bourboncowboy

October 31, 2009

The D50 was (and still is) a very capable camera. I still use an IR-converted one. I picked up a D90 for a while and it's almost the exact same size as the D50 - with a larger screen, subcommand dial, and a lot more bells and whistles.

Pick up one of these and you'll forget the D50.

October 23, 2009

KEH. Shoot em an email at <a href="mailto:repairs@keh.com">repairs@keh.com</a>. You'll get a response within a couple days with an estimate. If you ship your camera to them and they find something wrong with it, they'll tell you how much the repair will cost. You can accept the price or decline - in which case, they'll ship the camera back to you at no cost.

I've used them to repair a D50, CLA a 35/2, and CLA a 28-105. They've never disappointed me.

October 23, 2009

As has been mentioned, the Tamron 17-50 is a wonderful lens. Later, when you have more $$$ to spend, you can pair it with a 70-300VR (also about $400-425, used) and you'll have a great combo. To put the icing on the cake, they both take 67mm filters, so you won't have to buy CPs in different sizes.

October 21, 2009

If I were building an FX kit:

<ul>

<li>17-55. (you've already go it, so I'll skip the reasons to buy it)</li>

<li>Sigma 30 1.4. Nikon really offers nothing quite like it at the price point. Just be sure to get a new one with the warranty. They often have front-focusing problems, but these can be ironed out with a return trip to Sigma. For center sharpness and bokeh, nothing Nikon makes comes close (other than the 28 1.4)</li>

<li>70-200VR. It's not a DX lens, but it's a perfect compliment to the 17-55. The IQ is amazing, it focuses fast, and there's no whining about vignetting - as there is on FX bodies.</li>

</ul>

Other lenses to consider:

<ul>

<li>Sigma 50 1.4. It's the big brother to the 30 1.4. While it's a full frame lens, it will work magnificently with a DX body - and it uses 77mm filters (just like the 17-55 and 70-200).</li>

<li>Tamron 90 2.8 macro. If you can find one without the built-in motor, it can be a tremendous buy. I paid $190 for mine. It also works well with the Kenko 1.4 Tc.</li>

<li>Sigma 10-20. Yeah, you can get the 3.5 constant aperture version, but why? The variable aperture version still delivers stunning shots for a lot less $$$.</li>

</ul>

October 21, 2009

Take a good look at the 80-200. Close the aperture blades. Do you see anything that looks like water, rust, or oil. Look on both sides and use a flashlight. If you see any of this, pass. This is oil, and it will cause the blades to stick. If you see anything that looks like a small, fine spider web - this is fungus. You can't get rid of it, and it'll get worse. If you see this, pass.

Now take a look at the glass elements - both of them. Any scratches? Do you see any cleaning marks on the coatings? If so, you might have problems when shooting into a brightly-lit subject. If you see either of these, test the lens by shooting with it. If there's a problem, pass.

I'd normally advise you to look through the lens for dust. However, it would take a LOT of dust in a lens to interfere with IQ.

Otherwise, the $200 is a great price - even for the push-pull zoom.

October 21, 2009

I'm gonna agree with Eric's answer. If you wanna shoot with the non-AF-S lenses, you'll need the D80. It's far from a perfect camera, but it's pretty good. But I tend to like the older lenses.

On the other hand, if you plan on shooting DX lenses, you've got a good camera...so quit thinking about what could be, and just start shooting.

October 21, 2009

I've never owned the 16-85, but as long as I own a DX camera, I'll own two lenses: the Tamron 17-50, and the Sigma 30 1.4. Nikon simply doesn't offer a quality alternative to either with regard to IQ/speed/bokeh...which I consider absolutely necessary for my type of shooting.

October 21, 2009

I've had three copies of the 18-55 and one copy of the 18-200. Here's my take:

<ul>

<li>From 18-24mm, the 18-200 produces too much distortion - which is the biggest problem;</li>

<li>The 18-55 produces much less - which is the lens' biggest strength.</li>

<li>The 18-200 uses 72mm filters - which I don't own;</li>

<li>The 18-55 uses 52mm filters - which I've got...everywhere;</li>

<li>The 18-200 is the perfect lens for lazy tourists who don't wanna change lenses;</li>

<li>The 18-55/55-200 require an occasional lens change;</li>

<li>The 18-200 is much more expensive;</li>

<li>The 18-55/55-200 combo is much cheaper.</li>

<li>NONE of these lenses are as good as either the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Nikon 17-55 2.8 within the same focal lengths.</li>

</ul>

October 17, 2009

Since you haven't bought a body to convert as of yet, I'd strongly recommend the D70.

