robert_finkelman

I had a hell of a time trying to find one myself for my F5s. Seems as though Nikon has either stopped or has scaled back production. I found mine brand new by doing a google search. Ultimately found one at Mel Pierce Camera in Hollywood, CA.

Good luck,

Rob

The 28 1.4 are all gone. Reportedly, before their discontinuation, Nikon was only producing about 50 of them a month, so there never was much of a supply of them anyway. I may have purchased the very last brand new USA Warranty one left in the States when the discontinuation was announced. It came from Helix Camera in Illinois. You can try them, but when I bought it, (6-8 months ago) they said that they figured it was the last one they would ever see. Even B&H has discontinued listing it on their website, so that's a fair indication that the lens has gone the way of the Dodo.

Don't mean to be a downer, but aside from lucking upon one at a Ma and Pa camera store somewhere, your best bet is E*ay. Be prepared to spend at least $2000 for a "new" one.

Best of luck,

Rob

So from all of your responses, I am inclined to believe that performance yielded by AAs in an F5 is as follows (from best to worst):

1) Lithium AA

2) NiMh AA

3) Alkaline AA

Is this correct?

Also, about the 9th battery adapter; has anybody used it? Does anyone know where to get it?

Thanks again,

Rob

Hi everyone & Happy New Year!

I own three Nikon F5s which I have used for several years. I own three MN30

packs and chargers, one for each camera, which boost longevity and bring the

frame rate of my cameras up to their full fabled 8fps limit.

Lately though, I have have had the desire to use standard batteries in my F5s so

as to conserve the life-span of my MN30s by not using them so much (as you know,

they have a maximum number of recharges before they are exhausted, requiring you

to buy another expensive pack.)

I am VERY confused as to the prime canditate for AAs to use. I have done a

search on the forum for this question and have found many conflicting answers,

with some standing by Alkalines, while others swear by Lithiums.

Can some ultra-knowledgeable soul please give me the definitive answer on these

issues:

1) Which form of AAs will yield the most number of rolls (I live in Southern

California, where it was 72 degrees today, so cold temps are not a factor)?

2) Will one type of battery yield a higher frame rate than another?

3) I have found links to a website advancing the invention of a "9th battery

adapter, but the website is written by a German fellow whose command of English

is less than grand, and whose website is a complete mess. The site doesn't even

list where to procure one. Does anyone use this adapter, and if so, does it

work? Can it do harm to the camera? What frame rates and longevity do you see

using it? Where the hell can I get one??

I'd love to put this issue to rest and get to shooting with AAs, saving my MN30s

for the rare cold weather shoot or instance where I need a high frame rate such

as at Formula One races which I attend regularly as a spectator.

Many thanks in advance for your responses.

Rob

Does anyone know where I can get this filter new in the box? I'm having a hell

of a time locating one, with B&H and Adorama out of stock. Any help would be

appreciated.

Thanks,

Rob

Hi.

I own the 85 1.4D, 105 2DC and the 80-200 2.8 AF-S, which is the predecessor to the 70-200 and very close in terms of performance. Being that my profession is a headshot/fashion/portraiture photographer, these three lenses represent the most used in my collection.

The 85 1.4 is by quite a margin the best lens of the three for wide aperture, small depth of field headshots. In fact, it is usually regarded as one of the best lenses in Nikon's entire catalogue. The bokeh of out of focus elements is unrivaled, while the sharpness of in focus details is remarkable. MUCH better lens in those facets than the 85 1.8, plus M-1 Abrams tank build quality, compared to the 1.8s plastic shell. My favorite lens in the world.

The 105 is very good too. I could do without the DC, as it really doesn't make itself practical for me. I'd rather Nikon redesign one day with AF-S (the 105 is a tad slow compared to the 85, and a LOT slower than the 80-200 AF-S or 70-200 AF-S) and drop the DC. Nonetheless another great workhorse with good bokeh and sharpness.

