john_narsuitus

<blockquote> <p>"...I would rather first get a lens for landscape photography, then one for portrait. Could you please recommend one for each?"</p> </blockquote> <p>45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens (portrait)<br /> 20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens (general subjects)<br /> 14mm f/2.5 Panasonic lens (landscape)</p> <p> </div>

<p>When I shoot stage performances, I use fast lenses (prime and/or zoom), high ISO, and a monopod.</p> <p>Fast lenses that I may take include:<br> 500mm f/4<br> 80-200mm f/2.8<br> 180mm f/2.8<br> 135mm f/2<br> 85mm f/1.8<br> 50mm f/1.4<br> 35-70mm f/2.8<br> 35mm f/1.4<br> 28mm f/2<br> 24mm f/2</p> <p>ISO may be as low as 800 or as high as 25,600.</p> <p>Camera meter set to the spot metering pattern.</p> <p>I usually rely on back-button focusing and/or manual focusing.</p> <p>White balance usually set to tungsten or custom white balance.</p> <p>I carry earplugs, a small flashlight, extra batteries, and extra memory cards.</p> <p>If I am shooting with a noisy SLR, I also carry a small quiet mirrorless camera that I use during the quiet passages.</p> <p>If video recording is allowed and/or requested, I also carry a tripod and a video camera to record while I am shooting stills.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"What new flash can I buy for a 6x7 using X sync cable?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I replaced my aging Vivitar flash units with Yongnuo YN 560 IV flash units. My Fuji 6x7 has a cold shoe and a female X sync port. The Yongnuo also has a female X sync port. Therefore, I use a male to male X sync cable.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I've sort of lost interest in applying old glass as it hasn't seemed worth the trade-offs in handling/focusing/adapters"</p> </blockquote> <p>I replaced most of my old adapted glass with new native glass. I have not yet replaced my macro glass and my glass over 300mm.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Please suggest cameras for Landscape, Street and Portraiture along with lenses."</p> </blockquote> <p>Here is what I use:</p> <p>Olympus micro 4/3 digital body<br />14mm f/2.5 Panasonic lens (landscape)<br />20mm f/1.7 Panasonic lens (Street)<br />45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens (portraiture)</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"I am considering buying a new set of cameras which is light."</p> </blockquote> <p>Other than lack of lightness, what do you like and dislike about the cameras you are now using?<br> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"... if you could choose just one high end manual camera, what would it be? <br /> Criteria: under $1000 including lens + lens that is suitable for landscape photography"</p> </blockquote> <p>Fuji GW670III with the 90mm f/3.5 lens for general photography<br /> or<br /> Fuji GSW690III with the 65mm f/5.6 lens for landscape photography</p><div></div>

<p>I also have the 28mm f/2.8 Nikon AIS and the 35mm f/1.4 Nikon AIS. Both are very good lenses.</p> <p>When I bought my first Nikon 35mm SLR, I bought a 35mm f/2 Nikon that I used for years until I replaced it with the faster 35mm f/1.4 Nikon. I used the 35mm lens as my "normal" lens on my 35mm camera. When I carried the 35mm, I routinely also carried an 85mm f/1.8. The 35 & 85 allowed me to capture about 80% of the general images I needed.</p> <p>The 28mm lens was the wide-angle I preferred when I shot landscapes and theatre with a 35mm camera. Rarely did I carry the 35mm and the 28mm at the same time because their angle-of-view is too close for my taste. When I carried the 28mm, I routinely also carried a 50mm f/1.4.</p> <p>I never really compared the image quality of the 28 Nikon to the 35 Nikon. I have, however, compared the image quality of my two old Nikon lenses to more modern lenses. I compared the 28mm f/2.8 Nikon to a 28mm f/2 Zeiss and was surprised that at the same apertures, the performance of the Nikon was very close to the Zeiss. I compared the 35mm Nikon to its APS equivalent (a 23mm f/1.4 Fujinon) and the image quality of the Fujinon was superior.</p> <p> </div>

