lance_free

... I appreciate your comments. Things can become heated. For what... to prove I or you know more than someone else? I sincerely believe that if we remember what this is about --- the process of crafting pictures (to a certain extent anyway... and a profession for some as well) --- and that there's often more than one right answer to each question, we'll do just fine. While the basic principles of photography ought not be ignored entirely (they exist for good reason), there is opportunity to make generous allowances for individuals' preferences both technically and creatively. Two of the qualities that make this activity attractive to so many people, in my opinion, are (i) the variety of ways that exist to create an image and (ii) the challenge of solving problems in an effort to achieve a desired (or sometimes unexpected!) result.

For the health of the community, while I don't believe it's necessary to be an a** ki**er (where * = s), I'll assert that we would do better over all by encouraging an environment of thoughtful contribution rather than by stifling others (...and I�m the first to acknowledge that I�m no saint!). If it's wrong, it's wrong, but a lot of analysis is often required before a determination of 'wrong' can be made, again in my opinion, owing in large part to the artistic/creative nature of not only this endeavour but also many others.

Thank you for your kind words and peace in return, Eric. I look forward to meeting up with you in another thread at another time.

~LF

PS I think the picture from the far north, while by your own admission perhaps not your best, is at least serviceable and possesses ample possibilities for editorial enhancement. Regardless, the experience must have been memorable and would likely be of great interest to a wide audience. If you haven�t done so already, you may want to consider turning the events behind the pictures into a story: you might just have the foundation for an interesting article worthy of publication. Best wishes.

PS Wilfred, I don't think anyone can seriously tell you what lenses to bring and whether or not to use a grey card: you have not, to my knowledge, divulged what your objectives are so how can one presume to select equipment for you? A wealth of ideas in this thread alone exists on which you can creatively feast and from which you can develop solutions (many of which have already been provided). While I am reluctant to say so, it sounds to me like you might benefit from a more advanced course in photography than one you may have already taken. If we're working on the premise of white and blue and shades of grey, whether it be clouds-and-sky or snow-and-sky, there are some similarities. While you have not yet photographed snow, apparently, I trust you have photographed the sky. You might begin there and work your way down. I'll depart for the final time from this thread by extending my best wishes to you on your visit. Regards.

WOW is right. I mistook this thread as being from someone who needed a little guidance for an international trip to unaccustomed climes.

Typo forgiven, Carl (I've made my share, I'm sure), sometimes we don't want our photographs to reflect reality "as it registers in the camera". While a blue hue looks great in Hearst's pool, is the castle blue? How about the people sitting under umbrellas in the garden having high tea? I thought that one purpose of filters was to render a scene the way you want it captured (often the way you actually 'see it with your eyes') versus what nature provides.

As for Eric whose objective appears to be to criticize contributors to this thread, I stand by what I said and most if not all points contained throughout this thread. There are lots of good ideas. Heaven forbid Pierre (who has seen more snow in one year than any of us outside of Quebec are likely to see in ten) and I agree that Matrix works adequately (I don't recall anyone using the word "perfectly"). Heaven forbid I've attempted EV comp in combo with matrix and achieved a flawed result. Heaven forbid I've made many photographic no-no's. That's life. I experiment in order to learn. I'm not afraid to admit I don't like the result of every experiment. I move on.

That said, I actually agree with much of what Eric writes here. My earlier point is that before any of us holds ourselves out as experts, let's look more closely. Although I could write an essay about what I don't like about Eric's photo, who cares! I could write an essay about what I do like about it, too!!! This is photography: it's has artistic and technical components. If Wilfred's hope is to take technically perfect pictures of snow, I would be willing to argue that it's a far more complex issue than any single person can explain coherently. (okay, I'm not willing to argue because I'm not that interested)

When I first wandered into this thread, I mistakenly believed that Wilfred wanted to enjoy his travels to Canada and have successful winter photography play a role in his trip. From his continuing and most recent follow-up, I appreciate that he's really keen to make photography the focus. Whether that's the case or not, however, my point is that even with all of the good ideas posted in this thread or elsewhere, "right" doesn't really exist: it's all a matter of perspective. A "no-brainer" idea to help you see what everyone's talking about, Wilfred, is to bring a digital camera along with you so you can see on-the-fly what's working and what isn't.

That said, enjoy the trip. It will be a wonderful adventure and no matter how much or how little gear you bring, it will be an experience you'll remember for quite some time, I'm sure. My final thought is, if you get the chance to watch a hockey game (amateur or professional) at an ice rink, you'll get a true taste of what winter means to a great many Canadians.

