nick_davis

<p>Nice, I would think that you should enjoy that lens. I have the older non-VR non-AF-S version and it is great.</p>

<p>I know this forum gets bombarded with "which lens should I buy" questions so I was reluctant to post this; but I need advice. Last week I was considering buying a 500mm f/4 P lens that BH had in their used dept. but I balked and now it is gone.<br>

I currently shoot birds and wildlife with a 300mm F/4 AF-S with TC17 and TC20 teleconverters. I can get sharp shots down to about 1/30s but I would love to have more speed so I can go back to ISO 100 film instead of 400, hence the temptation of the 500 f/4. I can spend at most $3k which is why I have been looking at MF lenses (my 300mm + converter requires manual focusing under most conditions so I am used to it. I have seen good condition 500mm P's and 600 AIS' for around this price.<br>

My questions are....<br>

1. Can my tripod/head handle the 600? I have a carbon fiber Gitzo 1548 with a kirk BH-1. (I also have the manfrotto gimbal type head)<br>

2. Is there a noticable difference in optical quality between the two? I would occasionally be using either of these with the TC17.</p>

<p>4.Given the above information, which would you recommend? I shoot mostly in manual with spot metering so the matrix compatibility is not so important. I usually carry two F4s' and an F100.<br>

I appreciate any advice I can get on this matter.<br>

-P.S. I am "youngish" and strong so the weight of the lenses is of little concern to me right now.<br>

Thank You</p>

<p>I think I would steer clear of it as well. Last year I was given about 100 rolls of 35mm and 120 film for free. It was from a local portrait studio that had switched digital. Even though all of it had been frozen, some rolls have been bad and some good. I shot some rolls that had expired in the early 90's and some that expired in the early 2000's; and there was no way to tell which would work out and which would not so I just quit using all of it.<br>

John is right, the price of E-6 processing has gotten to be so high that the price of the film itself is no longer a concern to me.</p>

<p>Hi everyone. I have been trying to find ways to lighten my load recently and had this idea: on days when I don't anticipate doing any macro work I could leave my 105mm Micro at home and, in case I happen across something interesting, possibly use teleconverters on my 80-200mm. Has anyone here tried this? I know that I cannot expect the image quality of the Macro lens and I will sacrifice some precision focusing ability, but is it acceptable? I have a TC-201 and also a TC-17EII and TC-20EII (with the tabs filed off so that they can be stacked for storage). I know that the TC-201 is compatible, how about the other two? Let me know what you think or I will just have to continue carrying my 105mm at all times.</p>

<p>--P.S. I shoot film so it is not really economical for me to test this myself when I am almost certain that someone on here will have some experience with this.</p>

<p>Thank You</p>

<p>I agree with the others. If you are a film shooter then the F100 will not dissappoint. It is a fantastic camera. I know that the F5 is supposed to focus faster with screw-drive AF lenses because of its more powerful motor but in practice the difference is not that noticable and probably not worth the extra money for most people. That said, often sports photographers will focus manually using a pre-focus technique. You focus on a spot where you anticipate the subject to pass through and trip the shutter when the subject is sharp. This has the added benefit of compositionally freeing you from the restraints of using one of the F100's 5 AF sensors.</p>

<p>I do the same as John. With lenses larger than my 80-200 f/2.8, I carry the camera strap over my shoulder with the body inverted so that the lens lays flat against my side. This also allows my arm to protect the camera and lens. With small lenses I just put the neck strap over my neck and carry the camera in front of me. Since I usually carry two bodies at a time, the other is almost always attached to my tripod.</p>

<p>I bought mine new years ago. It is the twist zoom AF-D with the tripod collar (the AF-S wasn't out yet). I bought it for nature and wildlife use and it has been great. I usually keep one camera and lens attached to my tripod while I am out, and I keep a second camera with the 80-200 mounted on it hanging off my shoulder. Its speed and quick (relatively) focusing have allowed me to capture some surprise moments that I would otherwise have missed.</p>

<p>If you plan to work with a speedlight / flash you should check out http://strobist.blogspot.com On there you will find a lot of tips and information. There are some illustrated examples of basic lighting setups here http://www.photoflexlightingschool.com/ most of it shows large studio strobes or hot lights but the lighting angles hold true for any light source. As for a book, The Hot Shoe Diaries by Joe McNally is pretty cool. it won't help you pose your subjects but it is filled with examples of flash gun photography. Ignore the fact that it reads like a propaganda book for the Nikon CLS system, most of the info in it applies to flash of all kinds.</p>

<p>5 FPS and full compatibility with non-AFS lenses can be realized quite inexpensively if you are willing to consider shooting film. You could keep your D40 and pick up a used F100 to use when you need the high frame rate. Of course high frame rates with film can get expensive but it should still be cheaper than buying a faster D-SLR.</p>

