charles_miller

Valerie,

 

I love and appreciate what you are doing with the D50, and I think the D300 is an entirely appropriate upgrade for you. But I would recommend that you re-think the lens issue.

 

A VR lens corrects for camera motion, but not subject motion. You need high ISO and fast lenses more. The 70-200mm lens is heavy, big, and it attracts attention. Due to its weight, you would probably be wishing for a monopod sooner than you imagine. But the distraction of a monopod would make it even harder to capture those fleeting expressions. The 70-200mm has a long minimum focusing distance, and you would still need other lenses. The 150mm through 200mm focal lengths are nearly useless for portraits. And considering the care that you now take with your photography, switching to autofocus may actually tend to worsen your results.

 

Valerie, another approach you might consider is picking up a used 75-150 mm f3.5 AIS lens. That way you could get a feel for a useful focal length range before you decide. Of course, there are other excellent prime lenses as well.

 

In short, go for the D300, but reconsider your lens choices.

A few years back I used an 180mm f2.8 AIS lens and a 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S lens to shoot Kodak E100 chromes. The IQ of the 180 f2.8 AIS was slightly better in most regards compared to the zoom. However, for the particular issue of resistance to flare, the 180mm was noticably better. Still, the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S lens was a joy to use and it is very versatile.

Just another comment about the 135mm f2.8 AI lens. The shots of the antique autos were all stopped down to either f5.6 or f8, and I never shot it wide open.

This is In response to the question about the IQ of the 135mm AI lens. I used a 135mm f2.8 AI, a 105mm f2.5 AIS, and a 50mm f1.4 AFD lens to shoot antique autos on a nearly cloudless July day in Oklahoma. I made about 200 exposures on Kodak E100 using a tripod. I couldn't see a difference in IQ betwwen the 105mm and the 135mm lenses using an 8x loupe.

 

This is in response to the question about the IQ of the 180mm f2.8 AIS lens versus the 200mm AI lens. I didn't have the 180mm f2.8 lens and the 200mm f4.0 lens at the same time. Also, I shot only chromes with the 180mm, but I never shot chromes with the 200mm lens. So I would respectfully defer this question to a more credible source.

I played around with film photography from 1990 until 2005, and over the years got to use the following Nikkors:

 

25-50mm f4.0 AIS

 

24mm f2.8 AIS

 

28mm f2.8 AIS

 

28mm f4.0 PC

 

35mm f2.0 AF

 

35mm f2.8 PC

 

35-70 f3.5 AI (72mm)

 

35-70 f3.3-4.0 AIS

 

35-70 f2.8 AF-D

 

35-80 f2.8-4.0 AF-D

 

45mm f2.8 AIP

 

50mm f1.8 AI

 

50mm f1.4 AI

 

50mm f1.8 AF

50mm f1.4 AF-D

 

50mm f2.0 AI

 

75-150 f3.5 AIS (E)

 

85mm f1.8 HC (AI'd)

 

85mm f1.8 AF

 

80-200mm f2.8 AF-S

 

105mm f2.5 AIS

 

105mm f4.0 AI

 

135mm f2.8 AI

 

180mm f2.8 AIS

 

200mm f4.0 AI

 

 

Bjorn Rorslett's reviews of the above lenses very closely reflect my experiences with them, and I regard him as a very valuable source.

I used the optically similar AF 70-210 f/4-5.6 on film for a few months. While its IQ was a bit soft toward focal length extremes, its color rendition and saturation were both excellent.

 

Perhaps your 70-210 sample is dirty, or perhaps it needs repair. Or perhaps the D300 simply isn't happy with that particular lens model. On the other hand, If the 70-300 VR lens is really, truly that much better than the 70-210 f/4-5.6, then I want one!

Christopher,

 

My PC-Nikkor 28mm f/4 operates the same as my PC-Nikkor f/2.8, which in turn, operates exactly as Lex says.

 

The PC-Nikkor 28mm f/4 is of non-AI vintage, and it will not fit on all AI bodies without undergoing a slight modification.

 

Cheers

Briefly, I tend to agree with the "not worth it" sentiment.