Best wishes,

~LF

Good point, thank you, Doug. I'm not a biggie on grid lines although I agree that they can be helpful if that's your preference.

I've used briefly a 67 with a beattie screen but it was some time ago and it was brief hence my question. My recollections are somewhat vague, but I'm pretty sure I swapped a TTL meter between my body and the one with the beattie and the metering was (if not exactly) within very close range. I'm sticky about a lot of things but tend to be conservative when stretching latitude so an 1/8th stop or less is really of no mind to me.

Anyway, if anyone reading this has or sees a screen for sale, until I've got one in hand, I'm open to suggestions. Feel free to post here as I WILL RETURN!

Thanks.

~LF

Thanks for pointing that out. MY EYES REALLY ARE BUGGING OUT!!!

I guess if I understand correctly, the Maxwell screen is superior in some ways to Beattie --- but there are some "IFs" --- and both are better than the original Pentax screen. As for installation, David, I'd have my local pro shop do it. Thanks again for pointing out the thread.

I've lived in the Toronto (like others here) all my life and have been shooting for over 20 years. With my original SLR, Pentax K1000, overexposing an extra stop relative to the centre-weighted meter was good: with my Nikon cameras and Matrix metering, I've screwed up more pictures messing with exposure compensation than would have been the case had I let the Nikon engineers do their thing without my interference!!! I think Pierre said just about that (in a nicer way) in the first response in this thread, Wilfred. Bring the F80 and the F90X (leave the F4 at home) and use Matrix metering.

Also, bring a polarizing filter and a warming filter: as you can see from the photograph from the FAR FAR north, blue skies on white snow create both glare and, in the shadows particularly, add a blue hue. These can be countered with filtration: in addition to the polarizing filter, I suggest an 81A or 81B warming filter; others may recommend something stronger.

Leave the Gossen at home and rate Velvia as you normally do: people adjust the rating of Velvia in landscape photography to enhance the saturation of the 'greens' that Velvia captures so vividly. There won't be enough green here to worry about that type of saturation! In fact, bring faster film than Velvia as the daylight hours are short and while it can be bright in the sunshine, I'm suggesting you use a polarizing filter which removes about 2 stops worth of light. ISO 400 will be MUCH more versatile and allow you to continue shooting both earlier and later in the day. Unless you NEED slides, remember that negatives have greater exposure latitude than slides so, if in doubt, stick to print film for situations where you want to play it safe.

External Flash: you'll benefit from the 1/250th flash sync on the F90X for daylight fill-flash when photographing people as bright winter lighting is very directional and contrasty. It'll also quash some of the "blue" if people stand in the shadows.

Last but not least, Wilfred, unless you'll be presenting a slide show of your trip to Canada, if your plans are to scan and e-mail pictures from slides or make prints that way, you can always adjust the white point after the fact in your image-editing software. If you overexpose and accidently lose data, you can't get it back.

Enjoy your trip. Welcome to Canada.

~LF

PS Toronto and the surrounding area is a nice place with museums, galleries (as we've learned!!!) and the world-famous CN Tower (our way of making up for not having mountains!). Montreal is a beautiful city with a unique blend of modern and old and, if you get the chance to visit Quebec City, you'll have a wonderful opportunity to see old world Canada: that is a bit tongue-in-cheek as "old" Canada is about as old as "New Mexico" in the GRAND SCHEME of things (no flames please) but beautful is the one word that comes to mind when I think of Quebec City. The rest of Canada holds its even greater share of delights, but time is too short for me to see it all... AND I live here! See what you can and remember to take some time out from behind the viewfinder to enjoy your visit first-hand... and use Matrix!!!

David, I think Pierre was being sarcastic.

Leo, I'd also have to recommend the Fuji S2. It's compatible with your SB-26. Alternatively, ditch the SB-26, buy a DX flash and get a D100. The only advantage (I can feel the flames warming up now!!!) is that I FEEL the picture quality of the S2 is better in more cases... particularly for enlargements. While not a criteria for all, I regularly print on 24" roll paper and while I'm sure pictures from the D100 would look fine (yes, there are lots of interpolation options open for digital editing, I know) but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that S2 pics enlarge better than D100 (big enlargements that is). If you're shooting corporate events, what are the chance that they'll like an image, want to crop it (where the added file size begins to really help) and make a poster? Pretty good I'd say... if you promote it. A nice 24x36 poster makes a great promotional tool in the company's kitchen (or kitchen$$$) or to send to clients.