<p>These were both with the 20mm f/2.8; first one is dx format (D70s), the second one if FX (film)<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7964395">http://www.photo.net/photo/7964395</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7964400">http://www.photo.net/photo/7964400</a></p>

 

<p>I keep costs down by not buying new cameras. The last body that I purchased new was the F100 in 2000. You can buy and develop an awful lot of film for the price of a D300, D700, or D3x.</p>

<p>I don't understand all this talk about the classic manual cameras not depreciating in value. I have been watching their prices fall on ebay for the last 5 years. I paid $200 for an FM in 1996; in 2003 I bought another for $100. One of those broke so I replaced it two years ago for $30. Virtually ALL 35mm film SLR's are almost worthless on the used market. Buy the camera that you want and you want to keep because it will never be worth selling.</p>

<p>I agree with Charlie, I shoot 98% of my images on a big ass Gitzo 1548 Tripod with the large Kirk Ballhead. The other 2% is done with a monopod so VR is meaningless to me. Unless you are shooting someplace where tripods are not allowed then there is no excuse for not using one. I'll admit that I wish the 70-200mm was not a G lens so that I could justify purchasing one, but it is the AF-S motor and the ability to use an AF teleconverter that I'd want not the VR. Maybe I should revise my previous recommendation, I said that the 80-200mm (two-ring model) was a great lens- it is- but if you can get the AF-S version for a similar price then go for that. For me, the beauty of the AF-S lenses is not their increased AF speed, or quietness, but the ability to manually focus without switching the body to MF.</p>

<p>Sorry Lisa, no digital for me. I "went digital" a few years ago but switched back to film after about 7 months. I often need the features and weather sealing and mass of pro-body cameras, and I can't afford the pro digital cameras. I never would have thought that people would be willing to spend $5k-$8k on a 35mm camera body but apparently they are since the D3x's and EOS 1D's are selling. I rarely ever print bigger than 13.5" x 19'' and so far film has worked beautifully for that.</p>

<p>When I was 10 I cut out pictures of the F4s from advertisements in popular photography magazine and taped them to my bedroom walls. I could never afford one then but now I have two and use them and my F100 almost exclusively.</p>

<p>There is no better deal on the used market right now than the F100. It is one of the best film cameras Nikon ever made. And with the MB-15 grip it feels great in your hands. The only major drawback to the F100 is the lack of mirror lock-up if that is important to you, it sometimes is to me which is why I also carry an F4s. If you own older manual focus lenses I'd get the F4s. If you have ANY G-type or VR lenses then go for the F100. F5's are very heavy and still about 3 or 4 times the price of the F100.</p>

<p>Those girls look a little old to be playboy bunnies, maybe former bunnies? I am 28 and I think that they look older than the girls that I know.</p>

<p>Are you considering new or used prices on the 80-200mm? This lens has been on the market for many years so plenty of used models are available. I have the two-ring tripod collar version. I feel that this lens gets a bad rap these days since it is not AF-S, but the focus is plenty fast enough if used with a pro quality body like the D300 or D700. I use mine with an F4s or F100 to shoot wildlife and the focus has never been too slow for me. I think it truly is a great bargain considering how much more money the 70-200mm is. Now as for the D300 vs. D700, I'd personally go with whichever combo gets me the D700 (either 70-300 or used 80-200) but as I am a film shooter I hate the DX crop and small viewfinders. A friend of mine snagged an 80-200mm (twist zoom like mine) on ebay two years ago for $300. I'd keep watching for a deal if I were you.</p>

<p>I sometimes use the nikon tc-201 on my 80-200mm f/2.8D when I don't have my 300mm f/4 AF-S with me. Metering and focus are manual but the quality is acceptable. </p>

Unless I am using mirror lockup, I try to avoid shooting in the 1/25 to 1 second range with my 300mm + teleconverter combo. My own tests have shown that it is very difficult for me to achieve sharp images with any consistency at these speeds due to vibrations from the mirror.

The free ones at http://Wildphotoadventures.com are pretty good. The locations are not as exotic as the ones in Travels to the Edge but I think it is a better show.

I have this problem too. I always just assumed that it due to both the limitations of web browsers, and the jpeg format.

I can tell you how I did the one in my Gallery. I filled a large vase with water and set it in the sink directly under the faucet. Then I turned the water on so that I had a thin constant stream of water flowing into the vase. I then set up my tripod with my D70s where I wanted it and focused on the the point where the water stream meets the surface of the water in the vase(use manual focus for this). Then I set my flash off to the left side so that the water would be side-lit, though I suppose you could try it with on camera flash if you don't own a speed light and remote cables. Turn the valve on the faucet down so low that instead of a constant stream of water you just get about one drop every 15 seconds or so. I just watched the water drops hit the water surface through my view finder and fired the shutter whenever I saw one. You may need to take several dozen shots because the timing is tricky and not every splash will be in focus. Also, you need to use a high shutter speed. Hope this helps. Please post your results after you try a few.<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>