First, as was mentioned, the D100 is quite a bit heavier. This makes a big difference when lugging it around to scenic locations. The lighter the better.

Next, as was also mentioned, the batteries of the D70 are compatible with your D80. That is, the batteries in the D80 are backwards-compatible with the D70. One charger two batteries - this makes things much simpler.

Also, the user interface of the D100 is older and a bit more clunky. You have to use menus and buttons just to delete a shot. Two button presses on the D70 and your shot is deleted. Again, the simplicity wins out.

Finally, the D70 handles noise a bit better than the D100. I dunno why, but the shots from the D70 seem cleaner than those of the D100. Even in IR photography, this makes a LOT of difference - particularly when you print 16 x 20" like I do.

I've used both the D50 and D70 for IR shooting. I currently only own the D50IR and highly recommend looking for one for a conversion. While I started shooting IR with the D70 and 18-70, I've found that the D50 and 18-55 make a better combination with less tendency to produce a central hot spot. This combo also handles noise particularly well and is light enough to carry around all day with no discomfort. This reduced weight allows me to carry and use an ultralight tripod instead of a larger, heavier 'pod.

As for manual lenses... Unless you're simply feeling nostalgic, skip 'em. Most don't have the coatings necessary to make good renderings in IR. Of course, there are a few notable exceptions - such as the 28 3.5. These can usually be found cheap on ebay. I think I paid $40 for a mint non-Ai version that I converted for $25. It's about the best manual lens I've ever used for IR shooting. Of course, you won't have metering on the D50/70/100, but it shouldn't take you a long time to realize the proper settings by chimping.

Hope this helps.

October 15, 2009

Joe,

The batteries are new. I installed them about ten days ago, so I don't think that's the problem.

There must be something wrong in the "mousetrap" that's got things fouled up. I've been thinking about sending it in for a CLA. This just might give me the reason to do it.

October 15, 2009

Thanks guys, but no luck. The batteries were installed with the Kodachrome and the home fix didn't work. Everything seems to be in the right position, but the problem seems to be with the film advance lever and the shutter release button. The shutter release is stuck in the depressed position and won't pop back up, and (I think) that's got something to do with the film advance lever being locked.

October 14, 2009

I've got an old FE2 that I really like. A few days ago, I loaded a roll of Kodachrome in it and took a few shots. No problems. Today I tried to shoot a few more shots, and it acts as if it's locked up. The shutter release button seems stuck in the depressed position, and the film advance lever won't move the film. It will open slightly, as if to activate the meter, but it won't go any farther. I've tried to reset the camera, to no avail. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

October 13, 2009

If you plan on upgrading to the D700, you should take a long look at the Nikon 28-105. It's very sharp, has little distortion, and has a handy macro feature that's better than you'd expect from a lens that you can buy used for $150-175. It's my walkaround lens for my D700.

October 13, 2009

I think Joe has the right idea. I can't find any information that leads me to believe that an Ai conversion kit was ever made for this lens. I might be wrong about that though.

If you can find one that works, the conversion is easy. All you need is a VERY small precision screwdriver set and a pair of steady hands. Good luck.

October 12, 2009

If you're enlarging your shots to 100% to view on your monitor, you'll definitely see the imperfections. If you print (or have them printed) at smaller sizes, the imperfections are usually hidden a bit. I've taken hundreds of shots that looked like crap at 100%, but they rendered nicely on paper.

One other thing...

Your printing source might offer "lab corrected prints" which might change the overall appearance slightly. However, this usually applies only to the color and not the sharpness of the prints. Personally, I've found that MeridianPro, Mpix, and WhiteHouse all do fine printing work. I typically stick with Meridian since the quality is comparable and the price is lower.

October 5, 2009

You can print it as large as you'd like, but you need to clean it up a bit first. I'd suggest a trip through Noise Ninja , a touch of USM, a brief scamper through Photoshop levels, and a slow stroll through the color adjustments.

But, if you use Lightroom/Lightroom 2 or other really awesome software, you can do even better.

October 5, 2009

A ball head on a monopod? Skip it. If you really just want to spend some $$$ get a quick-releae clamp from RRS or Kirk.