 

There are quite a few non-AI single-coated lenses that are almost free, but only a few of them have a truly excellent optical reputation. In addition, I might price the multicoating option for something like the 25-50 AI/AIS, the 28-50 AI, and the 35-70mm AI with the 72mm filter ring. IMO, those are really good lenses except for the issues of ghosting and flare. But even if the coating process itself is reasonable, each lens would have to be expertly disassembled and reassembled, and that would add considerable cost.

 

The final product would have to compete with the many excellent used AI and AIS lenses which have become inexpensive because they don't support precise exposure automation. But high exposure accuracy is critical for digital capture. So I think you are looking at a very limited opportunity. But good luck, and let us know what you do find out.

UNA - Use No Acronyms

Ian,

 

I have used both the "H" and the "HC" versions of the 85mm f1.8 MF lens. The "HC" version of the 85mm lens has slightly better contrast and saturation than the "H", but it isn't readily apparent in most shots.

 

The 50mm f2 AI model is reportedly even better than the "HC", and decent examples of it have sold for as little as $60 US on rare occasions. So I will go out on a twig here and say that I think that 40 pounds could be better spent elsewhere.

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

Also look through the wide angle lens page here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

I am a digital test engineer by profession. I can tell you that nearly every system has a "Can Not Duplicate" (CND) rate, where user problems in the field don't show up when the product is re-tested. There is even a CND rate for aircraft avionic packages, so CND doesn't just affect consumer electronics.

 

When any consumer item is received from repair showing the same electronic problem, I would immediately expect a CND situation which the manufacturer cannot afford to diagnose. In this case I would just keep sending the item back, while persistently and forcefully requesting a repair or replacement. But keep in mind that the repair depot would really rather find and fix a problem than deal with a CND situation. And it stands to reason that if they are to replace an entire camera without actually seeing a problem, they need to experience a certain amount of "convincing".

 

If a particular camera model is returned for repair above a certain rate, then that model is indeed a lemon. But return-rate information usually isn't published, and one bad experience doesn't really mean very much.

 

I too wonder if CND items are offered as refurbrished, and whether they often cause problems for subsequent owners. Since refurbrished items normally have very short warranties, I would thoroughly try out a refurb item as soon as I got it. I would make sure every function works in hot, cold, and normal temperatures, first with fully charged batteies, and then with nearly run down batteries. And if there is a problem, I would return the item for repair ASAP, just in case the problem turns out to be of the time-consuming CND sort.

Mine makes also makes that sound at low shutter speed settings. I think I remember a discussion a few years back where the consensus was that F3 bodies normmaly do that.

Michael,

 

I don't know, really, because Yellowstone wildlife ranges from birds to buffalo.

 

Assuming X1.5 multiplication with a digital sensor, the 80-200mm zoom should be an excellent place to start due to its flexibility. Most Yellowstone animals are less skittish than in really wild areas, so you can get closer.

 

On the other hand, if you have to stalk animals to photograph them, then you end up mostly with images of animal's butts as they skitter away. So if you are looking for head shots, the 300mm would be better.

 

Sorry if I said nothing much, really.

 

Charlie

Ian,

 

The Nikkor 35-70 f3.3-4.5 has easily noticed barrel distortion at wide settings. The 35-70 f2.8 AFD model performs better in all regards, and I really like it. But even it shows a little barrel distortion at wide settings.

 

Actually, nearly all Nikon wide angle primes show a little bit of barrel distortion, including the pricey 35mm and 28mm Perspective Control (shift) lenses. The wonderful exception is the 28mm f2.8 AIS lens which has almost none.

 

Charlie

Michael,

 

I am concerned about your statement "I'm thinking about selling my Leica stuff so I can get a telephoto for my Nikon". You seem to have a very keen eye for tone and color, and very few SLR/DSLR wide angle lenses will give you the same quality as your Leicas. So I would repeat other's advice about renting before making the leap you are contemplating. Having said that, several of the Nikon telephotos are very "Leica like", and I think they would complement your Leicas very well.

 

I don't know which Nikon camera you have, but if it is digital it likely has a higher usable ISO than the film you normally use. Thus a slower telephoto lens should work fine on a DSLR in most Yellowstone lighting conditions.

