Rich B NYC

This seems to be a somewhat common problem with the D80. I haven't experienced it myself, but I know several people who have.

 

If you go to the D80 Users Group at Nikonians, I believe that they still have a "sticky" post regarding this issue.

 

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=150&topic_id=21419&mesg_id

I love the Domke F5XB, but I think it's a bit small for what you have in mind. I generally use it with an M6 or M2 with a lens mounted (usually a 35mm 'cron) a 50mm 'cron and 90mm Tele-Elmarit.

 

What I did to mine was snip the threads on the front outside pockets with the exception of the middle row. That resulted in two larger pockets that allowed me to carry some extra film and/or a light meter.

 

You might also want to consider removing most of the velcro to elminate the rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp every time you open the bag.

I went through the macro lens selection process last year and ended up with a Tokina 100mm f2.8 AT-X Pro.

 

While I haven't compared it head-to-head with the Sigma, Tamron or Nikkor, I have been more than satisfied with it.

 

One thing that I will say about it is that it's built a lot better than the Sigma and Tamron and even a bit better (IMO) than the Nikkor.

There are lots of choices if you don't want i-TTL, CLS or the other things that make the Nikon speedlight system, arguably, the best available.

 

Heck, I used a 20-something year old SB22 on "Auto" before buying an SB600. I even used a Sunpak 383 Super. They worked, but didn't offer anywhere near the versatility or ease of operation of the SB600.

 

Do yourself a favor and buy an SB600, even if you have to wait a while to afford it.

"Concerning the use of electronics, there used be a Nikon House in Manhattan, New York. Around 1990, they had a display of a Nikon F4 completely taken apart."

 

Shun,

 

F4? You must be a young 'un. :-)

 

I spent many a lunchtime at Nikon House peering through the 2000mm lens they had pointing at 30 Rock and fondling the lastest gear.

 

They used to have the same parts display for either the original F or F2 but I don't recall which. Had to be in the early 70's so it was probably an F2. Amazing how many parts went into those bodies.

 

I also recall that they had a window on the second floor where you could have your camera checked out for free or purchase small accessories.

 

Now it's a Brookstone's store that sells overpriced odds and ends.

Similar situation with the D80 using matrix metering when there is a fairly large dark area in the center of the frame. While you can use -.7 exposure compensation, it's just as easy to switch to center-weighted metering which is more accurate under those conditions.

 

I'll second the suggestion with regard to Bryan Peterson's book. I just wish he had written it (about 40 years ago) when I first started shooting.

Mine also vignettes, even with a thin CPL. Although I don't normally use a CPL on my superwides, I tried it when I first got the lens just to see what would happen.

I no longer own one, but I do remember it being a bit flare-sensitive without a proper hood. Other than that, I found it very sharp and contrasty.

 

Assuming that there are no other issues, be sure to use the hood (HN2 if I recall).

 

As for close focusing performance, I believe that the AI version was the first Nikkor to feature CRC which was carried over to all subsequent versions of this lens. While it's not a macro lens, it's close focusing performance isn't bad at all.

That's really strange. There is no logical reason for this lens not to meter on a D40. The fact that it is an HSM lens means that it should also autofocus on a D40.

 

I don't know about the guy who's selling it, but I'm really surprised at KEH. I think that Sigma knows what cameras it lenses work on or it wouldn't be in business very long.

You seem to be doing fine with what you have, although it's hard to tell from the small file size. In any event, the focal lengths that you have can be used for pretty much anything.

 

If you're looking for higher quality/faster optics, what Matt suggests would certainly work. I'd also consider a 24-70 f2.8 instead of a 17-55 if you're thinking of going FX any time soon. Expensive stuff, but worth every cent.

I'm using a Gepe brand case which is supposed to be waterproof. I know that it floats (tried that with the case empty) but I won't swear that it's waterproof under any sort of pressure.

Not that I have anything against Sony, but Nikon and Canon simply have much more extensive lineups of lenses and accessories. In any event, I wouldn't let my choice of brand be swayed by two third-party consumer-grade zooms.

