douglas_greenberg

<p>Thanks for the suggestions. I actually tried the Oakland shop(s) and got no responses to phone calls so I am wondering whether these places are still in business. I did try one of those adjustable strap wrenches, which I have used successfully for other photo repairs, but it did not work. Ultimately I figured it was just as easy for me simply to send the lens off to Nikon in El Segundo, so that's what I've done. This will not be the cheapest option but sometimes time is money (a drive to Mountain View and back would kill half a day), sigh, and I'm pretty confident they will be able to fix this issue without much trouble. Interestingly, the Nikon receptionist who takes service phone calls seemed stunned by the fact that this lens is so ancient. I guess they don't get many calls about old MF telephoto lenses anymore. <br>

Now I know why Nikon switched away from those telescopic lens hoods to detachable ones. Though I will add that for decades I have owned two big superteles with this feature and this has never happened before. </p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I own an older MF 600mm. f5.6 Nikkor, which I use for bird photography. It's a terrific lens, but somehow the telescopic lens hood has gotten stuck in the mostly-extended position. I can't get it to screw down or screw all the way out. I think it jammed a little and is likely slightly crossthreaded. I hate to try to use increasing levels of brute force to unstick it, as I likely will cause damage. <br>

Has anyone ever heard of this happening and does anyone have any ideas? I could send it in to Nikon in southern California but that's a last resort. I live in the Berkeley-Oakland, California area. Is there someone here locally who might help me? It's been a long time since I've needed any kind of real camera or lens repair.<br>

Thanks for any suggestions hee.</p>

I am amazed by the comments from people who think adding an additional feature, i.e., video capability, is actually *objectionable*. If you don't want to use it, don't. But I will. Having the capability to shoot short videos is a reason I usually carry a small digicam with me. The quality does not have to be HD-level; the idea is to have a short clip that can be put on one's computer and shown online. I take bird photos--and whereas I have no plans to become a "bird videographer," it's handy to be able to create a clip of a bird in motion in the field, as a complement to the higher quality still photos.

 

It's another tool that one can use, or not.

Wow, this thread is huge! My two cents' worth: if you own a D300, you can take advantage of the fact that it will allow metering with non-CPU lenses. When we're talking about long teles, AF adds a LOT to the price. You can buy used manual focus long superteles with EXCELLENT optics for a fraction of the cost of a new (or even used) autofocus lens. If you are willing to do all of the "work" of focusing yourself, you could get a first-rate lens for the price of a mediocre lens that autofocuses.

 

Considering also the low noise levels of the D300, I would suggest that if you are serious about *bird photography* you might look for a MF 600mm f5.6 AI/AIS. You probably can find one for $1300-1500. The optics are excellent and you can carry it in the field without hiring a porter to do it for you. The potential drawback is that given its 5.6 aperture, focusing in dim light can be a challange. That's undeniable. But if you shoot a continuous series while focusing you can almost always end up some good images. And you can even get flight shots, though yes, with MF it's harder.

 

Meanwhile, the 80-400mm. is a good lens, although a little "long of tooth" in terms of some aspects of its design. Its performance at 400mm. f5.6 is not all that great---however, over time I discovered that in many cases, the "softness" one sees in images shot at these settings comes from small focusing errors, not optical flaws. At 400mm. f5.6 there is virtually no depth of field and if focusing is the least bit imprecise the image will look soft.

 

Overall, however, this is a capable workhorse lens that is amazingly versatile. I never regretted buying mine.

Long ago Nikon manufactured "E" series lenses that were much less ruggedly made than the more expensive Nikkor lenses. The company also produced some fairly cheap SLR cameras, including the EM and the FG. Their marketing low-end products is really not new.

Just to clarify: the NIkon 18-200mm. does include VR. For what it does it is a very good lens.

 

Sigma's design may be great and the price is certainly right--and from what I read it does include HSM, so it's compatible with the D40 and D60 bodies. But Sigma does have some continuing QC issues. If you get a Sigma zoom be sure that you order from somewhere that has a convenient exchange policy in case you have problems.

Wow, nicely done, Michael.

I use the 500mm. f4P, and even the 600mm. f5.6, which is even dimmer, and I have no real problems focusing accurately, except in very low light. You can use the focus confirmation in the viewfinder, after all, and the trick is to take multiple exposures and pick out the best ones. What's wrong with "hit and miss" if you can just hit "delete" for the "misses?"

 

Focusing manually is more difficult than just "pointing and shooting" in this regard, but it's not rocket science and people did it unthinkingly for years and years and years. I have sympathy, of course for someone with diminishing eyesight. AF is a big help! But I'm getting up there in years myself (57) and don't have perfect vision, and I manage to do ok with MF superteles. As I turn that focusing ring I comfort myself my thinking about all the money I'm saving :)).

 

People have asked about the Katz eye prism previously and it seems that once the maximum aperture reaches even f4 the central spot gets tricky to use. If it were me I'd try to work with the viewfinder that comes with the camera.