My $0.02.

~LF

Does a Beattie screen make much difference? I'm a 6x7 shooter and

find it difficult to focus quickly when lighting conditions are less

than optimal. Appreciate your thoughts and comments.

~LF

Although the event has past, for the sake of posterity, I would like to substantiate Frank Uhlig's thumbnail sketch with my experience:

=======================================

"In 35mm, this magnification would require a 75 x 50 mm = 3750 mm 0r 3.75m or about 4 yards, or about 12 feet long lens. Just to appear as the moon would with a 50 mm lens, i.e., almost not there at all on film."

=====================================

A lens with a 12" (300mm) diameter aperture and a focal ratio of 10 has a focal length of 3000mm. Using eyepiece projecion techniques with an eyepiece of 10mm (3000mm/10mm = 300x magnification), the focal ratio now becomes 50 and the effective focal length is (300mm aperture x 50 =) 15000mm. That's fifteen thousand millimeters.

At that focal length/magnification, Mars at it's nearest point relative to Earth for quite some time STILL does not fill one 35 mm frame... not even close: I'd estimate about 1/6th, perhaps less. Mr. Uhlig is correct, at 75 times magnification or 3750 mm focal length, Mars appeared no larger than the moon with a "normal" lens. In fact, I'd suggest quite like a lot smaller in terms of perspective (remembering our perspective is nearly 180 degrees), although in terms of magnification, perhaps not too far off.

Further, Karen Liles' "modest 75-power magnification" making Mars look like "the full moon to (t)he naked eye" comment isn't far off if you consider how small the moon appears relative to our nearly 180 degree "normal" field of view. To illustrate my point, viewing viewing Mars at 75x magnification is akin to viewing a full moon with a 14mm diagonal fisheye lens.

If anyone is interested in astrophotography, there are some tremendous books on the subject and numerous websites with astrophotographers' work on display. One of the most comprehensive sources of information is, in my opinion, 'The Backyard Astronomer's Guide' by Terence Dickinson and Alan Dyer. It offers a thorough overview of equipment used for viewing and photographing a wide range of astronomical objects and, although recently updated, it has been considered 'standard' reference material for beginning enthusiasts for nearly a decade.

Here's to looking up!

~LF

Stamp out light pollution!

I shot some "found" provia (non-F) some years ago. It had been kept in a storage room for 6 months or so (not refrigerated). The pictures came out with a magenta cast. It was really quite ugly. Not worth the chemistry (if you DYI processing) or lab charges, IMHO.

Regards, LF

www.photozone.de; www.photodo.com; www.photographyreview.com

These are three places you can find an overwhelming number of some-qualified, some-unqualified responses concerning these lenses.

FWIW, I use the Sigma you refer to (it's too long to type out!!!!) and am very impressed with its sharpness, color, contrast, speed and build. It's a good lens. While I haven't used the Nikon, my primary qualification in offering an opinion is my ability to judge image quality: I shoot various lenses and formats (primes, zooms, 35, digital, 6x7). The images from this Sigma are very good.

As far as being "as good" as the Nikon, the only shortcomings I'm aware of are (i) that focusing continues on the Sigma when you attempt to manually override it (my Nikon bodies (and Fuji S2) have AE/AF lock buttons so it's not a big deal) and (ii) no image stabilization (VR).

The only caveat (you don't mention buying new or used) is that with some older third-party lenses, their chip may require replacing in order to work properly with some of the newer bodies (F80 and up, in my experience). I bought this 70-200 lens soon after they came out (4 or 5 years ago???) so I did have to send mine in to Sigma (Gentec, in Canada) two years ago. The chip was replaced and the lens was returned quickly. I've had no further problems. I didn't experience this problem with my Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX HSM AF-D, by the way. I also use a number of Nikon lenses, FWIW.

Regards, LF

Especially because your lenses have relatively small maximum apertures (except 50mm prime which'll be of limited value except maybe in the pits if you get there), depending on light conditions, you'll want the flexibility afforded by ISO 100 to 1600 film speeds. Fuji Provia F 100 and 400 offer fine grain and excellent pushability characteristics. Provia 100F can be rated at up-to 400 ISO successfully; 400F can be rated in camera at up-to 1600 ISO. This will require push processing, however, and these films are not exactly cheap.

