john_pereira1

In addition to Thom Hogan's statement that the D70 doesn't support D-TTL dpreview.com also stated the same thing. So much for being pro-active and buying a SB-80DX and SB-50DX in anticipation of the eventual move to digital.

Does anyone know whether the new Nikon D70 will be compatible with

flashes such as the SB-80DX, SB-50DX and the SB-28DX in D-TTL mode?

The press release and brochure by way of omission suggest that this

is not the case. I realize that the flashes mentioned are compatible

in a non-TTL mode, but I'm wondering whether I have to upgrade my

flashes in order to get TTL flash metering?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

To me the prime is the sharper of the 2 lenses by a fair bit, but I'm most disturbed by the difference in colour, i.e. skin tone. Was the differenc in skin tone due to the different lenses or was it due to a white balance issue? Did the lighting change between lenses? Were there any variables, other than the lenses changed between the photos, that might contribute to the shift in skin tone? If all the variables are the same, except for the lenses, then which lens is more accurate at capturing the skin tone of the subject?

As Vernon correctly suspected I meant the orientation of the camera and not "mode". Sorry for any confusion.

 

Thanks Todd for the insight. The trigger belonged to another individual. I've never had problems with the F90x set at 1/250 with a cord. This was my first experience with an IR trigger. I have a SB-50DX with an attachment that is fitted over the flash so that it can be used as an IR transmitter. I'll refer to the instruction manual for the SB-50DX. Maybe it will give some insight into this matter.

Hi, I was recently at a model shoot at my local camera club meeting.

I was using an infrared trigger on the F100's hotshoe to trigger the

strobes. I set the camera up with a shutter speed of 1/250, the

maximum flash sync speed for this camera. Unfortunately a portion of

the right part of the frame, in portrait mode, was not exposed.

Please refer to the link for a sample photo to see what I mean.

 

I have read somewhere that when using a pc cord or strobes that one

should set the camera to a lower shutter speed than the maximum sync

speed to avoid such problems. I have never done this before and have

never experienced any problems with a Nikon F65 or F90x. Is that

statement true or might I have a problem with my camera?

Hi Catherine,

 

I have 3 primes: 24mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, & 85mm f1.8; and 3 zooms: 18-35mm f3.5-4.5, 70-200mm f2.8 and 70-300mm f4-5.6. I'm also planning a trip and have decided to take 3 lenses for sure, those being the 24mm, 50mm and the 70-300mm. The 24mm and the 50mm are so compact that together they take up less space than a good normal zoom, such as a 35-700mm f2.8 or 28-70mm f.28. With the 50mm attached to the camera I could even manage the 85mm without taking up too much more space. I've yet to decide about the 18-35mm, although the 24mm should cover most instances where I would need a wider angle lens. The 70-200mm isn't coming because it's simply too big. That's why I have a consumer oriented 70-300mm. I'm willing to sacrifice sharpness and contrast, and willing to accept more distortion in order to take photos.

 

The big 70-200 f2.8 is heavy and cubersome. Chances are I may not end up using it on my vacation because of the inconvenience of lugging it around on my vacation. What's the point in bringing big lenses with great optics if they prove to be too big and cubersome, and you end up leaving them behind in the hotel or wherever you may be staying. Bring lenses with you that you know you will use. Also, bring a P&S or the Contax G2.

 

If this is a vacation for you then enjoy your vacation and don't become a slave to photography. IMHO keep your kit compact and simple. You'll end up using the equipment more than if you bring a big kit that's more trouble than its worth.

 

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the responses.

 

I'm not "chasing" the ultimate in optical quality. For that I have the 80-200mm f2.8. This compact telephoto zoom is for travel purposes, and only when the size and weight of the 80-200mm f2.8 preclude it from being an option. As such, I want to ensure decent optical quality within the limits of a compact telephoto zoom. Having said this I need to determine whether there is a significant and/or noticeable difference in optical quality between the Sigma & Nikon. As an aside, I haven't noted any compatibility issues with my Sigma lens and my F100.

 

Based on the responses the Sigma is a decent performer and is marginally below the Nikon 70-210mm in optical quality, although build quality may be a different story. I fully expect the Sigma to be soft at the 300mm end of it's range, but I expect good results from 100-200mm. Previously I had a Nikon 70-300mm G series and noted it was very soft at the long end of its range. I would expect better results with the Sigma.

 

I've read good things about the Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 AF APO lens that was produced back about 1990, but haven't been able to find it. I've been able to locate a manual focus version, but auto focus is a requirement. Too bad or else it would have also been an option to consider, although Sigma quality for older products is suspect.

