point, I think my priority is carefully scrutinizing my shooting style and decide what of my redundant lenses I could part with. Afterwards I'll check if it is worth, as some lenses have almost no value nowadays, and in this case they may better become nice paperweights :)</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing your opinions. As the general consensus seems to be "upgrade your body" that's something I have to think about. Not that I'm gonna upgrade right now, but maybe it would be wiser to save the money and have the funds when the moment arrives...</p>

<p>At this point, I think my priority is carefully scrutinizing my shooting style and decide what of my redundant lenses I could part with. Afterwards I'll check if it is worth, as some lenses have almost no value nowadays, and in this case they may better become nice paperweights :)</p>

<p>I've got a D70 and several AF and manual lenses (no pro gear) covering the range from medium to long tele (50- 200 mm). At these focal lengths, my main subjects are portraits and macro. I look for good bokeh and isolation.<br>

Even if my current set up works OK, I feel uncomfortable with it: too much lenses in the range and I find the manual ones are dificult to focus, so I seldom use them due to the low percentage of keepers even if I l ike their solid feel and compactness.</p>

<p>I've though of two very different solutions for my issues:</p>

<p>A) Clean off my shelves and replace everything by AF constant 2.8 glass. My budget is limited, so the Nikkor 70-200 VR is not an option. For macro, I'd rely on a hi quality diopter such as the Canon 500D. Maybe the best solution, but expensive and I'm concerned about bulk and weight, as I usually pack light when I leave home and I'm afraid to feel uncomfortable looking like a paparazzi...</p>

<p>B) Replace the standard focusing screen by a Katz-Eye and use my trusted manual lenses. I don't know how much it would increase the usability of my manual stuff. I'm aware that exposure and flash would remain "by estimation" so the process of taking pictures would remain slow.</p>

<p>What are your thoughts about my dilemma?</p>

<p>I guess some of the expensive stuff owners in this forum disagree with Nikon's commitment to produce cheap yet good cameras and lenses for the cheapskates like me instead of following the Contax and Leica path and build just to the highest standards. Maybe they think we're stealing them the Nikon R&D resources needed to design the 28 1.4 or the 300 2 nobody bought at their time...<br>

Probably my pictures are not that good but they're the only ones of me and my family and I'll go on taking them with this kind of stuff: the cheapest one that is good enough for me. I won't take a mortgage to buy consumer goods and I hate carrying heavy equiment. I still buy new Nikon stuff because they still care about people like me. Remember, we are not very profitable but we are a lot, so our market niche makes sense in the big numbers. And if Nikon doesn't take us into account, probably Canon, Oly or Pano will do. </p>

<p>No doubt the AI lens is a much better lens. The AF lens is slower, less sharp and cheaply built, its only advantages are being smaller and lighter and its ability to autofocus :-).<br>

I'd expect the 55-200 VR to be a much better performer on your D300 than the 80-200 4.5-5.6.</p>

<p>By the way, I think this shows a trend for the future:<br>

1.- No more constant 2.8 DX zooms<br>

2.- The D90 will be the last DX affordable body with AF built-in motor<br>

3.- There will be a cheap replacement for the 12-24<br>

4.- The DX lenses will have 2 standards: filter size 52 for the entry line, 67 for the expert ones</p>

<p>Really good news... It seems that Nikon won't dismiss the DX line-up for a long time and they realized that some folks still like simple and unobstrusive equipment. If the way to go would be the full frame monsters, I may consider the Oly/Pano offerings, but I much prefer to stay with Nikon.<br>

I'm very pleased to see that Nikon returns to the small standar filter size (52 mm) for their entry lenses, that are cheaply built but very good optically.<br>

I'd never buy the Sigma 30, a standard FX lens ridiculously big... but that's a completely different product, the right size and the right price. Nikon did it again, they're not the first to come but when they do something, they do it better.</p>

<p>1.- A lens: Sigma 180 5.6 - it opened for me a brave new world of close-up pictures<br>

2.- Another lens: Nikkor 50 1.8 - it helped me to discover the simplicity of going just 1 lens<br>

3.- A book: 'Mountain Light' from Galen Rowell - there I learnt that shooting while mountaineering could be much more creative than showing countless summits and tired faces... <br>

4.- A tool - OK, it's a camera :-D but it is the only one that I've found acceptable when I run across the mountains: Canon (oh my God I said that) IXUS 70 - fits my pocket, focus is fast and reliable enough, the zoom range is perfect for me (35-105) and allows for decent macro shots.</p>

<p>If you feel comfortable by manually focusing with your D300, the 80-200 gets very good reviews.<br>

If it was me, I'd go for the AF lens, as I find my percentage of keepers with manual lenses on DSLR is too low when shooting action. IMO the standard focusing screen is just acceptable for macro and landscape but not well suited for portrait and moving subjects.</p>

After reviewing a bunch of pictures last night, I have to disagree with myself. I've learnt that several portraits favorites of mine that I wrongly remembered as taken with the AF-D 60 were actually captured by the 85 1.8...

So I have to re-elaborate my thoughts about this lens. The reason why I felt it wasn't good enough is the percentage of failed portraits... probably I pushed too much the limits of the 85 as an available light lens, while I take a more conservative approach with the 60, admitedly not a specialized portrait lens.