Having exposed literally thousands of frames at INDY Car events (sorry, I mean, Champ Car), you'll find shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/250 second useful for panning shots: slower shutter speeds and wider angles typically work and will lend some excellent (or at least interesting) results: even at 200mm, panning at 1/250 second may be a bit too fast, frankly. That's one situation where you'd want ISO 100 film in order to achieve slower shutter speeds. For insurance, however, I'd recommend you take a few pics at shorter shutter speeds (1/1000th or faster) so, if you're apprehensive about your more "creative pans", you'll have something to show the folks that they'll at least understand! For your head-on/ 3/4 angle pics, shutter speeds of 1/125th to 1/500th will generally suffice. Again, take a few at 1/1000th or faster for insurance. A couple of pics of the cars going away from you affords an interesting perspective, too. Faster shutter speeds here will help. As always, watch your backgrounds for clutter (another reason why panning is so beneficial).

I don't recommend high shutter speeds (shorter than 1/1000th second) for many situations, especially based on focal length of the lenses you have at your disposal. "Stopping action" on a Champ Car moving at 180mph (or any speed for that matter) leads to a picture of what appears to be a parked car! I can assure you, this is VERY boring to look at: I can attest to it honestly as I have several dozen/hundred (???) photos like this!!! For shooters using supertelephoto lenses (I'd classify that as 400mm and up), higher shutter speeds become somewhat more necessary for getting apparent sharpness in images taken with supertelephotos, especially those pictures with close cropping.

Regardless, if it's raining or overcast, you'll be glad you have fast film (e.g. 400 rated at 1600 and push processed) for moving cars. If it's sunny, you can always rate ISO 400 film normally and expose accordingly. Alternatively, if you've rated at 1600 ISO and the sun comes out, a polarizing filter (good to use in such conditions anyhow) will offer some exposure compensation. Nonetheless, not to contradict myself, again I�d recommend you take a few pictures with faster shutter speeds for "insurance".

Lastly, if it is sunny and you're shooting in the pits, you'll find fill flash almost a necessity for a lot of your photos. There are a lot of deep shadows/contrast caused by vertical angles and white paint on the cars' side pods, etc., versus their well-exposed upper surfaces. For this same reason, I don't recommend spot metering when photographing moving cars.

Not to dampen your enthusiasm, Samuli, but my experience tells me that unless you get trackside access, it's pretty difficult to get good pictures of moving cars (when I say good, I mean stuff like you'd see on TV or in magazines). For all but credentialed individuals, my hometown race has several obstacles to overcome: double row wire fences, concrete barriers (further reducing visibility) and, EVEN WITH CREDENTIALS, occasionally rude security people around the track (okay, I know security performs a valuable function but they can do it nicely: no lectures about track safety, please!!!). I think you'll find even 200mm focal length fairly short for all but a few situations outside of any visits you can make to the Pits.

Anyway, MOST IMPORTANTLY !!!... enjoy what you see, hear and feel and consider it a bonus if you get some great pictures! Go Paul Tracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and, of course, safety comes first.

Warmest regards,

~LF

I've owned them both. Based on my experience, optically, the 28-105 is the winner without question. It's not even close, I'm afraid. This is backed-up by a trend you'll find from the three sources (beyond our friends here) that I've found helpful in researching these matters, which are:

www.photographyreview.com

www.photodo.com

www.photozone.de

Best wishes,

~LF

I've owned and used the Polaroid 120 for almost two years and use it for 6x7 format scans (and 35 mm). I wouldn't trade it for any of the comparables available today (e.g. price range). Multisampling/noise reduction, DMax, colour depth , sharpness, standard firewire connection: while a drum scan is ideal, I'm satisfied with what the SS120 offers. How the Microtek version compares I can't say.

Although the Minolta wasn't available when I made my choice, I would still choose the SS120 as, in my experience, I find that a contrasty 6x7 B+W has more information than 3200 dpi can capture (although it's close). The added dpi may not be missed by some, however, until cropping or big enlargements come into play. Also, Minolta's claims of better 'this and that' fall under the category of 'diminishing returns' in my book. Who knows, of course, since I've been scanning since the dark ages: perhaps I'm just more easily satisfied! My reasons for not choosing the Nikon have been described elsewhere in this thread.

Although I don't know if the scanner comes bundled with it any longer , personally, I really like Silverfast (I'm using version 6). It has some good features that add value to different situations (http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/en.html) including a software alternative to ICE and Polaroid has a Photoshop plug-in that can help too.