 

Once again, thank you for the responses and your insight gentlemen.

Hi,

 

I currently have an 80-200 f2.8, but it's too big for certain forms

of travel. I'm looking for a compact zoom lens for travel purposes.

 

I have a Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Super that I bought as my 1st long

lens before moving up to better lenses. I'm also considering the

Nikon 70-210mm f4-5.6D lens, but not the Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6D ED

lens. Based on various internet sources I have noted the following:

 

1. Photodo.com has rated the 70-210mm sharper than the both the Sigma

and Nikon 70-300mm. I think both the Sigma and the Nikon are rated

fairly equally, although the Nikon has less distortion.

 

2. Lens survey website -

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/lsurveyNikkor.htm - generally

backs the results obtained by the photodo.com site. However, the

rating for the Sigma 70-300mm differs between the two. Photodo rates

the DL Super version higher than the original version of the APO (non-

Super version) while this site rates the APO super very poorly vs the

non-Super APO.

 

3. The opinions expressed about the Nikon 70-210mm f4-5.6D vary

widely.

 

4. There is even more variance in the opinions for the Nikon 70-210mm

f4.

 

5. I've noted good opinions about 75-300mm, but it is not compact

enough.

 

6. The 75-150 Series E is a great lens, but it's manual focus and I

want the extra zoom range.

 

Based on these observations I don't feel the Nikon 70-300mm is

sufficiently superior to the Sigma. If anything the ED designation

may just be a marketing ploy, especially if the internet rumours are

true that Tamron builds the lens for Nikon. The Nikon 70-210mm

appears to be superior, but is it significantly superior or just

marginally so? If it's just marginally superior than it may not be

worth the trouble of getting one.

 

Any insight would be appreciated.

Hi,

 

How would the PK-13 auto extension ring (27.5mm) affect the maximum

reproduction ratio, which currently is 1/8.9?

 

I'm not interested in a macro lens at this point in time because of

the limited close-up photography I do, but I would like a relatively

cheap solution for those times that I do want to do some close-up

photography. I also have an AF 50mm f1.8D and an AF 85mm f1.8D.

I have a SB-80DX Speedlight. Without pulling out anything it works

with 24-105mm focal range. Pulling out the difuser it will work with

14mm and 17mm lenses.

 

Since digital SLRs crop the image does this mean that I may not have

to use the difuser. For example a 17mm on a digital SLR results in an

image with the same field of view as a 24mm lens, more or less. Can I

leave the difuser in place and have the flash set to 24mm and not

have to worry about the flash of light not having a wide enough

field? Or will I still have noticeable light fall on the image that

was taken with the digital SLR?

Thank you to everyone for their responses and opinions.

 

I'm going to go with the 3 prime lenses. I'll be buying used, which should cost me about as much as a new AF-S 24-120mm VR lens. I've already picked up a mint AF 50mm f1.8D with a new Nikon Skylight filter for less than what a new lenses would cost. This one I will keep no matter what. If I find convenience to be too important to me I can always sell the other primes I'm thinking of getting and get the zoom.

 

One thing I noted is that the 3 primes won't take up significantly more space than the main zoom I use now. One Lowepro Off-Road lens pouch will be able to accomodate all three, considering one will be on the body at all times.

Hi Alan,

 

Please note that Nikon Canada will not service any Nikon piece that is not imported into Canada by Nikon Canada, whether it's under warranty or not. So be careful when you see listings that claim to have a 1 year international warranty, as it won't be honoured here in Canada. The same goes for the U.S. warranty. It won't be honoured in Canada. Nikon Canada won't even service equipment out of warranty, even if you offer to pay unless Nikon Canada imported it originally. Check www.nikon.ca for confirmation of what I have said.

 

Nikon Canada likes to screw Canadians and as a result has a pathetic business model. Excuse me for the language, but it angers me that Canadians have to pay a substantial mark-up to buy a brand new Nikon product with a factory warranty in comparison to our American counterparts. Note that Nikon Canada only offers a 2 year warranty on overpriced lenses, while Nikon USA offers a 5 year warranty. Nikon USA also offers rebates. I can't remember the last time Nikon Canada did.

 

Be weary of the 7 year warranty from B&H. Although the store is quite reputable I believe this warranty is through Mack. 3rd party warranties are never as good as the ones from the manufacturer. Also, considering potential shipping and customs hassles it just may not be worth it.

