marco_p1

400/4 AFS-VR

Joe, I am afraid the very old M2 tube is not compatible with your G-type 70-200. No original nikon tubes for G-type lenses, sorry. I have used 2 elements closeups similar to yours and the results are actually surprisingly good, also the ability to frame by zooming is a big plus at times. A true, dedicated macro will probably offer more magnification and better performances optically at close up range: usually no distorsion and a flat field for reproduction work, or a constant performance right into the corners which is usually the problem with our achromat diopters. But do you need those refined performances? For example, I doubt that insect images similar to your butterfly shot would be dramatically better. And a dedicated telemacro takes some important space in your backpack, maybe you'd have to leave the 70-200 at home. Bye, Marco

Richard, thank you for taking the time to test. The sense of my question/statement, if I can try to explain

better, is that the bokeh quality question becomes less relevant as the background is more and more far away. I

bet if you repeat your test with the same setup but with the chair closer to the subject, you would get more

relevant differences, on the contrary if you place it further away it will just tend to disappear.

bye, Marco

Does it have any sense speaking of bokeh in the case of images where the background is completely out of focus? I am referring to the dog and swallow images, for example. I think any lens with the same geometric properties (FL, aperture) would produce a similar image given the distance between le subject and the background. Where the lens peculiar properties come into play is with images such as "leaning over" by Peter N. What do you think? bye Marco<div></div>

I don't want to add confusion but, what about a film scanner? ;-)

What about zooming out and cropping a bit when you happen to shoot a landscape at > than 135 mm? Seems an easy fix to me. Bye, Marco

Lovely photo and very nice colors, looks like you managed to get really close to your subject! Marco

dinamic2<div></div>

dinamic<div></div>

Lots of good advice here, Richard. Someone has already mentioned it, but I would like to stress that if you want to shoot wildlife in the wild, outside from zoos or any kind of controlled conditions, your skill as a naturalist will be far more important than your equipment. And that kind of skill costs a lot of work, study, and time spent in the field... That is to say that in my opinion it is not wise to suggest a top of the line lens to start with this kind of photography. With DX the 300/4 afs is a good compromise, and I have used use all Nikon TCE converters effectively (the 2X is more difficult and i seldom manage to get really good results, but sometimes it happens). I always had a lust for that old 560 Leitz used by Douglas Herr and finally bought one a couple of months ago. I choose the Novoflex mount as I will presumably use it more often on a tripod, from hides. So far my experience has lead to not very brillant results, I have yet to master the thing as it handles very differently from the 300/4 afs which I know rather well having used it for years, and the finder of my D200 (similar to the D300) while above average does not seem good enough for it. Also, I have yet to spend the big money for a definitive tripod setup and this may be another reason for my initial difficulties. Here are a couple of rather good ones, Good luck, Marco<div></div>

A crop<div></div>

Well my 55 is in much better condition, and I have no filter mounter.

Here is the only shot I have on this PC at work done with the 55:<div></div>

Jerry, if your interest are "accuratly detailed close-ups", and have no problems with the 55 working distance I think you have all you need. I never used a 990 but if your results with that old PS are better than with the combo D40/55 Micro my guess is something is going wrong with your dsrl setup. I hope you are doing everything properly, good tripod, accurate focusing, avoiding intermediate shutter speeds to minimize mirror slap or use of flash light... What about post processing? my only PS, an old 3.1 mpix olympus produces sharpened images by default, by comparison my D200 at default settings produces files which are much more neutral. But if you apply the correct sharpening and tone correction the final result is well above that of the PS and I mean much much better. Can we see a couple of images by your 990 and DSRL with the corresponding 100% crops?

