Gary Naka

So I was lucky that they got my lens out of repair in the short window that LA was open.

bummer. Odd, my 70-200/4 recently came back from Nikon repair. I think it was sent to LA. The VR module had to be replaced.

Uh yeah. I've heard of people trying to push load a SS reel, but I've never tried it myself.

I guess you are just better at it than we were. When it kinked, we could not unkink the film so it would go between the wires properly. The kinked part of the film easily rekinked, and jumped the wires. So it was just frustrating to deal with.

As with some here, I learned on SS reels, so for me, it is easier to use than a plastic reel. To each, his own. I use the old Honeywell-Nikor reels for 120. I do not feel that Hewes has a big advantage with 120 as they do with 35mm. Unlike 35mm film, 120 film does not have sprocket holes to hook into. I was told that because of the wider width of 120 film, the film flexes, and it is harder to roll onto SS reels. I did not experience that problem. My experience with the center clips on SS reels has been mixed, usually bad. When you put the film under the clip, if you do not CENTER the film well, as you start to wind the film on the reel, the film will start to push off center and kink on the reel. I found that once the film edge is kinked, it is REALLY HARD to unkink it and roll it on successfully. On 35mm film, we would simply cut of the kinked section, and restart winding the film, accepting that we lost frames when we cut the kinked section off. So, I do NOT use the clip (both 35mm and 120). I simply put the film into the center of the reel, where it self-centers, hold it down with my finger, and start winding. The problem with finding old Nikor reels, is that the tanks are brand marked, but NOT the reels. There is no place to mark the reels. IF you are lucky, you will find a matched set of Nikor tanks and reels. Caution when going through the used bin in the store. Tanks and reels from different manufacturer could have been mixed up, so you could get a Brand-X reel in a Nikor tank. When I look at a used reel: First I look for damage. I look to see if the sides of the reel are parallel, and that the reel is not bent from a drop to the floor. The 36x reels use a thinner wire than the 20x reels, which is easier to damage if dropped. Next I look at the finish of the reel. You want a nice SMOOTH finish, so that the film will slide easily into the reel. If it feels rough, reject it. Run your finger nail between the wires. If your nail hits a burr, so will the film = reject. I do not know about the Hewes tanks, but Nikor tanks were famous for the cover leaking and getting stuck on the tank and the fill cap getting stuck. Leaking. We just ran masking tape around the tank/cover joint, no leaking. Easy fix. Stuck fill cap. We always had a can opener nearby, so if the cap got stuck, it was easy and fast to get the can opener under the edge of the cap and pop it off. A key would also work. Later caps had a tab spot welded on, so you had something to pull up on, if it got stuck. Stuck cover. Some times we turn the tank upside down and shake it, so the reel pounded the cover off from the inside. Sometimes we use a rubber sheet, so we could get a good grip on the cover. This was a hassle, but luckily did not happen often. Do NOT use a crushing jar opener, or you will bend and distort the cover. Someone later came up with a tank with a plastic cover. It did not leak and did not get stuck. But over time, the plastic aged and cracked.

Make sure that the reel is CLEAN and DRY. Also make sure that the film width adjustment is correct, and not too tight. A trick that I was told is to clip the leading corners of the film at say 45 degrees, so that you do not have a flat surface hitting the ribs of the reel. The wider 120 film is more flexible than the narrower 35mm film, and that sometimes gives people problems. Finally, get a dummy/old roll and just practice. First with your eyes closed. Then open it when it sticks/binds, then try to figure out why it stuck.

All depends on your age, physical condition, and lack of injury. I'm an injured senior citizen, lugging heavy gear is in my past. I used to handhold my D7200 + 70-200/4 for both JV + Varsity high school games (football/soccer/lacrosse). Now I shoot the JV game on a monopod, to rest my arms, so that I can shoot the varsity game free-hand. I could switch to micro 4/3, but the Nikon 70-200/4 is the best handling field lens that I have seen/used. So I am going to keep using it as long as I can handle it.

Got the 43-86 with my Nikkormat. It was a GREAT day time lens. I loved that 1-ring push/pull zoom, so convenient and fast to use. Mine was a pre-AI lens. I later got a version 2, AI lens. But it sucked when shooting indoor/gym sports. That f/3.5 was much slower in use, than I had thought when I bought it. With 20/20 hind sight, I would have been better off with the 50/1.4, for what I was primarily using it for, high school yearbook. In a relatively dim high school gym, giving up 2-1/2 stops, was a really BAD idea. Even today I use a 35/1.8 at f/2 on my D7200 at ISO 3200. Back then we were pushing Tri-X up to 1200. So that f/3.5 lens was at a terrible handicap. Wrong tool for the job.

