rob_malkin

<p>Hi Stephen,</p>

<p>I do not own either of the lenses I suggested. My suggestions were based on;<br>

1) focal length that you were after.<br>

2) build quality<br>

3) your current kit</p>

<p>Please find below a few posts on photo.net regarding these two lenses.</p>

<p>From what I know, the DC is not used by everyone. I guess its a nice bonus to have. I would buy the 105 f2 without the DC. [if I had the money that is!!]</p>

<p>Anyway, happy reading.</p>

<p>[Also, f2 is a whole stop faster than the 105 f2.8]</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00T5rw</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SqOF</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RkP4</p>

<p>Happy reading Stephen</p>

<p>105mm f2 af - dc<br>

135mm f2 af - dc</p>

<p>Anyone guess what this is?</p>

<div></div>

<p>If the F6 is heavy for you, the F100 is not going to be much better.</p>

<p>My suggestion would the Nikon F80/N80 and only AF lenses. The F80 works with G, VR etc.</p>

<p>Its very small, light, cheap, quiet (amazingly so), and the AF is pretty good.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, where in the UK you going?</p>

<p>R</p>

<p>For all the pain and effort of trying to have this fixed. I would suggest two things...</p>

<p>1) be insured to the teeth</p>

<p>2) should you not have the above, fight your corner and complain enough. They will pay up in the end.</p>

<p>In the UK this would be simple enough to fix.</p>

<p>Send back to Nikon. Nikon say the lens was dropped. You take Nikon UK to the small claims Court. One of two things happen.</p>

<p>1) Nikon's legal team dont show up (most likely). You win.<br>

2) Nikon's legal team does show up (very unlikely). You ask for evidence suggesting that the lens was dropped. Nikon has no evidence. Judge rules in your favour. You get new lens and recover any legal costs.</p>

<p>Easy peasy</p>

<p>Lex, did I step on your toes by saying that your link was not all that relavant to the OP's question?</p>

<p>As for suggestions, sure...</p>

<p>Need faster glass at 85mm, go with Canon. Need sharper lens, go with 85mm f1.8.</p>

<p>Hi Brian,</p>

<p>As a temporary measure I would suggest wrapping the bellows in thick velvet of somesort. The bellow ribs do not take any loads other than their own weight so it cant be too heavy. It might not look very nice but it should get you by till you know how to fix it.<br>

A picture would be a massive help too. I am sure this has been done by a number of people.</p>

<p>On a seperate note.. Paper! what a bad choice. Some type of Aramid fibre would be much better.</p>

<p>Keith, the link provided by Lex is not really all the relavant to the question posted.</p>

<p>The OP asked what lenses are better than the 85 f1.4. So suggesting another 85 f1.4 is a little silly.</p>

<p>I hate to say it, but....</p>

<p>Canon 85mm f1.2</p>

<p>R</p>

<p>Thank you Glenn. I had a suspicion that "effective" was the killer in the logic!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good point Dan,<br />I have been wondering this myself. Keen to see if anyone knows the answer.</p>

<p>EDIT: a 200-400mm f4...<br>

@ 400mm apperture = 100mm [diameter or radius, im not sure]<br>

@ 200mm apperture = 50mm [diameter or radius, im not sure]</p>

<p>So it should be a...</p>

<p>200-400mm f2-4</p>

<p>Hmmmmm....</p>

<p>

<p>The only mathematical relationship that I can think of regarding aperture is the following...<br>

f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4 etc<br>

which is the square root of 2 to the power of n. Where n is a positive integer..<br>

ie, <br>

(√2)^3= f2.8<br>

An increase of √2, of 1.4 in aperture will reduce the aperture by half. As in the ‘hole’ will reduce in area by half, and thus let in half the light. <br>

This may well not be related to what you are talking about, but, well I am bored at work. <br>

<br>

R</p>

<p > </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

</p>

<p>Thank you Eric.</p>

<p>Good find!</p>

<p>Op-Tech are really good. I have one for my F100, D70 and tripod. The tripod ones are really nice to use. Very soft on the shoulders/neck.</p>

<p>Also they have little rubber studs on the inside so they never slip. Well they do, but they bring my tshirt with it.</p>

<p>Like Lex said, the little buckle is a problem. I too have never had one break, even when running with a tripod. But should i be getting a £1700 D700, there may need to be some adaption going on.</p>

<p>i was thinking of maybe melting the whole buckle, but not sure what type of plastic has been used. Failing that I may take it to the dress maker who lives below me and see what she can do.</p>

<p>As far as a tripod goes...</p>

<p>Ignore Kent for one thing.</p>

<p>You do not need to spend THAT much on a tripod. I have a very stable tripod and amazing head (Kirk BH-3) and got them both new for under £300. A third of the price of a D300.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My suggestion would be a second hand 50mm f1.8 AF non-D. The D does very little and costs you more.</p>

<p>You will find them quite cheap second hand. And should you find yourself using the 50mm a lot, you can always look at more expensive (perhaps sharper/quicker etc) 50mm's from Nikon & Sigma.</p>

<p>I have my 50mm on my D70 but find it just a little too long for most of my pictures.</p>

<p>PS, in my experience with the D70, a screw focus lens (1.8 AFD) can be the same speed as a AFS lens. The D70 is let down by a poor AF system, not so much its speed to focus.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8926205-lg.jpg" alt="" width="907" height="515" /><br>

This is in Brisol, UK.<br /> Nikon D70, Nikkor 180mm AF-D</p>

<p>google to the rescue...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=001TUm</p>

<p>For one thing, f16 might be bad news for you.</p>

<p>How else would you get a 30 minute exposure at 1.4 at iso 200 in the middle of the day? I admit its not an every day sort of exposure.</p>

<p>Anyway, I just got paid, and I am going to try it. I shall report back as soon as I see how it works.</p>

<p>r</p>

<p>A polariser gives you about 2 stops, depending on who you buy from. And if you get the pro-1 line from Hoya then vignetting will not be an issue unless you go above 17mm on a FX. Having said that the Pro-1's dont have a filter thread.</p>

<p>But my point is that with two you can have 2 stops to 1,000+ stops in non-discrete steps.</p>

<p>I cant think of any other way of getting VERY long exposure other than a bunch of ND's or stepping down to diffraction limits.</p>

<p>Maybe a pinhole?!</p>