Dmitry, you said your lens is very sharp, even wide open... I would definitely keep it as it's a good sample optically. What happens if you exchange it for a better metering one with some optical fault? Marco

Jerry, I assume your Micro Nikkor 2.8 Ais is the 55. You are setting a very high standard with that lens. I am afraid even the most expensive pro 2.8 zooms will not stand up to that standard (I have experience with it and the 35-70 and 80-200). On the other hand I think it's absolutely true that you don't need the best lens in the world to make stunning images, your immagination, cerativity and the light are all much more important. I have no experience with the 18-55 but from your words it seems you have a damaged unit, or maybe you exaggerated? In that range I currently use the Tamron 17-50 2.8 which is very very good, not as good as the 55 micro but good enough for me and much more versatile than the 55 micro. Oh well I belive there is very little metal in it, the mount and some screws probably. The rest is glass and plastic and I like it that way as it's probably 1/2 the weight of the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor. Good luck, Marco

Arun, your shot looks great. But it is a small file and if you get an example from the Sigma at the same size it will look as great, but both photos will tell little of the real quality of the lenses... also bokeh with the background at that disance will look nice with any lens of that focal length: it's simply way out of focus. I can confirm the nikkor is very good as I have one, but boy is it heavy and how nice is to carry around the 75-150 E too bad it's not AF. Bye, Marco

Ilkka, I can't see myself at the first day at school of my daughter with a huge D3 maybe with a 24-70, the same goes for casual tourist photography, street photo, or even more for trekking... in these situations shooting with huge, heavy camera equipment would be like driving a Ferrari in Napoli. Many times I consider my D200 too big and just carry a P/S. However, I can see these being personal considerations. Bye, Marco

Jeff, a piece of dymo label on the lens barrel solves the problem. Attach it on the lens barrel on the aperture ring side: the focusing/zoom ring will have to slide over it with a bit of mechanical friction. I did it and it works.

For Harvey here is a link to a review of the 70-300 VR with comparison shots with the 300/4 AFS. Bye, Marco http://filmlives.net/content/articles/lenses/telephoto/Nikon70300VR/

Follow the link for the product suggested by Schneider Optics to clean its filters: maybe a surprise ;-) ttp://www.schneideroptics.com/info/handbook/pdf/B+WHandbook8_9.pdf

Thank you for sharing your experiences and for your tips, I will try to locate an appropriate product to clean the filter. Joseph, I live in Italy, I ordered from HK as the price was about 30% better and transport cost was very similar. It may well be that the filter is counterfait, but aside from this problem it looks very well made and both the cardoard and plastic boxes don't look cheap, so I think the problem may be as you suggest with the travel around the world and the temperature it was subjected to. It seems I am not alone in finding something oily on the filter surflace... I think I will throw away those foam liners. For what concerns the better prices you find in HK there must be something with import taxes making the prices almost universally better than europe.

Thank you, Marco

Good morning,

I need advice on this filter which I just bought new, from ebay - HK. I opened the

box and found it very dirty on one side, apparently the glass surflace was touching

the soft material used inside the inner plastic box, which may have had a litle

grease or something on it. I could not clean it with my standard tools: moisure

from breath and clean, soft cotton tissue. I had to dampen the tissue and use a

small quantity of dish soap. It got clean but I had to repeat the process again and

again as it seemed that every time I touched the glass it got dirty in another place

(i replaced the tissue with clean one different times). In the process I had the

impression that the filter gets dirty very easily, much more than my other humble

hama linear polarizer or than the front glass of my lenses. Is it true? Are the MRC

coatings more prone to collect or show dirt? Well for a filter of this price the

condition in which I found it was really horrible, and the box was new and sealed!

Thank you, Marco

Kirk also sells adapters (quick release systems) to make your current ball head compatible. Ciao Marco

I am keeping my 50 1,4 but since I bought my tamron 17-50 2,8 I am not using it anymore... I am not a big fan of low light photography, and you?

You can probably do it via the time lapse menu, and if you mount the MBD200 you can use two batteries, the camera automatically switches to the second when the first is empty. Got to try these star trails myself sooner or later. Good luck, Marco

"I would say the D300 is a different class of camera and it has now become extraordinarily affordable to own a pro DSLR"

Just for the record and without any assumption, the D300 is the first Nikon professional camera built in Thailand, maybe the D3 is the last built in Japan? I know: "who cares". I also understand what Lisa and Kerry say, and I have to admit my best shots are from a couple of years ago when I was using a D70 (now have a D200). This does not mean that the D70 is better, but there is something else more important then the camera behind an image. ciao, marco