The 80-200 AF-S and 70-200 AF-S are outstanding lenses especially when I am on a fashion shoot or magazine spread and need the ability to change my framing quickly (zooming rather than changing lenses). Great sharpness and creamy OOF backgrounds, but slow (2.8 aperture) compared to the 85 and 105, which can make a real difference in some instances (ie: trying to shoot wide open in bright outdoor lighting). If flexible framing is your primary need, a three lens collection consisting of the 17-35 2.8D AF-S, 28-70 2.8D AF-S, and the 70-200 2.8G AF-S are all you'll ever need. There is a reason why these lenses are known as the "Three Kings" in the Nikon zoom catalog! The three will, however, set you back about $4500. Not cheap.

Overall though, the 85 1.4D is the clear winner for me.

Rob

The DK-19 is the replacement eyecup for the F3, F4, F5, F6. Buy without fear, I have a DK-19 on my F4 right now.

Rob

Those who say that the 1.8 is superior to the 1.4 are generally people who cannot or would not pay for the 1.4. Though it is safe to say that the 1.4 does not deliver twice the performance of the 1.8, thus not really justifying twice the price, I can assure you that the 1.4 is indeed the superior lens.

As far as build quality is concered, the 1.8 is the cheapest piece of crap in the entire Nikkor line-up, with the entire unit, save for the lens-mount, being low quality plastic. It even lacks a focusing window.

Even though the 1.8 is a remarkably good lens for the money, there is a reason why it is the cheapest lens Nikon offers. Don't believe the hype, the 1.4 is the better lens.

Rob

I would think it's a combination of reasons:

1) Nikon makes far more money selling a million 18-70mm a year, as oppossed to selling a few thousand 500mm or 600mm lenses that can only be afforded by wealthy photographers, periodicals and pros who truly need such lenses.

2) It is very expensive and time consuming to create such lenses, and thus perhaps they are currently in development.

3) The profit margin on these lenses is much smaller than on consumer oriented lenses. Furthermore, the time it takes to make a return on the development costs on mega-optics is much longer, thus reducing the incentive for Nikon to invest in redoing them.

4) With the APS-C sensor virtually dominating Nikon's entire product line of bodies, there is MUCH smaller demand for such powerful optics, as the magnification factor turns these lenses into true monsters of focal length!

I would imagine that since we have seen the release of the 200mm 2G AF-S VR, 300mm 2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR, and the 200-400mm VR in just the past couple of years, we will eventually see the 400, 500, and 600 released in due time.

Rob

It has been an axiom since the advent of photography that it is the lens, not the camera that is all important in achieving good photographs.

Nikon is the only lens manufacturer that still produces its own glass in house (yes, even Zeiss and Leica use glass from other companies). What that translates to is that the specs and tolarences on Nikon glass is EXACTLY what is needed for any specific lens design, since they mould, grind, coat and polish their own glass. This is the primary reason why Nikon Pro glass has always been considered a cut (pardon the pun) above the rest.

In no way disparaging other lens manufacturers, I would consider putting an aftermarket lens on a $1000+ Nikon camera akin to putting Costco tires on a Ferrari F599. You might as well buy a Russian made crap-camera.

My advice: Buy Nikon lenses. Their Pro glass is of superior quality, is fully functional with all Nikon F-mount cameras (with a few exceptions) and will hold its resale value better than any of the Tokinas, Sigmas, et al. In my collection I have at least five lenses that I could sell for the same money or more that I bought them for (17-35 2.8D AF-S, 28-70 2.8D AF-S, 28mm 1.4D, 300mm 2.8D ED-IF AF-S II

and 80-200 2.8D AF-S).

Rob

Terry -

I have been using Nikon cameras in my work as a fashion, protrait & headshot photographer since the early 1980s. Over the years, I have bought a sizeable collection of Nikon lesnses, and like you, my rule of thumb in buying was to only buy the best.

Having said that, here is the list of lenses that I own, and therefore represent the BEST lenses Nikon has to offer in each focal length in the AF-D range:

Primes:

18mm 2.8D,

20mm 2.8D,

24mm 2.8D,

28mm 1.4D,

35mm 2D,

50mm 1.4D,

60mm 2.8D Micro,

85mm 1.4D,

105mm 2D DC,

135mm 2D DC,

180mm 2.8D,

200mm 4D Micro,

300mm 2.8D ED-IF AF-S II

Zooms:

17-35mm 2.8D AF-S,

28-70mm 2.8D AF-S,

80-200mm 2.8 AF-S

Rob

Hi.