<p>I cannot comment on the Sigma fisheye because I have never owned or used it. I do, however, own and use the Nikon 16mm f/2.8 fisheye and the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon. Both are very good lenses that can be used for creating panoramics.</p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"Can anyone recommended one I can fin with in the USA?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Michael,<br> Try posting your question on the Fujix-forum.com website.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"What kit do you carry for what purposes?"</p> </blockquote> <p>When I must shoot quietly without flash in theaters, at concerts, or in recording studios, I carry the following:</p> <p>Fujinon 50-140mm f/2.8 with Arca Swiss Quick Release Plate. I recently replaced the plastic, pedal, bayonet lens hood with a metal, round, screw-mount Nikon HN-28 lens hood and a 72mm to 77mm step-up-ring.</p> <p>23mm f/1.4 Fujinon with vented metal lens hood on Fuji X-Pro1 body</p> <p>16mm f/1.4 Fujinon with metal 72mm Nikon HN-9 lens hood and 67mm to 72mm step-up-ring</p> <p>12mm f/2 Rokinon with issued plastic, pedal, bayonet lens hood that I will eventually replace with a metal, round, screw-mount lens hood.</p> <p>56mm f/1.2 Fujinon on Fuji X-Pro1 body. Eventually replaced the large, plastic, bayonet lens hood with a smaller, metal, screw-mount lens hood.</p> <p>Extra Batteries (3)</p> <p>Extra SD Memory Cards (6)</p> <p>White Balance Tool</p> <p>Monopod or Tripod (not shown in photo)</p> <p>Leather Case (35.5cm width; 15cm depth; 20.5cm height)</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"Pardon my ignorance, but what is a White balance tool?"</p> </blockquote> <p>On those rare occasions, when the camera’s automatic white balance or any of the camera’s other white balance settings do not give jpeg images the desired correct color, a white balance tool is very useful for creating a custom white balance.</p> <p>I have created custom white balances using the following white balance tools:<br> 1.Gray card (cost less than $10)<br> 2.White card (cost less than $10)<br> 3.White paper plate (cost less than 10 cents)<br> 4.White notebook paper (cost less than 10 cents)<br> 5.White coffee filter (cost less than 10 cents)<br> 6.White tracing paper (cost less than 10 cents)<br> 7.White balance lens cap (cost $5 to $50)<br> 8.Expodisc (cost $50 to $100)</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I would be very interested in hearing what others carry under similar conditions."</p> </blockquote> <p>A. SLR body #1 with battery pack<br> B. Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 lens<br> C. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens<br> D. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens<br> E. One of the following Nikon prime lenses:<br> [1] Fast prime (24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8)<br> [2] Macro (55mm f/3.5 or 105mm f/2.8)<br> [3] Teleconverter (TC-17E II)<br> F. SLR body #2 with battery pack<br> G. Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 lens</p> <p>Items stored in an outside pocket of the backpack:<br> White balance tool<br> White balance instructions on 3x5 index card<br> Remote camera trigger<br> Spirit leveler<br> Extra camera batteries<br> Extra CompactFlash memory cards<br> One or two battery chargers when needed</p> <p>When needed, speed lights, light stands, umbrellas, tripod or monopod, remote speed light triggers and receivers, and extra batteries for speed lights are carried separately.</p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"I know this is a lens that hasn't' been updated yet a ~1999 model isn't it. How does it fare with modern dSLRs?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I also have a Fuji 16mm f/1.4 wide angle lens that provides the same angle of view on a Fuji body but does not produce the fisheye linear distortions. However, the Fuji lens only works on a Fuji APS-C mirrorless body while the Nikon fisheye works on a Nikon DX body (APS-C), a Nikon FX body ("full-frame"), or the Fuji APS-C mirrorless body (with an adapter).</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"Nikon 16mm fisheye still decent?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I find the full-frame Nikon 16mm f/2.8 AIS fisheye very useful for scenic shots, interior architectural shots, interiors of vehicles, and airplane cockpits. If desired, with a good editing software program, it is possible to correct the linear distortions formed by this lens.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"Advice and comments would be greatly appreciated"</p> </blockquote> <p>I own and use three of the focal lengths you mention.</p> <p>My personal favorite is the 105mm micro because in addition to portraits, it is also great for jewelry and close-ups of body parts.</p> <p>The 85mm is great for half-length and head & shoulder shots.</p> <p>The 105mm f/2.5 is great for head & shoulder shots and headshots.</p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"Apparently he needs to digitize the relative amount of sky to tree canopy in his research sites."</p> </blockquote> <p>Out of curiosity, in addition to digitizing the relative amount of sky to tree canopy at his research sites, does he also need to quantify the relative amount of sky to tree canopy?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The reason I like the idea of the Nikkors is they seem great for bieng high quality, easily compatible glass with future cameras/rentals. If this was you and you needed one decent prime, and $500 to $600 to spend, what would you go with?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Of the Nikon lenses I have used, I recommend:<br /> Nikon 24mm f/2 AIS<br /> Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS</p> <p>Even though they are not Nikon lenses, I would also recommend:<br /> Zeiss 28mm f/2 in a Nikon mount (not within your price range)<br /> Vivitar 28mm lens in a Nikon mount (Kiron made only)</p> <p>Even though I have never tried one, the specs for the Rokinon 21mm f/1.4 manual focus lens for micro 4/3 mirrorless cameras look promising.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I got the Nikon D3100 with the Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G!<br /> I'm looking for a lens that is better than this one. Nikon or Canon lens<br /> SOMETHING that is clear, with detail so I can use it for nature, car photos, wedding, landscaping! can someone please help me out with ideas. Price range is from $100-600"</p> </blockquote> <p>I cannot recommend one lens that is better at doing what you want and within your price range. However, I can recommend the following two lenses that cover the 18-55mm focal length range and are used by professional photographers to capture clear images with detail:</p> <p>14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon<br> 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikon</p> <p>These two are part of a trio. The 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikon is the third. However, these lenses are expensive and may not be a solution to your problem. The advice that other have given you should be followed before you try throwing money at your problem.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>- I'm not interested in the rig the serious pros use: 500 or 600 f/4, pro body, TCs, heavy tripod and gimbal head. This comparison is about lenses for bird shooting at a more moderate price point.<br> <br /> - My present DX body is getting old, only 12MPx (a D300). My lens is the original 300 f/4 AF from 1988. It's time to upgrade some of my gear.</p> </blockquote> <p>I am not a serious bird shooter but when I do I use a Nikon 500mm f/4 or Nikon 1000mm f/11 mounted on a heavy wooden tripod with a Wimberley gimbal head or I use a smaller and lighter Nikon 400 f/5.6 on a monopod. Since my DX bodies are D200 and all my lenses are old, manual focus, and no vibration reduction, it may be time to upgrade some of my gear.<br> <br />Based on your excellent review, I am considering the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. Does this lens have the aperture ring I need to allow it to work on my older Nikon F2 film bodies? <br> <br /> <div></div>