The only regret I have with the SS120 is a minor one. Like the Nikon, it scans 35mm films at 4000 dpi. There are some (again, particularly contrasty B+W) 35mm images that would benefit from more dpi. This is particularly true with 35mm vs 120 as 35mm lenses are GENERALLY sharper than medium format lenses. This 'want' for higher-than-4000 dpi 35mm scans occurs only rarely, I should add.

As for film flatness, the basic holders that come with the scanner hold 120 film and 35mm negs tightly so there's not a lot of room for flexing. I haven't acquired the glass holder but have no doubt it would be a suitable remedy for those concerned (a lot depends on the amount of curl in your negs).

If I may, I'd suggest you look at it this way: if 3200 dpi medium format scans meet your needs and you also scan B+W 35mm, then I'd recommend benefiting from the greater versatility of the Minolta's 4800 dpi 35mm scanning ability. If you (i) shoot primarily B+W medium format, (ii) crop creatively and (iii) expect to make large digital prints, the 4000 dpi of the SS120 (or Nikon) MAY be more to your liking. Some will argue, too, that Imacon's 3200 dpi is STILL better: others will say that an Epson (or other) flatbed will do the job. A lot depends on budget and expectations. Fortunately for you, short of your own drum scanner and acknowledging that there's no PERFECT solution, you really can't go wrong.

~LF

Of course, the question begs to be asked: when you say you use aperture priority (and the camera defaults to 1/60), and whatver aperture, Nick, I assume that the aperture/shutter speed combo is satisfactory for the ambient light conditions? Are you testing this in broad daylight? Have you tried the camera/flash in a dark room? Gotta ask.

LF

Hi Nick. Sounds like the frustration (and expense!) continues.

To get a baseline understanding of where the problem may exist, have you tried the camera with the built-in flash and does it expose properly (within its limited range, granted)? If it does, the problem likely resides somewhere outside of the TTL sensor.

FWIW, I use my sb-26 and sb-28 in the same manner with the S2 as I do with my f90x's; I get the same balanced results. Except for daylight fill flash (not the strength of this camera anyway), I rarely use EV comp on the flash. In testing the camera/flash combo, I'd suggest not using EV comp: do your testing in a 'vanilla' fashion before getting into more complicated setups.

Anyway, if the built-in flash fires correctly (again, don't use any exposure comp settings) but the external units don't and you've had this same problem with two external flash units, there may be a problem with how your camera exchanges information with the flashes. If that's the case, I'd suggest you return the SB-80DX, get your money back unless you like its features of the SB-28, and make it a Fuji issue.

Assuming then that it's a Fuji problem, before you send it back, reset your S2 to the factory settings (I believe there's a pre-defined way to do that), set your flash to TTL (ignore any comments about using Auto: you want TTL!) and your S2 to Matrix and try again. THE ONLY last thing of importance is to set your camera to ORG/ORG for colour and tone. In particular, higher tone = higher contrast = clipped black points and white points. Higher colour can result in oversaturation which isn't so great either. I always use ORG ORG and haven't had a problem with clipping. Also, if I want more saturation, I adjust that in Photoshop.

Please respond to the thread (or e-mail me) with an update.

~LF

CUT! Alex, you're CUT!

Actually, I think they use dynamite when they wanna catch fish. That and a big net... after some shots of Wild Turkey, of course! I'm still not sure what the teleconverter's for.

LF

The chain connects the prism to the aperture mechanism. It can be repaired most likely.

If you live in a large photographic community, look under 'photography' and 'equipment and dealers' or 'repairs' in your phone directory, call around and find out who repairs your type of equipment. If in doubt, call a local pro photographer who can likely refer you to a repair shop in the area.

If it can be fixed, a good technician will know what to do without having to send it to Pentax.

Recognizing that my tersely worded post and lengthy follow-up will do little to better the photographic community, I would just like to return to the one concept that brought me here, one that I ignored entirely and one you likely share, which is my appreciation of a compelling image.

From this experience, I am reminded that regardless of how an image is captured (we all use the tools, instinct and technical know-how at our disposal to the best of our abilities), what is important is the result and, I will argue, what is even more important is the process (except at dinner time for those participants for whom photography is a profession: yes, always time for a little humor!).

I have seen some of Turgut's work and all signs point to him being a very capable and highly motivated image maker... and this could very well be an understatement. Of course, all of this is ignored and the focus becomes the brand and/or the concept: shame on me.

I extend my apology to Turgut to all forum members for stealing attention away from the value of the process we share and the results we enjoy.

Best wishes, LF

Same in return, Shane.

