dan_brown14

Has anyone done this? Was it a good decision? Or did you find the 18-70 was plenty

versatile, and the money not well spent on the pro lens?

Hi John & John!! This is a coincidence, I just happen to cruise through (been awhile) and

saw your post.

I was at the Stock Show last weekend with the family. Good as ever, and lots of photo-ops

as usual. Um, yes, I had my "darkside" camera around my neck (Nikon D100), but hey, I

was shooting a 35mm/f2 Nikkor, that's almost Summicron class, right??? Well, maybe not.

Anyway, I've been fairly busy, but if you do get together, e-mail me and I'll do my best to

make it. Might even bring a film body (snicker-snicker).

Cheers...

I've had my D100 for two years now. I clean the sensor every month or two. I use Eclipse

Fluid, Pec Pads, and a rubber spatula (do a search here for technique and supplies). It

works beautifully. You do need the Nikon AC power adapter to hold the shutter open for

the procedure. Having learned to do this, it makes the digital camera a joy to use without

that nagging concern about dust spots and lens changing and all that rot.

Here's a pic taken with the 300/2.8 Tokina and the D100, using an SB-80DX flash,

handheld...<div></div>

I sold my D100 24-85 lens and bought the 18-70, no regrets!

Add a 35/2D-AF, a 70-210/4.0-5.6D-AF, and a 60 Micro, and you good to go for most

anything.

Seriously...

I'll second the recommendation for the Tokina 300/2.8 AT-X MF lens. Tack sharp at 2.8

and beyond. I use mine with my F3HP, N90s, and, yes, my D100. A very fine lens, look

around, what ebay, they can be found and are usually great deals.

HTH

Thanks, but I' looking for the best lens for my D100?

;^)

Yeah, but the pancakes are stuck together, and, they tasted great with maple syrup.

Vivek, thanks for clearing that up, but wouldn'y the third party lenses also have the

diffraction issue at real small apertures?

I've settled on getting a 50-60mm macro lens for my D100. Of course, the Micro 60 is the

obvious choice as I've always preferred Nikkor glass.

But...

Sigma has athe new "DG" series 50mm macro, with strong claims of improved

performance for digital sensors. I've heard that the Tamron and Sigma macros are very

good optically. So, I'm wondering it this is a time when the Sigma is a better choice?

Has anyone noticed and aberrations for color fringing with the Micro 60 on a ditial camera.

Thanks...

I keep coming back to the 105/1.8 AIS and the 50/1.4 AIS Nikkors.

But then the 35/1.4 AIS Nikkor is very high on the list too.

4 MP is plenty for a lot of the Internet stuff I do, like this forum, ebay, web pages, and

8x10 prints, and so forth.

I really dislike the crappy little finders in the D100, the D70 is even worse.

What's great about a $1999 retail D2h is that next year a clean used one will be under

$1k, and that is something I will be very, very interested in.

Cheers...

Ah what fun we had. My son's 2nd grade singing songs and me with my N90s and D100.

I used the 35/2D-AF, the 70-210/4.0-5.6D-AF Nikkor, the 105/1.8 AIS, and (drum-roll

please) my Tokina 300/2.8 AT-X mf cannon! Most of the soccer moms had slightly

smaller rigs (snicker-snicker:^). Also, my SB-80DX strobe, which seems to work perfectly

with the N90s or D100 and AIS Nikkors (didn't even need to meter the flash only shots

with AIS/D100 combo). Od course, the N90s could easily CW meter the AIS lenses.

The Nikon system, it's plenty versatile.

Here's a pic using the 300/2.8 on the D100 with SB-80DX providing the light.

Cheers...<div></div>

"60" = 1/60 sec.

"X" = 1/80 sec.

I don't think so. I like the rubber eye ring, like on the N90s. I think the F100 is the same

way.