<p>For years, I have used a 180mm f/2.8 pre-ED lens that I had AI'd by Nikon and a 105mm f/2.5 AIS Nikon.</p> <p>Recently, I have been shooting more stage performances and found the need for a high quality telephoto with more light gathering. To meet my need, I decided to try the Zeiss 135mm f/2 because for years I had heard so much about the construction and performance of the expensive Zeiss lenses in general and the Zeiss Sonnar lenses in particular. I also decided to try the Nikon 135mm f/2 AIS lens.</p> <p>Both lenses were well built. I was displeased and surprised that the image quality (resolution and contrast) of the 135mm Nikon was not as good as the 180 and 105mm Nikon lenses. I was very pleased and surprised to discover that the image quality (contrast and resolution) of the 135mm Zeiss f/2 was not only superior to the 135mm Nikon but also superior to my 180mm and 105mm Nikon lenses.</p> <p>In fact, I was so impressed with the performance of the 135mm Zeiss that I decided to also purchase a Zeiss 28mm f/2. However, the image quality of the 28mm Zeiss was no better than my 28mm f/2.8 AIS Nikon lens.</p><div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"What is your favorite lens?"</p> </blockquote> <p>On a 35mm film camera, the 35mm f/2 Nikkor was my favorite until I replaced it with the 35mm f/1.4 shown mounted on a Nikon F2 in the attached image. The 35mm f/1.4 is now my favorite because I can use it to capture the majority of the images I need when shooting general subjects.<br> <br /> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"Maybe in the range of 24-70 or somewhere in between, relatively light weight and not super expensive."</p> </blockquote> <p>On numerous occasions, I have considered replacing my 35-70mm f/2.8 AF with the 28-70mm f/2.8 AF but could not economically justify the expense for the slightly wider coverage.</p> <p>I have also considered replacing it with the 24-70mm f/2.8 G AF but the G lens is not compatible with my Nikon F2 bodies.</p> <p>Therefore, if I were forced to replace my mid-range zoom with something that was in the range of 24-70, relatively light in weight, and not super expensive; I would consider a used Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8 to f4 D AF lens for about $400. Its image quality is not good but you did not list image quality as a criterion.</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"Any thoughts on these options or should I be considering something else?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Give her a gift certificate and let her shop for her own lens.</p>