 

And you know, you can even get photos of moving animals this way. You learn tricks, including pre-focusing and shooting continuously while you focus. Etc. It can be done.

If a lens or filter is REALLY dirty and resists regular cleaning, I resort to using my venerable bottle of ROR, Residual Oil Remover Lens Cleaner. It is heavy-duty cleaner for lenses that really works. I have to use only very rarely. One small bottle lasts forever.

My two cents' worth: I'm not paid by either company :), but if you are into

nature photography for the long haul I would stick to Canon and Nikon, as they

have the fullest complement of gear and compatible gear that nature

photographers use. The differences in size and weight being discussed are not

that significant when it comes to "real world situations."

 

I use Nikon myself, and one nice feature of (higher-end) Nikon bodies is that

you can use older, MF Nikon lenses and have full metering. It's amazing! If

one realizes that really, AF is a luxury, not a necessity (we all focused

manually for decades and thought little about it), you can get top-notch,

professional-quality glass older lenses for a veritable song. I use a couple of

superb older Nikkor superteles that I purchased for amazingly low prices.

 

But Canon is great, too :))).

 

I went to Costa Rica late last summer, and let me emphasize--EMPHASIZE--that the

ban on flash photography within the Monteverde preserve is all but irrelevant to

actual bird photography in that area. The Monteverde region was fabulous for

bird photos and yet I did not set foot inside the preserve with a camera. What

you need to do is to hire a GUIDE (I found my guy through the Monteverde Lodge

and Gardens) and let this person take you directly where the birds are OUTSIDE

of the preserve. You will be glad you did this! Also, there is still the

famous hummingbird garden just outside of the preserve, which is wonderful for

photography. This is not run by the preserve management and as far as I know

flash photography is still permitted. Go there!

 

As for equipment, I was VERY glad that I invested in a carbon-fiber lightweight

tripod. I bought one of those Benro Chinese Gitzo knock-offs that are very

cheap. It is fabulous. It used it in conjunction with a small Markins ballhead.

 

I brought a whole slew of lenses, but had I been concerned about traveling light

I would have either taken just my 80-400mm. VR zoom or my 300mm. f4 w/Kenko

Teleplus Pro 1.4x. Either one would have been adequate for getting a lot of

great bird photos. If you have a flash unit you can use for fill, that is

helpful, too. The truth is that some birds will just be too furtive, too much in

the shade, or too far away for good photos. You do what you can.

 

I brought along various pieces of rain protection gear, but rarely used it.

Truth is that when it started to rain I covered up the camera and took a break.

I guess I'm a wuss, but it worked out.

I recently went through the same decision-making process (Tokina vs. Sigma) and I did find several comparisons online:

 

http://portal.chester.sg/content/view/129/2/ (link worked fine for me). It gave a slight edge to the Sigma

 

An article mostly in Polish (I can't locate it right now). It gave a slight edge to the Tokina.

 

There also are individual tests for each at http://www.photozone.de. There are individual tests of the Tokina and also the Sigma version 1 at Popular Photography's website.

 

What I remember overall: Tokina is very sharp but has some CA problems. Also has screw-drive focus and focus accuracy not always great. Sigma version I had optical problems close-up and wide open at f2.8. The newer version II seems improved in both areas.

 

Let's face it: these are both very good lenses and the performance characteristics are very close.

 

Despite having previous problems with Sigma lenses I bought the Sigma because of the slightly expanded zoom range and the silent autofocus. Whaddayaknow, my lens stopped autofocusing after two days. Sigma!!! Fortunately, Amazon.com has a terrific exchange/refund policy. I got a replacement in a few days and this second copy is terrific. The build quality is just fine, by the way, nice and solid. Oh, but the Tokina does have a built-in tripod collar--is that an advantage or not?

 

Based on performance factors only I do recommend the Sigma. But we all know by now that there are some QC issues with this company, so danger lurks.

I've used the 80-400mm. VR for sports and wildlife, with good success. You have to learn to adjust to its well-known drawback, the slow, screw-type focusing. You can do this by prefocusing so that the actual autofocus adjustment is minimal. And remember that most photos of animals actually are captured when they stand still momentarily.

 

In terms of taking a lens to parties, etc., you probably want something smaller, faster, and closer-focusing. If you are really considering just ONE lens, you will have to make some choices, e.g., do you value focal length, lens speed, autofocus speed, or compactness the most? You can't have it all in one lens, particularly if your budget is limited.

These lenses came into stock at B & H as of yesterday (Friday, June 13). As of today (June 14) they are still available.

Seeing test images never hurts, particularly if one can discern significant differences at similar focal lengths, etc. I really don't think these are "completely different lenses." They both are wide-angle zooms and their ranges overlap. Yes, one has to determine whether or not the extra speed of the lens is needed, as opposed to the wider range of the Sigma. But how each performs within that range of overlap is certainly of interest.

 

That said, keep in mind that if you upload images to the forum, these are quite low-resolution because of the small size and 72 dpi. Only really huge differences between lenses will show up. For lens tests it might be better to have high resolution images at a different website, with just the link being posted here.