Holding the lens for 5 or 10 minutes in the camera shop is nowhere near what your arms will feel like after 4 hours in the field. So if it seems heavy . . . it will be HEAVY after a few hours. I got the Nikon 70-200/4, because I can handle that for a 5 hour shoot. Even so, my arms are tired/sore. I would have given up shooting with the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens.

There is no free lunch. In general, you buy a super/ultra zoom, like the 18-400 is for convenience, not Image Quality (IQ). You don't have to change lenses, you just turn the zoom ring. It has a massive 22x zoom range (400/18=22x) But, to get that convenience, you generally give up some IQ, because of the optical compromises to get that 22x zoom range. So rather than excellent IQ, you get good IQ. Good IQ is what I call "good enough" for most people and purposes. The shorter range zooms, like the 150-600 have a shorter zoom range (600/150=4x), so have less optical compromise and better IQ. If you look at the Full Frame pro lenses, you will see that the standard zooms are limited to an even shorter 3x zoom range (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8) for max IQ. So you have to make a decision. Do you want convenience or maximum Image Quality. But technology keeps moving. What was once considered impossible is now possible, and with good IQ. The Sigma 60-600 and Tamron 18-400 are examples of previously impossible lenses. And today's "good IQ" is better than prior years "excellent IQ."

That is actually true. In my experience, many people today CANNOT focus a camera manually :confused: They are so used to the cell phone camera, so if the camera will not autofocus for them, they can't shoot. How do you shoot through a net or fence? Switch to manual, cuz the AF will try to focus on the net/fence. Simple to some of us, but a total stopper for others.

To me, moving wildlife is like sports. I cannot crop TIGHT in the camera, because that makes it HARDER to track a moving subject. I need to have space around the subject to track a moving subject, and the faster/more erratic the movement, the more space I need. So for me cropping is SOP.

MIstake, Set the lens to 70mm and f/4, not 200

The two sentences are confusing. Lets try being more specific with numbers. If you have a 70-200 f/4-5.6 zoom. Set the lens to 200, then set the aperture to max f/5.6. When you zoom long, to 200mm, the aperture is at f/5.6, the second/smaller number. When you zoom close to 75mm, the aperture is at f/4, the first/larger number. Back and forth. This only happens when you are at the max aperture of the lens. If you are shooting at f/5.6 or smaller (f/8, 11, 16, etc), there is no change.

A 300mm lens on a DX camera only provides a 9.6x magnification. 9.6x is not "massive" magnification. As William said, it is about field of view. size of subject vs. distance. A small animal (rabbit) at 20 yards needs more magnification than a larger animal at 20 yards (cow). And, an animal, like a rabbit at close distance say 5 yards requires much less magnification than at longer distance, say 20 yards where it needs MORE magnification. BTW 50 yards is a relatively LONG distance. When I shooting a football player at 50 yards, it requires significant cropping of the image.

If you have Nikon zooms . . . The zoom ring on the Tamron zoom turns in the same direction as the Nikon. The zoom ring on the Sigma zoom turns in the OPPOSITE direction as the Nikon. If you zoom by muscle memory, as some (me) do, this can be REALLY confusing to your left hand, when you zoom in, instead of out. I shot volleyball with a Sigma 17-50/2.8 zoom, and gave up in frustration after 15-20 minutes, for the above reason. I kept turning the zoom ring the WRONG way, and losing shots. My left hand much preferred the older Tamron 17-50/2.8. I would look at the Tamron 100-400 and the Tamron 150-600. If you NEED the reach, the 150-600 will give it to you. But at the cost of bulk (size and weight).

OK, I admit that a 1-ring zoom is probably best for the action photographers, that have to zoom and focus at the same time. Like when I follow focus/zooming on a running quarterback or similar. But man that single ring was convenient. I loved it on the 43-86.

I like them for manual focus zooms, don't like them for autofocus zooms. To me, the push/pull zoom is really best as a 1 ring zoom/focus ring. So I can zoom AND focus with my left hand without moving my hand from ring to ring. The best example is the Nikon 80-200/4.5, and I loved my old 43-86. But on an AF zoom, there is no focusing function, so why? To me a push/pull AF zoom is a legacy of a 1-ring push/pull manual focus zoom design which was converted to AF. Then again, I've only used the Nikon 75-300, I do not have first hand experience with any others.