 

I've been using Nikons for over 30 years so am more familiar with that system than I am with Canon, but either will provide excellent performance.

 

Beware the D40/D40x/D60 bodies. As has already been mentioned, they will not autofocus with any but AF-S, AF-I and Sigma HSM lenses. This severely limits your choice of long telephoto lenses unless you wish to pay top dollar for the latest versions....silly to spend that kind of money on lenses for a consumer-grade body IMO.

 

If you want to go with Nikon and can't afford a D300, there are plenty of good used D200's for sale. While they cost more than a new D40/D40x/D60, they do not limit your ability to use almost any Nikon or third-party Nikon-mount lens made in the last 30 years.

 

Another brand that you really should consider is Pentax. The K10D was recently discontinued and is an excellent value. Pentax lenses are as good as anyone's and, since the body has built in image stabilization, there's no need for the more expensive VR/IS lenses that Nikon and Canon require.

 

Take your time on this. Whatever brand you decide upon should have a system that will support your needs now and in the future. Making the wrong decision can be very costly. I'd suggest going to a shop that has several brands that you can get your hands around just to see how they feel.

 

As a woman, your hands are likely smaller than most men's hands and you may not feel comfortable holding some of the larger cameras. No way to tell unless you actually get to play with a few brands and models.

Simon,

 

We seem to be of a mind with regard to the D80 and upgrades.

 

I was also tempted to upgrade to a D300, but just couldn't pull the trigger when I really gave it some thought.

 

If the D90 is to the D300 what the D80 is to the D200, I'll probably make that move. For now, The D80 is doing all that I need it to do.

I've been using a 55-200VR for about a year and have no complaints.

 

Although I did consider the 70-300VR, I decided that I didn't need the extra reach. The size of the 55-200 also came into play as I wanted a small, light lens to pair with my 18-70 for a two-lens kit.

 

I don't own a 70-300VR, but I have used one. Image quality is at least as good as a 55-200 and it's certainly built better. If I needed the extra reach, I wouldn't hesitate to buy one.

 

So far the plastic mount of the 55-200 hasn't caused any issues and I do tend to change lenses a lot. It took me a while to convince myself to go with a plastic mount lens considering I've been shooting with manual focus Nikkors and Leica M lenses for 40 years. At the price, I consider the lens to be disposable anyway.

 

I did check out both the Sigma 50-150 and and Tokina 50-135 f2.8's, and I agree that they are too expensive for a DX only lens in that range.

You can certainly get a D300 and two decent lenses for $2500. However, the lenses will not be optimised for anything as specific and demanding as architectural photography.

 

Without a PC lens, it's nearly impossible to prevent "keystoning" without backing way off from the building. If you can live with the distortion caused by this effect, a Tokina 12-24 f4 would work nicely.

 

For portraits, you can use a 50mm f1.8 which works out to a 75mm equivilent field of view on a DX sensor body.

 

Add these to a D300 and you come in at a little under $2500.

 

Personally, if I was trying to put together an architectural portfolio, I'd start with a lens such as a used manual focus Nikkor 24mm PC. They can be had used but are not inexpensive. It really depends on whether you really want professional looking results.

Melinda,

 

I've been shooting with a 55-200VR for almost a year. While nobody will mistake it for a 70-200VR, it's really a very good lens. It's sharp (even wide open), has decent contrast and nearly immeasurable distortion and CA. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone looking for a lens in this class. Just be sure that it's the VR version as it is quite a bit better than the non-VR lens.

 

While the 18-55 isn't bad, I still think that the 18-70 is better. In fact, it's arguably the sharpest of all the Nikon kit lenses (although the 18-135 is no slouch there either). I was ready to sell my 18-70 and buy a 17-55 f2.8 until I saw what the 18-70 could do stopped down to f8/f11. As I didn't need the f2.8 maximum aperture for my shooting (landscape) it wasn't a hard decision.

Trevor,

 

I know just the store. It went out of business last week. :-)

This whole cleaning thing seems to be overblown. Maybe I've just been lucky, but my D80 is about a year old and still doesn't need a cleaning. I've done the f22 on a white piece of paper routine a few times and there are only a few minor specks that don't even show up in the real world.