 

If you buy from the U.S. ensure it's shipped by USPS or else you will be charged ridiculous amounts for brokerage fees. In the end the cost may be closer to the Canadian price. Legally you have to factor in the GST and PST into the total potential cost. I fairly certain that as a resident of Ontario you are required to submit PST on purchases even if they are purchased elsewhere. Customs brokers and the post office play by the rules and will collect the PST in addition to GST, brokerage fees (if applicable) and processing fees. Canada Post only charges a $5 processing fee.

 

Having said this you may want to consider buying used. I'm currently upgrading my lens collection and I'm buying used. I'll save a hell of a lot of money and not being any money to those Nikon Canada bastards. Once again sorry for the language. You will have to have some experience with the equipment and the internet, such as eBay. I've gotten some good equipment for fair prices through eBay. Places like Henry's in Toronto generally have over inflated prices for used equipment. It's not significantly cheaper than new, although the used equipment generally comes with a 6 month warranty. You will have to be a well informed consumer before trying to buy used equipment.

 

If you insist on buying new check out these two sites:

 

http://www.simonscameras.com & http://www.interprophoto.com/

 

They are both authorized Nikon Canada dealers and often the sell the same equipment for cheaper than what you can buy it in Ontario. You also get the Canadian warranty and save the PST. That's what I did when I bought my Nikon Coolpix and my Nikon filmscanner. I saved enough on these two purchases to buy a Nikon F75.

 

Hope this helps.

I currently have a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX (not the current DF version)

which I'm considering replacing. I also have a telephoto type zoom

and a Nikon AF 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D ED which is sharper than the Sigma

from 28-35mm. But I don't generally use a 22x loupe or get prints

larger than 8X10, although I will get larger prints in the future

when space permits.

 

I previously posted a query as to whether I should consider the Nikon

AF-S VR 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED or the AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G IF-

ED. I'm leaning towards the 24-120mm because of the extra zoom range

and the VR function, which would make it a great travel lens and a

great overall lens. But after reading a few responses plus other

comments on the net and elsewhere I'm more unsure than ever. My

options include:

 

1) Keep the Sigma 28-70mm and get the AF 50mm f1.8D when sharpness

and lack of distortion is an absolute must. Has anyone had any

experience with this lens in relation to similar Nikon lenses with

prices in the same ballpark?

 

2) Get either the Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED or the AF-S

24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G IF-ED. Please note that the Sigma would help

offset the cost of one of these lenses, so also getting the 50mm

prime may not be an option.

 

3) Get an AF 24mm f2.8D, an AF 50mm f1.8D and an AF 85mm f1.8D

lenses. I can get all 3 of them used for about the same amount as the

24-120mm. I know this is the best optical option, but convenience is

a major factor. I'm used to zooms and I like their flexibility

convenience. If it becomes too much of a chore then I may end up just

leaving the camera behind. I already encounter this problem in

certain circumstances when it's easier just to take my Coolpix with

me, which I regard as an advanced point and shoot. I might have just

answered my question here with regards to prime lenses.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you Shun.

 

I will generally shoot handheld, but not necessarily at less than 1/60 of a second. The VR is nice to have when travelling, as it may allow me the opportunity to take photos in low light conditions that I might not otherwise be able to without the VR feature. I am not always able to carry a tripod everywhere I go, especially when on vacation overseas.

 

I realize that the quality of the 24-85 and the 24-120 are not comparable to much more expensive lens, and frankly I would consider a medium format system before plunking down thousands of dollars for professional level lenses in the 35mm format, whether they be zooms or primes.

 

From this response it is probably easy to identify which way I'm leaning, but I would like to confirm that the 24-120 is not significantly inferior optically to the 24-85. If it is then maybe the 24-85 is a better lens for me.

 

I'm more concerned with barrel distortion at 28mm then at 24mm, although it is nice to have the extra width when needed. Minimal distortion at the long end is also nice, although from about 80 and up for critical photos I would be using a longer zoom. I'm also concerned about how much I have to stop down a lens to get a good photo. The more I have to stop down a lens the less range for my flash.

I'm in the market for either a Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-

ED or a Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G IF-ED. Since the 24-120 is

fairly new there aren't many opinions on it, especially in comparison

to the 24-85. I'm wondering if there is anyone who has had experience

with both these lenses with film based SLRs and what your thoughts

and impressions are.

 

I know that the 24-85mm is a very good lens, but I'm intrigued by the

vibration reduction feature of the 24-120mm. However, I am worried

that the 5x zoom factor will have a potentially detrimental effect on

the optics. For what it's worth I'll be using the lens as my main

lens with my F100.