Yes, if you email John White he will be happy to provide you with an answer. When it comes to AI conversion issues, "he's the man."

I purchased a pre-AI 1000mm. f11 cat a few years ago. It required no conversion at all. I wonder if the 500mm. is the same.

I own this lens and I like it a lot. Very sharp, nicely made. Great for the price.

I actually think that if you are starting out in digital photography a large-zoom bridge camera is not a bad way to go. There's incredible versatility, good image quality, and a compact package without having to purchase multiple lenses and such. However, the caveat about not wanting to buy another camera in a few years is a red flag of sorts. Does this mean that you don't want to feel you need to move "up" to a DSLR in a few years, or that you don't want to buy a low-end DSLR only to discover you need something more expensive?

 

My older son started with a Panasonic FZ18, a very good bridge camera. He loves it and takes it everywhere with him. To take all of the types of photos he currently captures he would have needed hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in interchanageable SLR lenses.

 

The biggest drawback of a bridge camera is that once you get up to say, ISO 400 the images tend to be noisy, much more so than with a DSLR. And regarding this particular new Nikon model, it does not take RAW images, as far as I know. You may want to consider whether this is something you might actually want in a camera.

If you sign up for notifications about a particular item, B & H will email you when the item comes into stock. I had signed up about the lens and received an email last night. If lots of people were so informed, it's likely that their new supply of lenses sold out right away.

 

And I suppose that once word got out (above) about Norman's, their stock disappeared quickly.

 

Ya gotta be quick with these products when they first come out, apparently.

Always put in my two cents' worth on this one :)).

My attitude toward my Sigma 30 f1.4 is more complex than "love or hate." My copy was flawed (TERRIBLE front focus) and had to be sent to Sigma for correction. Even Sigma told me that this was a significant problem with this lens, at least at that time.

 

Once the lens was properly calibrated I was/am happy. It's a well-built lens (though people complain about peeling paint) and the optical performance is excellent. I also own the Nikon 35mm. f2. I actually prefer the Sigma in low-light situations. Again, people nitpick at f1.4. But come on; who is scrutinizing every detail at the extreme corners of the frame in every photo? The lens has provided some terrific low light shots wide open that I otherwise would not have been able to get (I suppose I could ramp up the ISO at f2, but that's a loss of a different type).

Sure. It's information, and information is useful. But CR's coverage of particular products can be quite superficial (same with CNET). They seem to spend a very short time with each product and to run it through some quick tests. This is better than nothing, but if, in fact, one has been involved in photography (or whatever) for years, their appraisal is not going to be very useful or informative. And what's important to them may not be important to you. I keep thinking about the generally condemnatory reviews of the Nikon S10 swivel model (not necessarily by CR). This has turned out to be my favorite pocketable p & s camera, because I have my own priorities which are different from other people's (and magazines').

 

In a similar vein: they can fail to focus on features that can prove very important to actual users. Some years ago my wife and I purchased a refrigerator model based on its "number one" recommendation in CR. Turns out that the design of all of the shelving was disastrous, i.e., the shelf brackets broke off easily and regularly, requiring expensive replacement. Not a word in CR about this! Similarly, wayyyyyy back when I shopped for my first new subcompact car, the mag recommended the Fiat 128, a cute, boxy little model. Ranked towards the bottom was the Datsun B210, largely because of its 'hard ride' and "inadequate rear seat legroom." The Fiats turned out to be a horribly engineered, and within a few years almost none remained on the road. I owned my basic-but-mechanically-sound Datsun B210 until two years ago.

 

Let me add that you can't even see their "model by model" ratings unless you are a subscriber. CR is a nonprofit, kind of hardscrabble organization.

 

Finally :), I don't see how CR can be biased both towards "political correctness" AND "commercial interests." They do, in fact, tend to seek to take a critical angle toward "commercial interests"; that's their avowed job/role. That's fine with me.

This lens just came into stock at B & H, as well. I just got the email.

So Peter, what are you actually saying, that the Series One lenses were really "bad," or just that they weren't as good as Nikkor primes? The latter conclusion would draw just about no arguments from anyone.

 

Meanwhile, I located this interesting web page about the "famous" Series One 70-210 zooms in their various incarnations:

 

http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

 

Sorry about hijacking the thread, which wasn't about Series One lenses at all, was it?

Lex writes:

 

If it performs like most telephotos from that era I've tried, it'll be best stopped down to f/5.6-f/8. They tend to be a bit lacking in contrast until stopped down so color saturation may appear flat.

 

Well, maybe it's not "real photography" in the eyes of some, but you can adjust in post-processing for slight losses in contrast and color saturation. Another advantage of do-it-yourself digital image-making.

I have used my also-ancient Vivitar Series One 70-210 f3.5 recently with good results on my D300. I took some low light theater photos with it wide open and I was pleasantly surprised at the resulting quality. It won't match the best current 70-200 f2.8, but it did the job nicely. Focusing manually in that low light was really hard, howerver. I guess I'm gettin' old.