kerry_grim

I would keep those two great lenses and purchase a film body just to use them.

I agree with what Eric Waller said...buy her a book by John Shaw. His writings are excellent and easy to understand as he is an excellent communicator.

My son who is 13 uses the Canon 4.0L and I use the 2.8L lens. He would not trade for mine as size and weight are more important to him. I was willing to put up with the extra size, weight, and cost in order to get the extra stop of light. Believe me, there is a big difference.

 

Both of us have been using these lenses at high school cross country meets with excellent results using ISO 100 print film. We never compared them optically. The tests I have seen show them to be very similar, with possibly a very slight edge to the f4 version. However, technique is everything.

 

It is true; with L lenses you will get a lot of attention. Although we keep the lenses hidden as much as possible, we still get too much attention. The previous year without these lenses, not a single person approached us. If I were to take sneaky candid photos, I would get a shorter lens like the 135 f2.

 

I think it basically amounts to cost, size, and weight. Is it worth the extra expense and effort to carry the 2.8 version? Either lens is excellent.

 

Another thing to consider would be?if you owned a 17-40 or other lenses that use 77mm threads, then a polarizing filter would fit both. A circular polarizing filter for either of these lenses is very expensive, but you would not want to chance degrading optical quality because of a cheap filter.

Thank you all. I am not sure what I will do, but these are great response and gives me ideas I did not think of. And after reading the responses, I don't think I can complain. Owning 13 lenses, most going back to about 1983 these are the only problems I have had. Since there are a lot of mechanical parts involved, I have to agree, some maintenance is to be expected over time. They have been about 99.9% maintenance free. I think your answers are a reminder to me just how tough Nikon lenses really are! Thanks again.

I have owned a Nikon 35mm f2 lens for a number of years. I just had

slides developed and every picture taken with this lens was extremely

over exposed. Sure enough, after all these years, the aperture blades

are now occasionally sticking because of the excess oil. This has

been discussed numerous times on this forum. So now what do I do with

this lens? It is well out of warranty and surely not worth the cost

to have it repaired, specially since I was intending on selling it,

which in all honesty I could not do now, even if it is difficult to

replicate the sticking.

 

This is not the only lens problem. My 55mm f2.8 micro has become very

tough to focus due to the grease stiffening. Heating the lens works

only temporarily and a Nikon estimate is more than my original

purchase price. Optically it is awesome, but the only option seems to

be to use as is or save as a paper weight. I did buy the new 50mm 1.8

earlier in the year. Optically great, mechanically I have my doubts,

but at least it has a focus scale and depth of field marks unlike

Canon's cheapie 50mm lens.

 

BTW, the reason I intended on selling the 35mm lens (and most of my

other Nikon gear)...I wanted a fast autofocus lens of 70-200 for

sports and I would need a new body for this as well. I would not

settle for a lack of mirror lockup which I would use for nature

photography. The F5 is nice, but a brick for hiking and I had no

intentions nor could afford the Nikon 70-200 VR lens. Sorry, but this

is where Canon fits the bill quite nicely. I didn't have to buy their

top-of-the-line products to get fast focus or mirror lockup. Nikon

seems to cater to low-end market and the high-end professional market

with little between. Canon, for example has a 70-200 f4 zoom,

optically excellent, and much more portable than equivalent f2.8

zooms. I guess Nikon does not see a need for an equivalent lens as

there are numerous other zooms to cover this range. None of which I

care for. I use film bodies with ASA 100 films.

 

My intensions are NOT to bash Nikon and certainly not to start a

Nikon vs. Canon thread or war. Both systems are very capable and as

everyone knows, it is technique that is important. I have not

abandoned Nikon entirely, I will keep some equipment that is worn or

is almost worthless to try to sell. My 28mm f2.8 AI-S and 105 f2.5 AI-

S are just wonderful optically and mechanically, and I will not

depart with them.

 

Are we now in the age of disposable lenses? It seems Nikon does not

make them like they used to, at least mechanically. Or, are the more

expensive lenses built better? I realize today, it would be expensive

to build the lenses like they used to be built. Are the manual AI-S

lenses still of the same build quality like they used to be years

ago? I doubt that other manufacturers are any different. I just do

not have the confidence in newer Nikon lenses I had twenty years ago.

Nikon seems to have lost the distinction with quality lenses, at

least with me. Canon was smart categorizing their better-built lenses

with the "L" designation.

I have the Nikon 28 f2.8 AI-S lens. I am in the process of switching to Nikon's competitor for reasons I will not go into. However, I will keep some Nikon equipment and this lens is on the top of the list of equipment I will keep. It is a gem.

Thank you everyone...very informative. Likely I will purchase a warming filter and will consider B+W which was a company that I was not familiar with.

I just orderd a Canon 70-200 f2.8 L lens and eventually I will

purchase a 17-40 f4 L lens. I am still a film user and will need a

circular polarizer which at 77mm will not a cheap item .

 

What are thoughts on a warming polarizer? Now I see there is a

polarizing filter built to Moose Petersons specifications. Does

anyone have experience with this? Also, what are good brands to

choose from? I am purchasing L lens for their optical quality so I

can not see purchasing a cheap filter if it would reduce sharpness.

 

Is the Canon polarizing filter worth the price? I will not be using

any other filters in combination with the polarizing filter. Thank

you much for your suggestions.

I certainly agree. Nikon has really complicated things. You really must be aware of the compatibility problems with which lens works 100% with a particular body. Sure, a 1960s lens may fit on a new body, but beyond that, compatibility is a problem.

I am in need of a 70-200 zoom that I will use to take photos of running events and also want to use it for landscape. In order to to get a very fast autofocus lens I would need the VR lens but also a pro body. I like the F100, but it does not have mirror lockup. So this is too expensive for the average photographer unless possibly buying used. With Canon, I can buy their 70-200 f4 zoom, have an excellent quality lens and it will work well on a cheap body (Elan 7N). And, the 7N has mirror lockup. My son has used this combination with surprising results.

 

When Canon change camera mounts a few years ago, they may have left many owners in the dust, but for the new buyer there lens system works very nice. However, Nikon does have an excellent, capable line of lenses, but, it may take some research to get just what you want.

 

Oh, don't forget the term AF-S which I keep forgetting...does it mean silent motor, or is it fast motor, or both? Too many lens designations! Good luck.

Can anyone see into a crystal ball and tell (well, speculate) if

Nikon will come out with an updated (AF-S) version of their very

popular 2.8 lens. I would eventually like to get a zoom as this is a

range I am missing. I do mostly landscapes and nature with film

cameras and mostly do not need the speed or weight of the current

f2.8 lens. I do not need a fast focus lens although if I had one I

would likely buy a fast focus film camera such as the F100 for my

kid?s track and field events. As good a lens and as popular as this

lens is, I would prefer a smaller and lighter f4. In fact, if I had

the luxury of starting over, I would start go with Canon just to get

ther excellent 70-200 f4 lens. Hopefully Nikon is listening?

Thank you everyone, I rechecked the lens per the above responses and it appears the lens will need to be repaired under warrenty. Thank you.

My son has a Canon Elan 7N and 28-135 IS lens and recently acquired a

70-200 f4 lens. With the 70-200 the top LCD display indicates if

focusing in manual or automatic. With the 28-135 IS lens there is no

indication indicating manual or automatic. The autofocus switch on

the IS lens has no affect whether switched to AF or MF. Is this lens

working properly?