jwhite3.0

www.keh.com has 3 of them in bargain condition. i'm pretty sure they ship internationally and if you are in vancouver washington then no problem. other than KEH there's always some on Ebay. Good price is relative, you're going to pay around $1000 for a used lens. Or you can go with the non-AFS version for $900+ or the Sigma 70-200 for $800. Or if you are shooting in the DX format you may want to consider the Tokina 50-135mm or Sigma 50-150mm II. The 80-200 AF-S is pretty heavy so be prepared to shoot on a monopod if you have an extended outing. But as far as image quality and focus speed you'd be pretty happy with one.

What company did you order from so we know who to stay away from?

How much did you pay?

Take a pic of the box for us

Not sure if registering reveals whether or not it is grey market. Type in a fake serial number to see if there

is any type of check on serial numbers via the website.

No, tell them the truth. We don't them to re-stock it. If you indicate it is defective they will ship it back to manufacturer. I've never had a problem being up front with BH Photo and getting a full refund or replacement.

I was thinking about the long-term effect to surrounding photosites if one is under stress and causing some localized disturbance in terms of charge, capacity, gain, blah, blah. Somebody brought it up in casual conversation but neither one of us is an electrical engineer so no clear cut answer. Probably nothing to worry about.

I do have one concern, does anybody know the real answer to the question of whether specific hot pixels get worse over time? I've heard explanations about that relied on fuzzy physics but never got any concrete answer or examples.

My D300 has 5 lit pixels and one shows up even at ISO 400. My view, don't worry about, one or two or even 5 out of 12,000 is not so bad. Call Nikon and they will decide for you if it qualifies for re-mapping. From my last conversation with Nikon service they said it was my option to send it in because the hot pixel was showing up at ISO 400. If it was say ISO 1000 my gut feeling was the guy would have said don't send it in. The turnaround is 2-3 weeks. I may send in my D300 but the lit pixel is at the top of the sensor rather than in the center.

 

The best part, if I process my NEF file using Adobe RAW converter the program automatically removes it for me when I convert the image to TIFF or JPEG. When I do the same the RAW conversion with Capture NX2 it doesn't remove the lit pixels. I may be missing the turn on switch for that feature.

 

I thought the hot pixels would be bug me but not really. Maybe I'm getting older or maybe it's because I bought my D300 used. In any case I do enjoy this D300. Pretty much does everything I need nowadays.

I got the Phottix Cleon Wireless Remote N8 on the E'''Bay for $33.90. Works well. Google it to see reviews

Sounds like a dud AF system and you'll need to demand a new one. The complexity of finding the exact cause may be beyond them or they just haven't put the effort into doing it. Unfortunately this center may not be helpful. Can you send it elsewhere. I think there are at least 2 service centers in the US so maybe Canada has 2 as well. Worst comes to worst you have to send it to a place like APS in the US (http://www.authorizedphoto.com/) or an equivalent in Canada. All out of pocket I suppose but a camera not working is a useless one. Good luck

 

Curiosity question....choose one of the other single AF points. Will it focus correctly using a different AF point? It will only tell you if something is wrong with center AF point but more info always help the next person who repairs your camera.

Is there more than one Nikon service center in Canada? You may want to try another service center with a fresh set of eyes. Better yet, let the store you bought it from deal with the issue.

 

Also, the red AF square in your viewfinder is the suggested location of where the AF cross hairs are located. I wonder if that can ever get misaligned so that they don't actually match up.

 

Your test shot may be throwing off the camera too. The center AF point is cross hair and in your picture you have lots of vertical lines as well which may trick the AF system as important. Try a more plain target. I'm sure you have but just a suggestion if you haven't. How about clean white background with horizontal stripes. There is a version of the standard AF test on photo.net

 

On my screen some of the E is sharp as well as some of the R. Not all of the R is sharp. So maybe this is within Nikon specified allowances of the AF system as the E not that physically far from the B.

Peter made excellent points and I re-read the original post. I actually thought Bruce had the camera already. Let's forget the wide-angle lens for a second. He wants a D700 + 50mm f/1.4 combination. Is there anything wrong with that esp. as a hobbyist? One lens one camera and throw in a couple lens down the road.

 

There are advantages to a D700 over a D300 and vice versa so we'll assume the OP has done a thorough investigation. Now throw the wide-angle lens into the mix. He doesn't have a lot of money for anything else after this purchase and while most of us want more than two lenses but if the normal perspective is his bread and butter I think that's ok.