"I would be glad to have a small sendor DSLR that could give me the same view I have in

my F90X or my F2 (even better). Why cant Nikon magnify the darn image a little (with

some internal lens or somethimg else) and give me the perception of a full frame DSLR

with a larger image? After all it seems a simpler task than to make a complex DSLR itself."

This is the exact reason my D100 has been relegated to e-mail and ebay activities, and my

main camera is a trusty old F3HP with some fast AIS Nikkors!

Of all the camera types, rangefinder, TLR, view, SLR, etc, it is viewfinder that sets the SLR

apart. Why, oh why, have photogrphers allowed the camera manufacturers to get away

with the disgraceful degradation of SLR vewfinders in recent years? It's like making a

feature rich telephone terminal withh crappy audio quality (come to think ot it, cellular

already done this too!).

Oh well.

" If I were to go to a wider angle lens the distortion and line convergence possibilies

become a problem, no matter the latest lens technology. '

Herein lies a misunderstanding...

There is no optical or technical reason why 12mm lens on a Nikon digital body has any

more distortion than an 18mm lens on a full frame 35mm body. It is the angle of view of

the lens that creates inherent distortion, not the focal length. For example, designing a

"normal" lens for any given format is a well understood optical problem. So a 43mm lens

on a 35mm film camera is easy. So is a 5mm lens on a 3mm x 4mm format digital sensor,

or a 180mm lens for a 4"x5" camera.

There is no good reason for dictating a 24mm x 36mm sensor digital system, other than

maintaining consistency with the lens focal length to angle of view relationship. On the

other hand, cost of the sensor goes up exponentially with size because of the

fundamentals of semiconductor device production. IMHO, there is a better argument for a

larger image sensor related to depth of field.

Which version of the AF 80-200/2.8 do you prefer for an F3. The one-touch looks pretty

good, but are the optics of the two-touch better? Also, what about price used versus new,

the two-touch is just $700 with the rebate these days.

PS: I will also use the lens on an N90s from time to time.

Thanks...

I use the 70-210/3.5-5.6D-AF Nikkor on my D100 and have been very happy with it. My

wide lens is the 18-70/G, which is also quite acceptable.

In the past, I''ve had a number of secondary reflections appear due to filters.

Ever since I went back to MF-Nikkors, which are really bargains anymore, I've stopped

using any filters or lens caps at all. (well, except when I'm going for a specific filter effect

like color, etc.). Just a hood. It's a relief not to have to dink with all those little

accessories.

My personal musings on camera sounds..

N90s - Like a little firecracker, loud, but quick.

Mamiya 7 - Demur "click", that's it. But, then the film advance, no hiding that.

F3HP - What a manual focus camera shoud sound like.

Contax Aria - amazingly quiet for a motor driven SLR.

Leica M6 - 'Snick' goes the shutter, then the sublte timbre of tearing silk as the film

advnaces.

Great quote re: Leica M shutter - "It's not that people don't know you are taking photos,

it's just that they are continually reminded of it."

Cheers...

Well, I wear glasses and strongly recommend the HP finder. It's really nice to have the

generous view without having to carefully align and press my glasses to the finder. I have

found no other camera as comfortable for glasses wearers as the F3HP (although the

Contac RTS's are close).

But, my purpose for posting a repsonse is to suggested getting a cosmetically sound F3,

and then factoring a full Nikon CLA (around $250). I did this and my 1984 vintage F3HP is

like new and a true pleasure of a camera to shoot with in every regard.

Thanks for all the good responses.

On the 24-85/3.5-4.5, are you all talking about the later version of the AF lens?

Also, I was snooping around KEH and noticed some good deals in the Tokina AT-X 28-70/

2.8 AF lens. I seem to remember that lens being fairly well regarded. And, the focus

zoom rings look good (maybe feel good too?).

I had the M-carrier with my Leica. I never used it after the first outing. It's one of those

accessories that look great in the catalog, but that don't seem to work out well in real life.

IMHO, YMMV, HTH