Didn't do any scientific test, but I dislike my 85 1.8 at my D70 at close settings, while still I find it very good when shot at infinity. My guess was that AF in my D70 was unrealiable at f2, but even at 2.8 the lens does not "pop", while my AF-D Micro Nikkor 60 really excels. However, I like the 85 in film cameras.

It's not the only lens I feel change its behaviour when going from film to digital. To my taste, the 60 AF-D is even better in the D70 than it was on film, while my 85 1.8 AF-D, 75-150 and 135 3.5 lose some of its appeal, and the 50 1.4 AI and 200 f4 AI keep their value... when properly focused.

Matching lenses to digital bodies is a hard work, it seems each lens has its own favourite combination of AF/digital sensor/image processing...

Well, I'm a snapshooter - not selling any picture, I just want to keep memories of my family and my days in the mountain.

Long time ago, I decided that my target was enjoying my routes, not carrying big stuff through beatiful landscapes. So what works for me is: keep it light and simple, whatever it is my camera or my skis. For sure, a minimum of quality is required - nothing is heavier than a useless piece of equipement. Although I use digital P&S for my hardest routes, I still prefer a DSLR as my main camera, but I strongly disagree with the modern trend high quality=big bulk. Not so long ago, in the film days, a set of 2-3 primes (e.g. 20, 50 and 135) delivered unsurpassed quality and were much more compact than the monster 2.8 zooms.

By the way, price is also an important factor - otherwise, I'd be shooting Leica rangefinders :-)

First at all, I have not a FX body and I won't foresee buying one, so take my statements with a bit of salt.

That said, I can imagine one good reason to go the FX route for a travel set: being able to use high quality primes. Heavy body, light lenses. Depending on your preferred focal lengths, you can make combinations that no pro zoom covers. I liked these couples: 20 + 50 and 50 + 135. Although I never liked the 3 lenses set, if you carry them all and add a 4T or an extension you're set with 3 tough lenses covering more angle of view than the 24-120 and you're also ready to work in low light and take some macro pictures. However, I've got no idea how these lenses perform on a D700, though I guess the automatic CA fix that the body is supposed to have will help them to deliver flawless pictures.

I know I'm ranting and the original post clearly states 'single travel lens solution'. Just dreaming about going back to the old days when Gallen Rowell could do just with a body, a 24 mm and a 75-150, a compact and pro-class set up. Nowadays, it seems high quality=big bulk.

Your D60 will probably work same as my D70: the meter just shows up in Manual Mode.

As previoulsy pointed out, it doesn't make any sense in P-A-S modes, as it woul always read 0.

Ooops... Should I have known these Nikon advise, I would have never mounted my wide angles on tubes :~D

Seriously, I use an old 14mm Nikon tube (so old that it doesn't even have auto diaphragm) with my Nikkor AF 28 2.8 without any problem - no damage to the lens and good IQ, not in the same league as a Micro-Nikkor but good enough. Same with a Nikkor AF 85 1.8 on a Kenko 25mm.

I don't know what tubes Nikon sells right now, maybe they're too long to be used on wide angles, that would be the reason why Nikon indicates to use them on 50mm or longer lenses. Probably, any tube longer than 14-15 mm will avoid the 20mm to achieve focus, and I expect a little above 20mm to be the longest tube that could be paired to your 35mm. Sorry but I didn't do the maths, neither about the longest extension allowed nor about the lose of light. For sure Joseph will be much helpful ;-)

I remember Kenko had a set of tubes 12+24+36 mm. Kenko tubes allow AF, if it suits you (I know, I know, AF should be avoided for serious macro work...), Nikon ones not.

I've tried a Nikon 4T (3 diopters) on a 28 mm and it delivers sharp-enoug center and softer edges, which can be acceptable provided that the main subject is centered. However, have in mind that:

a) close-up filters are designed for telephotos not for wides

b) due to the optical laws, diopters just make for little extra magnification on wide angles

I found that the extension tubes are much better suited for macro work with wides.

So my suggestion is: try it if you already own the 500D, but don't buy it if you intend to use it just on the 20 & 35 primes.

I''ve got a Nikkor 50 1.8 short barrel (minimum focusing distance = 0.6 m instead of 0.45 for the 50 1.8 'long nose')

I think it is the same lens as your 50 1.8 E, maybe with different coating and in a less plastickier body.

I like very much the close up performance of my 50 1.8 when mounted on a short extension tube (14 mm). This combination allows close up around 1:2 or 1:3 ratio, which is enough for most flowers.

When compared to the micro Nikkor 60, the results aren't as sharp, but they are sharp enough in the field and stopping the lens to f8 still grants a very pleasant bokeh that helps to isolate the subject much better than the harshier Nikkor 60.

I never mounted the lens on a longer extension tube, though, so I cannot comment how it would perform at bigger reproduction ratios.

I guess your tele-zoom is the Nikkor 70-210 4-5.6, push-pull style, 62 mm filter threads. The classic couple for it in a film body is the 24-50 3.5-4.5. Not better than its more recent 24-85 cousins, but shares the 62 mm filters (if you worry about it) with the 70-210 and has a similar flavour to it, though it isn't a push-pull design.

The other alternative in the Nikon line is the 24-85 2.8-4. More expensive and bigger than the 24-50, roughly 1/2 stop lighter and with macro capability (up to 1:2) that can be useful for casual macros.

In the OEM arena, I guess the best alternative would be the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Not sure if the suggested 24-60 would work, the Sigma website advertises it for DSLR.