I believe that Samy's Camera on Fairfax in Los Angeles has an FM3A new in box; at least I saw one there about a month ago. Give the Fairfax location a call at 323-938-2420. If they've sold it, try a good old Google search for it. you'd be suprised at how much new old stock there is out there. Case in point: I found a brand new in box USA 80-200 2.8D AF-S at Digital Foto Club a couple of months ago by doing a Google search, and that lens was discontinued over 3 years ago!

Good luck.

Rob

I have been a profession headshod/portrait/fashion photographer since the late eighties, and only use three lenses for ALL of my professional work. Here there are in order of best to least best:

1) 85mm 1.4 AF-D: Simply the finest bokeh Nikon has to offer. Built like an Abrams tank. 9 bladed aperture for circular out of focus elements. Balances well on my F5. THE BEST LENS NIKON HAS EVER MADE FOR PORTRAITURE, IMHO.

2) 105mm 2 DC: Excellent bokeh. DC produces interesting, though not necessary results. Excellent build quality. Also balances well on an F5.

3 80-200mm 2.8 AF-S: not the best for portraits per se, but an excellent tool in situations where it's better to be able to change framing quickly as oppossed to having to change lenses. SUPER-FAST AUTOFOCUS.

So there you have it. To give you an further idea of how much I love the 85, I have 3 extra 85 1.4 AF-D lenses sitting brand new, unused, in boxes which should insure that I have one to shoot with for the rest of my life!

Another recommended lens as others have pointed out is the 135mm 2 DC, which I also own, but generally find it's focal length to be too long for headshots.

Good luck!

Rob

Hi.

I bought three brand new F5s from Cameta a few years ago when the F6 was announced. All were brand spanking new (ahh, that new camera smell!) with USA warranties. Also STOLE a brand new USA 18mm 2.8 AF-D from them for $799 (they often retail for $1400!) The lens was perfect too.

It is my understanding that when Nikon discontinued the F5, Cameta bought up ALL the remaining stock from Nikon, both new and refurb. Chances are what you are considering is one of those refurb bodies that they still have left.

My experience with Cameta? No problems, solid merchandise, decent price (especially on that 18mm." You won't have a problem with them at all.

Congrats on the F5. In my mind it is still the best 35mm camera ever made, F6 included!

Rob

Hi.

Most serious macro photographers do not use autofocus when photographing small objects. This is due to the typically narrow depth of field yielded by true macro lenses. Finding the correct focus plane is critical in these situations, ergo using manual focus.

Having said that, I own and use the 60mm 2.8D and find it to be a wonderfull lens. If you are dead set on an AF macro, have a look at the AF 200 4D. I have been considering buying one, and recently posted asking folks for their input. the consensus was that it is quite simply the best macro lens in the world.

Rob

Ramon -

My point was that people only start with the too heavy business when the subject of an F5 comes up. You never hear it when people are talking about the D1, D2, and F6! Those are certainly no lightweights, nor are they compact, yet somehow they get a pass on the wieght and size issue.

Rob

It never ceases to amaze me how trendy it has become to label the F5 as "too heavy." It has become trendy. I have three F5s, and in addition to believing it to be the best film camera ever made (F6 included), I have never found them to be too heavy. In fact if you look at the stats, you will find the following:

D2Xs Weight: 2.4 lbs (no battery)

D2H Weight: 2.46 lbs (no battery)

F6 Weight : 2.78 lbs (with MB-40 pack but no batteries)

F5 Weight: 2.54 lbs (including 8 AA batteries!)

So lets put this one to bed once and for all.

Thanks,

Rob

Cayuga -

To be honest it sounds like TOTAL B.S. ALL lenses in the current Nikon lineup have 100% compatability with all Nikon bodies. I have never heard a single report of their being a problem with the 105/D200 combo.

If you are dead-set though, I'd rank the 85 1.4 as the best of the three you listed, with the 70-200 next and the 105 last.