October 5, 2009

I don't know what a "wanking amount" is, but I generally agree. If you want to test this, get a sticky note, tear off a piece of it about the size of a pencil eraser. Put it anywhere on the front element of the lens and take a few test shots. I'll be willing to bet that you won't notice that much of a difference between those shots and shots taken without the obstruction.

October 5, 2009

I've got both cameras...and I agree with Gary. If you're worried about TTL shooting, pick up the F100 (which I also have).

As for the FE/FE2...

Either will be great. But, as mentioned above, it's a tradeoff. Non-Ai lenses are cheaper, but the other advantages of the FE2 will equalize this. Flip a coin...you can't lose.

October 5, 2009

Sally,

I've got the 70-300VR, and it's a nice lens. However, if you plan on shooting in less than optimum lighting, you'll need something faster. The 80-200 2.8 is a nice option. You can find them in excellent used condition for not much more than a new 70-300VR. I would also recommend looking for a used 180 2.8. This is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, and unless you're shooting fast moving, sports shots, it's one of the best investments you'll ever make.

I'll also recommend the following:

Tamron 17-50 2.8. I shoot with a D90 (DX) and D700 (FX). This lens is only marginally less sharp than the Nikon 17-55.

Sigma 30 1.4. This lens is the only reason I still have a DX camera. It's that good. The shallow depth of field is stunning. Just be sure that you can test it out before you buy it, as there is some sample variation with Sigma lenses. For what it's worth, I also have the Sigma 50 1.4 for my D700. I can't begin to explain how good it is.

Nikon SB-600. You could easily spend twice as much for the SB-900, but it's proven to be a headache, and the 600 will work for 90% of the shots you'll want to take. The kicker is that the D70 will control the 600 off camera, so you can place it in different spots around the room. Hint: pick up a copy of Joe McNally's "The Hot Shoe Diaries." It's a great read, and you'll learn a lot about using off-camera flash. I would recommend the SB-800 (I have three of them), but they've been discontinued, and used prices are astronomical.

Bogen 3021BPro. Look around to find one of these used, as they have ben discontinued. You should be able to find them relatively cheaply. They're quite sturdy. I paid $125USD for mine in mint condition. Some people will tell you that you need to pay big $$$ for Gitzo. I disagree. I've sold hundreds of shots taken from my lowly Bogen tripod and monopod.

Arca Swiss B1. Well, there's no such thing as a free lunch. While you might find a good deal on a tripod, quality ball heads are expensive. Sure, you could go cheap and pick up a Benro or other inexpensive head. But this is the point in which the lens/camera meets the tripod. Spend the $$$ and get quality. RRS, Markins, and Acratech also make good quality heads. Just be sure to get one that will handle more that twice the heaviest load that you plan to put on it.

I could go on and on, but this should at least point you in the right direction.

October 3, 2009

I've got this lens, and love it. I had one that was in fair condition a couple years ago and sold it - which was a HUGE mistake. I picked up one in mint condition for $1600, and it has yet to give me any reason to want the AF-S version.

In fact, I shot with it tonight under horrible lighting. It performed like a champ, although my skills are a bit rusty. Here's a sample (no processing except for a big crop)...

October 3, 2009

I'll also recommend the Tamron 17-50 - unless you need something longer. It's a fantastic lens...sharp, with good contrast. I had the Nikon 17-55 and it was marginally sharper than the Tamron.

I've never owned the 28-75, but if it's as good as the 17-50, it's a steal.

September 26, 2009

I picked up a mint copy on Ebay for $30/shipped. Then the seller refunded $3 for shipping costs. So, for $27 I got this little gem. I agree with most of the above posters have said. I use this lens with a D700 and FE2 and get excellent results. Here's a couple from the D700..

September 26, 2009

I've got a 28 3.5 "K" lens that I Ai'd. I picked it up on a whim for about $35, and spent about the same on the Ai kit. It's a great little lens, and makes a great wide angle compliment to my 75-150 Series E as a two-lens walkaround kit on either the FE2 or D700.

September 23, 2009

I use the 28-105 as a walkaround lens on my D700. It's small, relatively lightweight (as compared to the pro lenses), tack sharp, and offers an acutal useful macro feature. A very versatile, nice lens...except for the nasty lens hood.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by bourboncowboy