leif_goodwin8

Robert: Thanks for the info. They made no mention of a returns reference number in an email telling me to send it back by Royal Mail Special Delivery. I'm hoping this is just incompetence, and that the parcel is in a secure part of the shop. I used a debit card and the parcel was insured.

Firstly, having just purchased the above lens from a Cambridge dealer, I have read that the non D version can be

used with the TC14A, but that the AFD version can't. Is this true, or can I use the lens with my TC14A? Tests

confirm this to be a very sharp lens, so the TC14A should in principle work. It works okay with my 60mm micro lens.

 

Secondly, this is the second copy of this lens that I have bought in the last two weeks. I purchased the first

from Park Cameras, who told me the lens was near perfect apart from a 1/3" scratch on the body. I said I was

looking for a near mint copy. On arrival I spotted after a couple of seconds of examination a serious dent in the

filter ring, obvious signs of wear, including the scratch which was in fact a graze down to the metal. I tried to

attach an R1 macro flash, and failed due to the damaged filter ring, making it totally useless for my purposes. I

returned the lens by Royal Mail Special Delivery, and online tracking confirms receipt on Tuesday. They are

refusing to acknowledge receipt, and instead ask me for the tracking number. So, are these people honest? I

thought they were, but they do not seem it. Surely if they had accidentally misrepresented the condition of the

lens they would be very apologetic, rather than being uncommunicative. I am getting quite concerned, and as far

as I am concerned I am owed the full cost of the lens, plus shipping both ways.

I was unimpressed by the 28mm F2.8 AFD on film cameras, and sold it. The 28mm F2.8 AIS is well worth getting.

The Tamron has a distinct warmish colour cast, and lower micro-contrast compared to the AF micro nikkors, but it is very sharp, and widely respected. Don't the older micro Nikkors only go to half lifesize unaided?

The diffuser supplied with the SB800 is not really that good for macro IMO, as the light is still too directional, and single sourced. I have tried the Gary Wong style dome, and that is not so good either. I've tried an empty semi-translucent plastic container, filled with some thin diffusing foam, and it is so so. I think the problem here is that the source is distant from the subject. The best results appear to come from a frosted plastic screen placed near the front of the lens, such as this one:

 

http://www.pbase.com/duncanc/image/82449423

 

I suspect it is important to place the diffuser near the subject, not the flash, to get soft light. That way it mimics an extended light source, rather than a point source. You can also use the Nikon R1 which works really well. And since there are at least two flashes, the modeling is good.

 

You can also try a single flash on a bracket as used by John Shaw. I suspect that moving the flash forward, near the front of the lens helps reduce the directionality of the light.

Some lenses are made in batches, and if they sell out, you have to wait ages for the next batch. The same might be true of scanners.

I have the same camera and lens and I use a Uniloc 1600 minor which is the same design but only 2.5Kg. The tripod is excellent and very stable. I am sure the Benbo is even more stable. But you really want to use the remote release with that lens.

 

I once had a Benbo Trekker but it fell to pieces after 18 months of amateur use, and it was not very stable. From what I have seen the Benbo 2 is much better made.

"You should take into account that Nikon has a five (count 'em, 5) year warranty on their lenses."

 

Not so in the UK where the warranty is 1 year, and yet Nikon still costs more.

 

"Moreover, AFAIK Nikon farms out the entire manufacturing process of their low end lenses to third parties in "emerging economies.""

 

I think Nikon own factories in China and Thailand so they do not really farm out manufacturing. They just go where costs are lower. And many bodies such as the D200 are made outside Japan.

Superb optics. The only criticism I have is that the filter thread is plastic. I am not sure how robust plastic filter rings are, given that I use the R1 macro flash with this lens.

The D50 has more than enough pixels for such small prints. At A4 the D70 (same pixel count) can produce remarkably sharp images given decent lens and technique.

There is a reason Nikon is making record profits.

Accurate descriptions from knowledgeable staff. And they often have items no-one else can get. But they can be rather unctuous. And used prices can be higher than best new UK price with a bit of searching.