Regards, LF

I don't wish to overstay my welcome, Luca, but I saw at Popular Photography (http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=713) that they tested your lens and thought it was pretty good (supporting Douglas Swinskey's efforts). I didn't check other sources but, with Douglas's results, PopPhoto's analysis and our collective experiences of trying various lenses, unless you have a dud lens (possible but statistically unlikely), Pierre's advice of not getting onto a merri-go-round and Jim's suggestion of testing different apertures, etc., sound very reasonable.

You do say you just bought the camera: I would strongly suggest you test further before abandoning the lens. Perhaps as you gain experience using the camera's autofocus feature, switching to manual focus and different aperture selections to gain greater depth of field (try your F80's depth-of-field preview button) you may find this lens to be pretty good. If not, Pierre's suggestion of using primes can't be beaten if quality is your game.

Good decision in my opinion. Now that that's settled, Shane, I have to ask, when you shoot wildlife for fun in TX, do you hope to use the teleconverter before, during or after? .........Badabing!

One last comment about camera shake: you mention that most of your shots are either Whitetail Deer or Wild Turkey. Personally, I haven't tried Whitetail but I find after of a couple of shots of Wild Turkey that I 'think' I'm holding the camera steady... but in reality it's just my state of mind...... Badabang!

And with that, please don't cry 'fowl': I may have to respond again!........ Badaboom!

In all seriousness, happy shooting and best wishes, LF

I own a Sigma 500 f/4.5 EX HSM.

Although I can't speak to its usefulness for a safari, as someone who photographs wildlife, it's a very capable lens and really helpful for distant objects or, as importantly, tight crops of closer or smaller ones. I don't own a 300mm lens but, when I need that focal length, I use a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x tele attached and am extremely pleased with the results. I use Sigma's version of that lens (and their EX teleconverter) too. No, I don't work for Sigma! I own lenses from Sigma, Nikon and Tamron. I'm just a little 'cheaper' than some of our other colleagues: I like to think of it as value-oriented. Build, AF speed and optics are of a professional calibre.

The only consideration not mentioned is image stabilization. My lenses don't offer it and, when warranted, I rely on higher ISO settings depending on the conditions and the subject. Frankly, it's a good feature but I'm not crushed by not having it. Although I have not had the pleasure of going on a safari, either of the two lenses I've mentioned will conveniently sit atop a tripod, monopod or beanbag. Just ask the driver to shut off the engine when possible to reduce avoidable vibrations. I do that here at home when photographing from a vehicle: it really helps and I would bet many of the guides already know this, but...

Going back to the Sigma 500mm for a moment, FWIW, this lens does AF perfectly using Kenko's PRO300 1.4x teleconverter on my Nikon bodies even though the maximum aperture becomes f/6.3. Yes, I carry two teleconverters.

Anyway, although I could have spent more money had I had it(!!!) I'm happy with my set-up. Depending on your NEEDs and MEANs, I'd recommend the same to you and others. As is the case with many things, however, there are as many 'good' combinations as there are people!

Regards, LF

Not to belabour, Pierre is absolutely right: primes (almost always) are better performers optically. However, the lost convenience of not having the right lens to compose in changing conditions makes the loss of quality acceptable for me, at least, when choosing a zoom.

Per the websites I mentioned earlier, Luca, see if you can find data related to your current lens and the lenses you're willing to consider. Not that I'm a strong endorser of Nikon (I own various brands depending on the strength of the lens relative to specific applications), but my experience and research led me to the 3.5-4.5 lens. My concerns were the focal range and overall quality of the optics: price was not my primary concern when I made that decision. Yes, I also own a couple of prime lenses in that range which are helpful for certain applications.

Thinking ahead, I've also found this particular lens satisfactory with digital (Fuji S2) which also speaks well of the optics as the image is being exposed on a CCD which is 40% the size of film! The only caveat is that smaller CCDs make the 28mm end 'seem' like 42mm. Eventually, I expect full frame sensors will be the norm so I don't anticipate it will be an issue forever.

As for build quality, in any lens under $500, I don't think I've ever been overwhelmed by quality, at least, not in a zoom.

As your needs grow, if there is a marked difference in optical performance between your existing lens and f/3.5-4.5, I think you'll find the f/3.5-4.5 will always have a place in your camera bag.

LF

Check the manual to confirm, but I believe the camera automatically defaults to daylight balance when flash is used (which is the correct setting). Leaving the camera on Auto should be fine therefore.

LF