 

Bruce, I'm just a just a hobbyist but people like Shun and Peter as well as other have much more experience and deserve a lot of respect here. Shun and others have built the Nikon to what it is so while their advice may be more blunt there is no intent of being mean or misleading. These are people that probably can afford the best of the best but choose their tools wisely. I've been only a member for 3 years but I know Shun offers great advice to the community.

 

Opinions are just opinions, I personally like the D700 + 50mm f/1.4 combo but many would not sacrifice other focal lengths at the expense of a body. I think it's fine but if your goal is wide angle photography then you can accomplish a lot with the DX format and ultra wide angle for a lot less in cost.

Take this with a grain of salt but a Sigma DG 24-60mm f/2.8. I haven't used this lens on a D700 but a D300 and produced excellent results. Would be interesting to see how it performs on a D700. Discontinued but you can find them on the internet new for $200.

 

I also like the suggestion of the 20-35mm. I've seen them in used condition go for as low as $350 but typically $400-500.

 

In the beginning one does not always have to a bunch of focal ranges so though reviews are a little luke warm I like the Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 AIS or AF versions. Used condition around $250-400 USD. There is a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 but I've never used one. You may want to see if there is a review on Photozone.

 

Good luck and to be fair he didn't say how long it would take to build his system slowly. Maybe a couple months or a couple years and there is no wrong or right way to build a system esp. as a hobbyist. I think we all want to see him using his camera to its fullest potential but hey, he may have gotten a sweet deal on a camera from a friend and just building up cash to get those high resolving lenses.

Depends on the lens and the camera

 

check out this nikonians.org compatability chart...

http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html#type

<b>Even with my MBD10, set to CL and 7/fps</b>

<br>

 

<br>

Did you mean CH, continuous high? What's your CL set to, I think the highest for CL is 5 fps but I need to check?

<br>

 

<br>

Lots of factors: 12-bit vs 14-bit files? are you using EN-EL4a or AA batteries in grip? I've heard that if you AA drain to near empty you can't get 8fps (never verified), shutter speed, are you choosing in the menu to use grip battery first then camera battery, and how are you testing this fps (good lighting, nice contrasty target, timing, etc.)

I haven't kept on Nikon's manufacturing locations but since you make a point to bring it up why is it a surprise to be made in Japan? Is it a good thing or bad thing?

 

I haven't used the D700 yet but the F6 grip was pretty nice. F6 and 17-35mm just seemed to be very well-balanced.

Ryan, there are lots of great macro lenses out there, it seems that many different manufacturers have figured out how to make them well. It's almost a slam dunk whether you go with AIS lenses or Nikon AF micro or 3rd party macros. Personally, the ones I've used and would buy again include Nikkor 105mm f/4 AIS, Nikon AF 200mm f/4 micro, and Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro. Now that I've broken out the old F5 again I wish I had kept the 60mm f/2.8 AF-S micro as a short macro and normal lens. Had I a limitless budget I'd try the Zeiss 100mm f/2 ZF. Right now my current macros include 105mm f/4 AIS micro and 300mm f/4 AF-S (1:3.7 mag., not too shabby) with PN-11 extension tube or my Canon 500D lens (77mm thread). So, pick the focal length that suits your macro needs and then pick a macro based on budget. Before buying anything maybe check out John Shaw's "Closeups in Nature" to help narrow down which focal length lens and accessories you'll need.

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/other/close-up_macro/macro_1.html</b>

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.photo.net/learn/macro/</b>

<br>

 

<br>

check out <b>http://www.nnplus.de/macro/Macro100E.html</b>

I 2nd Joe A's suggestion of the 105mm f/4 micro. They seem to run $200-300 in the used departments of KEH, BH Photo, and Adorama. I believe I paid $220 for one in decent shape, mostly avg. cosmetic wear, glass clean. I picked the AIS version because it has a focus lock to prevent creep. I must credit Bjorn for that tip, I find the lock useful but maybe not everyone is worried about that and if not then the AI version is equally good. I haven't got around to using the PN-11 tube ($50 used from BH Photo) though I have one. The lens is pretty light so walking around in good light or with my SB-R200 lights and using it as 1:2 or 1:3 mag. lens is my main goal. I think others like Ellis V have mentioned that the out of focus areas are very pleasingly blurred even though it is only an f/4 lens.

I was quite lazy, I used Photoshop CS3 and did hit the button for auto-levels and auto-contrast and I applied a little sharpening. I don't shoot a lot of JPEGS so RAW files can often need a bit of post-processing. Unless going for something specifically artistic I find that most of my RAW files need a little sharpening, touch of contrast, and I may play with the levels and/or white balance to get color fidelity. I'm not not close to an expert on PS, I have my book next to me most of the time. Keep your color space in mind as well, a pic that looks good for the web will look different when printing.