 

I bought the usual cleaning gadgets about a month after getting the D80 and haven't taken them out of their original packaging yet.

Lynn,

 

Two possibilities that I can think of.

 

1- Since you're shooting in low light, are you sure the issue isn't camera shake and not poor focusing? You might want to try a few shots on a tripod under controlled conditions just to rule that out.

 

2- Are you using release priority or focus priority for AF? If you aren't using focus priority, I would suggest that you do so as it will prevent the shutter from releasing until focus is locked.

 

By the way, nice shot. The vignetting isn't much of an issue in a shot like this. I actually think that it adds to the shot by focusing the viewers attention on the performer.

I own a bunch of lenses but my 18-70 has become my "go to" landscape lens. According to my EXIF data, I rarely use it beyond 50mm and most people seem to say the same thing. As has already been mentioned, your 18-55 should do the job for you.

 

Your going to find yourself almost always stopping down to f8 or smaller. At those apertures, things tend to even out quite a bit between the "kit" lenses and the pro glass.

 

If you really find the 18-55 letting you down optically (distortion, CA, sharpness) then it might be worth moving up to a more expensive lens.

 

I'd certainly also recommend a tripod as you may find yourself shooting at very slow shutter speeds due to the stopped-down aperture.

I've had a 55-200VR since they first were released and can't even imagine how many times it's been on and off my cameras. So far, I see absolutely no appreciable wear on the plastic mount. There is indeed a bit of scuffing, but nothing that would make me stay up nights worrying.

 

Other than for fear of wearing out the plastic mount, why would you want to do this?

Aidan,

 

I went through this last year and the bottom line is that I choose the D80. I'll give you my reasons.

 

I've used Nikons for 30 years and am very used to them. However, that isn't the no-brainer that it seems. All of my Nikon lenses were manual focus and they do not meter on the D80. However, my eyesight is bad enough that I'm now forced to use AF. That being the case, I had no real investment in glass to consider. Whichever brand I decided upon would mean purchasing new lenses.

 

Based on what I'd read and seen on the Internet, image quality was similar enough not to matter. Both brands offer more lenses and accesories than I need or could ever hope to afford.

 

The deciding factor for me came when I got my hands around both cameras and looked into the viewfinders. That the Nikon was better built was obvious just by picking up both bodies. However, the final factor was the viewfinder. The Canon was "squinty" and the Nikon wasn't.

 

At the time, there was a difference in price with the Nikon costing a few hundred dollars. Not insignificant, but it paled in comparison to what I'd be spending on lenses, so it really didn't matter.

 

All that I can suggest it to get yourself to a camera store that stocks both bodies. Pick them up. Look through their viewfinders. Play with the controls. You can learn more in ten minutes handling the cameras than you will in weeks/months of reading about them here.

Jeremy,

 

A Nikkor 55-200VR for $200 is a very good deal. Just be sure that it is indeed the VR version as it is quite a bit better than the non-VR version.

 

I've been using the VR version for about a year and am really impressed with it. I like its light weight, small size and that it takes all of my old 52mm filters. I'm not crazy about the plastic lens mount, but so far it's showing no sign of wear after numerous lens changes.

 

Optically, it's pretty sharp wide open and gets better (no surprise) stopped down. Almost no distortion or CA which is a rarity given the price. It's a bit slow (f5.6) at the long end, but VR makes up for it to some degree but still doesn't allow you to throw backgrounds out of focus to any degree.

 

Hard to go wrong with the 55-200VR, but the 70-300VR is probably the better lens overall, if you have the extra money to spend. Again, it's only f5.6 at the long end so bear that in mind.

Kyle,

 

I've been using one for about a year and am very satisfied with it. Pretty much identical to the 90mm Tamron in performance but has a much higher build quality.

I'll second Dave's suggestion. I've owned a few A series Canons and they are very good cameras. They take AA batteries and can be had used for under $100 depending upon the model.

 

You can check www.keh.com for exact prices.