Leonard: No, a 200mm lens. I probably would not have been able to get those images with a Tamron, and anyway, I only recently bought a Tamron 90mm macro lens.

<p>Oops, I got the html on the second image wrong: </p>

 

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6487568-md.jpg" border="0" ALT=""></img></p>

<p>The Tamron F2.8 macro lens has excellent optics, and is good value.</p>

 

<p>For active insects you really need a 200mm lens to give plenty of working distance and to allow isolation of the subject. However, if you are prepared to get up early, or go out on cool days, when insects are inactive, then a ~100mm lens is fine. IMO the 60mm lens does not have enough working distance and subject isolation is hard to achieve.</p>

 

<p>A ~100mm lens is ideal if you want to take hand held flash photos. 200mm is too long for that use. See my portfolio for examples with a 200mm lens:</p>

 

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6572155-md.jpg" border="0" ALT=""></img></p>

 

 

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6487568-md.jpg" border="0" ALT=""></img></p>

 

<p>

You might want to check out the Tamron 180mm lens if you are serious about insects, but bear in mind you will need a good tripod and head, and a camera with mirror lock up. Without MLU, you will have problems.

</p>

I've never used Canon flash, but I can confirm that Nikon flash is (usually) very straightforward and reliable.

"So why is it so hard for Nikon to put this feature in? It went missing in the D40 and the D40X. Does it cost a lot?"

 

Product differentiation. They need to put enough in the D60 so that it sells to the target market, but not so much that it takes away sales from higher end products.

 

There is also the cost element, as lots of little extra features increase the price, and cameras such as the D60 are in a very price competitive end of the market.

"(2) The smaller the lens opening, the greater the effect of diffraction AND other aberations on the resolution of the lens. In most lenses, it is the "other aberations" that are more significant than diffraction."

 

Not so. Diffraction does indeed increase as the lens opening decreases. But other aberrations reduce as the lens opening decreases. That is why lenses usually have more resolution and contrast when stopped down a bit. But eventually diffraction kicks in and dominates.

Nice picture!

"An unfair comparison with respect to the fact that the Nikon D300 (2007) is two years newer technology than the Canon EOS 5D (2005)."

 

It's quite fair given that both are on sale. Or are you saying that such tests should be forbidden?

 

As a Nikon user I would like to heap praise on this test but I can't. My feeling is that the subject does not have enough fine detail to act as a good test. And as others have said the Nikon D300 is overexposed which will help reduce noise compared to the 5D. As a D200 user, I consider the results to give a false impression of how well the D200 performs at ISO 1600. It is not that good.

 

However, the general conclusion that the D300 and 5D are close is probably still valid, and a testament to the advance of technology.

I never liked my 28mm F2.8 AFD. There was too much CA (on slide film). My 24mm F2.8 AFD is better. Neither lens is anything special.

 

The AFD and AF versions of the 28mm F2.8 lens have different optics, the AFD being slightly better.

"I know sports photogs who swear on them"

 

Swear at them or swear by them?

 

The small Benbo head I had was well made. But the one in the link lacks a quick release, and it really is a pain without one, especially with a large lens. The lack of a pan function is not so bad. I never use mine (Markins M10).

 

"Yuo will probably get more answers if you repost this question in the "Filters, Bags, Tripods and Accessories" forum."

 

There is no such forum. Ah, okay, I have found it. It is not in the drop down menus, but it does exist! Well I never, I will have a look at that forum.

I have tried the Nikon 200mm micro hand held with flash for active insects, and I do not really recommend it, though others might have better luck. But as Mark says, a tripod is not really ideal if the insect is active. A ~100mm lens is more suitable for hand held use. Anything shorter, and you end up shaking hands with the insect. The Canon MPE 65 is another kettle of fish ...

AS it looks like the lens needs current to operate the aperture, and they say it cannot be used on non VR cameras, that must mean that the default (no power) position for the aperture is open. Otherwise you could use it in manual aperture mode on non-VR compatible cameras. I suppose they decided that it was best not to draw current when open for viewing.

"If there is a book that teaches "creativity" then what value would that have?"

 

I hear the next book in the series teaches spontaneity.