 

Robert, sure, send me your photos for a small fee :) Result may vary and can be highly subjective but fee stays the same :)

Ouch, Sigma EX 150mm DG macro is one of my favorite macros and short tele. If you're willing to wait, send it to Sigma for calibration. Actually, that's lens gets a great rap from most reviewers and deservedly so, it just happened you got one that needed calibration. With that said, I've only used it for Canon and not yet for Nikon so maybe there is a difference.

I must say I've heard mostly good things about this lens but the source is as important as the written word. As the great reporters would say, "If your mom says she loves you check her sources". First shot is my favorite out of the bunch, it has that 3D effect.

John, welcome to the digital world and I like how you've composed your image. My only small critique as you now

learn how to bring out the most of your D80 is to adjust levels and contrast in post-processing when necessary.

<br>

 

<br>

Hopefully you don't mind but I took the liberty to show that with a bit of processing or tweaking what can happen

(good or bad) while

maintaining the original photo's integrity. Hopefully I am not changing it much beyond what you originally saw.

I don't know the rules of Nikon vs critique forum so hopefully it is

ok I post a pic as a response.

<br>

 

<br>

In any case keep up the great work and tell of us where this shot was taken.

<br>

 

<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7513209-lg.jpg"> <br>John Cataneo Image

If your plan is for wildlife esp. birds you'll want the longest lens that you can afford. Zooms are nice for composition and creatures that allow you to get very close. Most birds do not let you get close and for those that do seagulls, pigeons, etc you can use your 18-200 VR.

 

Out of all the lenses you mentioned the 300mm AF-S will have the best optics (not sure how it stacks up to 200-400mm but that's out of the question anyway). The Sigma is pretty heavy so what you gain in OS still requires some type of support for long outings. The 300mm AF-S is hand holdable though I use a monopod when possible. 300mm works well with TCs. From word of mouth I hear the 50-500mm DG lens is sharper than the newer Sigma zooms. For what it's worth I'd go with the Nikon 300mm AF-S + TC or Sigma 50-500mm. Get a Bogen or Gitzo monopod and start shooting. My preference is for good optics over utility (e.g. zoom) and if I have a zoom lens for wildlife I'd be at the far end most of the time so makes sense for me to get the tele prime. For sports rather than skiddish wildlife I can see the purpose of a zoom.

 

Good luck.

Homer already said it but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I don't find the Kenko tubes that bad, build quality is good but not fantastic. The Kenko tubes can hold most if not all 100mm or 105mm macros that do not have a tripod collar. If you are using something heavier but has a tripod collar then the interaction between the camera mount and Kenko tube will be fine. The latest Kenko DG tubes will not fall apart and I would not consider them "flimsy". I don't know about older Kenko tubes. Buy them and then if you don't like you can return them to a store like BH Photo with the only cost to you shipping.

 

You don't have many options if you prefer the older solid tubes like the PN-11 which I hear results in good results with non-G telephotos like the 180mm AIS or AF 300mm. I haven't gotten around to it but I'm going to try the PN-11 with my 80-200mm AF-S.

 

If you want the best of both world I hope you are good with electronics...

http://damien.douxchamps.net/photo/pn11/

Thanks Juanjo, I was looking for a replacement and did a google search and this post came up. I was also thinking of the 28-70 AF-S lens hood but had no way to try it.

Having no WA zoom in DX format I had to make a decision between the 11-16mm or 12-24mm. I went for the 11-16mm and I am very happy with the performance. It's good to know that extra stop is there when you need it and you'll be able to a little more blurring of the background when necessary. The 12-24mm was my next choice and had the 11-16mm not come out I would have ordered that one as it has received many great reviews. Your viewfinder will be brighter with the f/2.8 which is important to me but not others. Given the choice of bumping an ISO-stop or opening up the lens a stop I prefer the latter. Naturally one has to take account depth of field issues w/ f/2.8 vs f/4 but if that is an issue then viola, I'll bump that ISO but it's not my only choice. The Tokina 11-16mm is a sharper lens than all other WA DX zooms out there (according to Photozone).

 

If you're not a low light shooter the Tokina 12-24mm could be the way to go. People like to have every millimeter covered but it's subjective. I go from 11-16 to 50mm to 70-200mm. I'm fine with that, I long got over the idea that I need to have every mm covered. I toy with the idea of getting the Tokina 16-50mm or Nikon 16-85mm VR but I'll hold off until there's a few more pennies in the bank.

 

Supposedly Tamron has a 10-24mm coming out and that would have definitely made my top 3 list. Nikon 12-24mm was my top choice but a little pricey even on the used market.

Oops, it's available in Canon mount but not Nikon mount yet