Rob

Edward -

Also, I noticed that the link to the MTF curve for the 80-200 is for the wrong lens. The curve you linked is for the 80-200 2.8D ED, not the 80-200 2.8D ED-IF AF-S. Two totally different lenses with totally different optical formulas.

Rob

Edward -

MTF curves and such are just one indicator of lens performance, and can only be given so much creedence for two very simple resons:

1) MTF tests are done in a test room environment with all performance affecting variables (temperature, humidity, light sources, color temperature) adjusted to yield maximum results. The environment in which these tests are done is therefore solely an indicator of how a lens will perform in a best case scenario. This does not represent how a lens will perform in real world situations where many of these parameters are likey to be quite different. Even some of the most knowledgeable and renowned photography experts do not place much weight on these tests, and instead trust their own experiences on how a given lens performs.

2) Lenses vary from sample to sample. Even a company like Nikon which invests tremendous sums of money into quality control sees variances in performance between samples of the same model of lens. Michael Weber and Thom Hogan, both highly esteemed photographers and lens experts, write of many instances in which two samples of the same lens have varied greatly in terms of sharpness, contrast and even exposure. The point being, we don't know the quality of samples Nikon used for those MTF tests. One would assume that they used control samples, but the website doesn't state that.

In closing, I own the 85 1.4, 80-200 AF-S and 180 2.8D, and find the 85 to be the best of the lot for my own work. The other two, have no doubt, provide me with excellent results as well. I only see slight differences, and it's doubtful in a blind test that you would be able to tell the difference.

Rob

By the way, here is a photo of the original Nikon AF-S prototype lens mounted on an F2 body. According to the Nikon website, the lens was shocased in 1971 and was an 80mm f/4.5.

Rob

Ilkka -

In response to your statement: "Really? The 300mm AF-S was released in 1996, and the 85/1.4 in 1995. Lens development takes a lot longer than 1 year ..."

For the record: the 85mm 1.8 (non D) lens was designed in 1986-1988 and was released in April of 1988. It was updated to D-type specification and released in March of 1994.

The 85mm 1.4 was designed from 1994-1996, and was born as a D series lens and released in September of 1996.

The first AF-S lenses released were done so in 1996 and were all $4000 plus telephoto lenses as AF-S was an extremely advanced and expensive technology at the time. Nikon began AF-S type research as far back as the 1970's and even released a prototype lens for the F2 series! It was not a practical consumer technology until 1996 because of the aforementioned cost and technical factors.

So to address your statements: The 85mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.4D were not designed "on a budget" as they were designed well before AF-S was even a viable technology on a consumer lens. They were both state-of-the-art when developed, especially the 85 1.4D. In fact, the 1.4 is optically, still one of the more advanced lenses in the Nikon palette.

Today, of course, the situation is different, and AF-S is apprearing on lower priced lenses in the lineup. This is because the development costs of AF-S has been covered by sales of AF-S lenses in the past 10 years.

The reason why Nikon has NEEDED to introduce AF-S on a broad spectrum of lenses these days is because other manufacturers, notably C*non, have incorporated motors in their lenses from the very begining of autofocus design. Nikon on the other hand made the decision way back in the 1980's to incorporate the motors in the camera bodies, which was the only way at the time (pre AF-S) to mitigate autofocus capability while still retaining the F Mount. I have read that the executives at Nikon agonized over the decision to change the lens mount (like C*non did from FD to EF) and have faster focusing lenses, or to retain the F Mount and have slower autofocusing lenses that satisfied the millions of F mount lens owners by not making their lenses obsolete. They eventually felt that the latter was the correct decision, so as to maintain their user base. A conservative approach from a traditionally conservative company.

Phew! There you have it. Let's move on...

Rob

Mike and Joel -

Points well taken. I should've pointed out in my original post that I am a film holdout, who will continue to use my beloved f5s until Nikon gives me a full frame D3x. The 200 micro would be used on my F5s.

Rob

Ilkka -

You are incorrect in stating that the 1.4 was made with a budget in mind because it has screwdriver focus. Both the 1.8 and 1.4 were developed before AF-S technology was developed by nikon.

Rob

Michael -

Just read an article that seems to temper Bjorn's take.

http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=357

Do you mind reading it and giving me your take?

Rob