 

By the way, I too recommend that you check out Bjorn Rorslett's evaluations of Nikon lenses.

 

Charlie

Now I know why I sold my 85mm f1.8 AF lens years ago. In my opinion, my 85mm f1.8 HC is better optically above f2.8, and my 90mm V/C f3.5 lens is optically much better above f4. If I truly needed a fast 85mm lens, I would go with the Nikon 85mm f1.4 AFD and get a stunning lens plus autofocus and advanced metering.

 

Just my opinion.

Trevor,

 

I'm a long-time N90s user and the autofocus behavior you describe is normal.

It looks like lens flare, but I don't see a likely-looking source within the image. If you are using a 35mm lens on a DX-sized sensor, extraneous light outside the subject area can enter the lens and cause flare.

 

On the other hand, lightning is a totally crazy thing. It is possible, but unlikely, that you have captured a rare but real phenomenon of nature.

Ilkka,

 

The potential advantages of wet mounting read somehting like this.

 

a) Wet mounting fills in minor scratches and voids in the emulsion, and it fills in voids surrounding the inevitable dust particles. That's the biggie.

 

b) The refractive index of an emulsion is different from that of air. Therefore, with "air mounting", there are reflections from the top and bottom surfaces of the emulsion. With wet mounting, the oil, the drum, the cover, and the emulsion all have approximately the same index of refraction, so the reflections occur mainly at the top and bottom surfaces of the stack. Hence they *can be* out of focus and less objectionable with *some* scanners, such as several Nikon models that have a shallow depth of field.

 

c) Wet mounting holds the emulsion flat.

 

Another thing that limits the dynamic range of desktop scanners is that their light sources illuminate a broad stroke, instead of a tiny dot. Since film emulsions have a three-dimensional structure, light from surrounding areas is reflected into each pixel area from every direction. There simply isn't any point in reading this bleed, even if the scanner sensors and electronics have the dynamic range to do so.

 

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

I was an early adopter of the previous Nikon Cool Scan LS-4000. I would reinforce and revisit some of the advice given above:

 

a) Manually feeding individual slides, or four-frame clips, into a scanner becomes exceptionally boring.

 

b) Wet mounting a slide or negative nearly doubles the resolution of the scan, but the wet mounting procedure is far more tedious than just feeding slides.

 

c) There is no way to batch feed wet-mounted emulsions.

 

d) Even with wet-mounted slides, there is an abrupt onset of black which leads to blocking of shadows. If anything else in the chain, such as a printer, has any tendency towards blocking, your final images will be ugly.

 

e) Try scanning and printing some of your portraits of people with complexions ranging from very light to very dark before you commit. Find out how well you like the actual results from desk top scanners.

 

f) DSLR imagers are slowly getting better. It may be wise to wait for the next generation of DSLRs, and avoid the desktop scanner experience altogether.

 

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

I think I remember a comment saying that the F4 gives superior results for macro photography when lenses or tubes are stacked for high maginification. I believe the explanation is that there's a short delay from the time the lens is stopped down until the F4 shutter opens. Apparently, that delay allows small vibrations in the stack caused by the stop-down lever(s) to die out and not blur the image. It seems like the F5 and F6 could in theory have a custom function to provide a delay like the F4 delay, but I'm guessing they don't.

Great answers so far, and I might add that the f1.4 has more geometric distortion than the f1.8.

Jack,

 

If you still experience trouble after the above, take the film out of the camera and use a magnifying glass to look for little bits of film stuck between the teeth of the take-up spool.

 

If someone has ever tried to wind the film past the last frame by using a little extra force, the film area between sprocket holes may have been ripped out, and the pieces often lodge between the sprocket teeth. If that is the case, just tweeze the film fragments out, being careful that they don't fall into the shutter or such.

I used a 70-210 AF 4-5.6 non-D lens for a few months, and it had beautiful contrast and color saturation, perhaps as good as the 180 mm f2.8 AIS prime lens. Its sharpness was surprisingly good at focal lengths from 75mm to 150mm, but it was less impressive outside that range unless stopped down.

 

Luis, enjoy that lens and take pride in your images.