I have the 70-200/4 with a rear positioned zoom ring. I tried a Tamron 70-210/4 with a forward positioned zoom ring. I had thought I would not like it, but to my surprise, I liked it. Here are the details and conditions. On the Nikon 70-200/4 and Tamron 70-210/4, the zoom ring is light enough to work with your fingers. On many of the other zooms that I've used, the zoom ring is stiff enough (lots of drag) that I have to grab the zoom ring with my hand and I turn the zoom ring with my hand and arm. In the zoom ring forward position, I rest the center of balance of the lens/camera on my left hand, and work the zoom ring with my fingers. The zoom ring of the Tamron 70-210/4 is easily worked with my fingers. IMHO, if the forward zoom ring was stiff, like my other lenses, it would NOT work. Because my fingers would not be able to turn a stiff zoom ring. In the case of the Nikon 70-200/4, with its rear positioned zoom ring, I rest the tripod foot on my palm, and work the zoom ring with my fingers. My experience is the stiff turning zoom rings need to have the zoom ring positioned at the balance point of the lens, which would be towards the rear. This is because I have to GRAB the lens with my hand, to be able to turn it. That hand is also the support hand. So it has to be at the balance point of the lens/camera, which is to the rear of the lens. As for why the zoom ring is stiff. My suspicion is due to four factors: Extending zooms. That is a lot of weight and mass to be shoving out/in. And there is friction in sliding the extending optics out/in. A short throw of the zoom ring, to go from min to max. The average seems to be about 90 degrees, but the Sigma 17-50/2.8 is only about 60 degrees. The shorter the throw the stiffer the zoom ring. [*]The steep zoom cam. The shorter the throw of the zoom ring, the steeper the cam angle has to be. With extending lenses. The longer the zoom ratio, the more the lens extends, and the more the cam has to push in/out, 1 inch vs. 7 inches. [*]Too much dampening grease or the grease is too stiff. As you can see the first three factors are inter-related. Changing any one of them will change the effort required to turn the zoom ring.

Make sense. The longer focal length would require a larger sensor offset for the IBIS. So the next question is, will the 70-200 + Z6/7 work in dual IS mode, OIS + IBIS, or will it be a "one or the other."

Been there, done that. Shot film since the 60s. Even shooting at 1/1000+ sec, I found VR very useful to be able to hold the AF point on the subject. Not a benefit that I expected, but I REALLY like it. When I had to send my 70-200 VR lens into the shop, and had to fall back on my non-VR lens, using the non-VR lens was painful. Why should I give up the advantage of VR/IS which makes taking photos easier than it was in the film days. Just like, I shot with a Manual focus lens since the 60s, and for normal and sports photography, I would NOT go back to a manual focus lens. I can still use a manual focus lens, but autofocus is sooooo much easier and faster for 99% of what I shoot.

The problem that I see is how Nikon configured the Z50 vs the Z6/7. The FX Z6/7 have IBIS, so the lenses do not have to have VR. The DX Z50 does NOT have IBIS, so the long lenses have to have VR. So to work on both FX and DX systems, the independent lenses have to have VR/IS.

I just looked on the Nikon USA site, and Nikon lists only TWO Z-DX lenses. 16-50 and 50-250. If that is all you need, then you are OK. Beyond that it is either F mount lens via the FTZ or Z-FX lens w/o stabilization. So again, DX is a stepchild. Granted it is hard to spool up both DX and FX mirrorless systems at the same time. But only TWO lenses !!! They have more Z-DX lens on the roadmap, but when will they be released? What is sad is the Canon M50 APS-C mirrorless, has more lenses. But, the con is that the M50 cannot use the R lenses. Because the M50 has a different mount than the R cameras. The only Canon lenses the M50 can use are the EF/EF-S lenses via an adapter.

Make a LONG extension lens hood. My Nikon 500/8 mirror has a similarly stupid short lens hood. The more you can shade the lens from off axis light, the better the contrast should be.

I recall reading "someplace" about a forming sequence to use for a LONG not used pack. It had to do with powering the pack in stages of an increasing number of seconds. So the caps would gradually charge up and form, rather than full charge at one shot. But I can't find my notes on what the process was.