rolf_lockwood

Forget it. The MB-10 is built only for the F90x/N90s. Period.

You've heard thanks from a lot of folks, but I have to add my own. I continue to be impressed by my somewhat ratty F3 acquired just a couple of years ago, so much so that I just bought an even rattier one. They both work superbly. And now I understand them better.

 

Rolf in Toronto

I have both 2.8 and 2.0 versions of this lens in very old non-AI form, also the 2.0 AF non-D, and have had the 2.8 AIS in the past. The 2.0 versions are probably better -- sharper, at least -- but I've never noticed any nasty distortion or coma in the 2.8s I've used. The differences may be obvious in rigorous testing, but in ordinary shooting I think you'll have to look hard to find them. The wider aperture of the 2.0 is worthwhile, but if you're happy with 2.8, I'd say relax.

Another vote here for the Nikkor 20 3.5 AI (or AIS, they're optically the same). Great lens in other respects too -- tiny, 52mm filter size -- but its essentially flareless performance is the killer. My Nikkor AF 24 2.8 non-D is awfully good in terms of flare too.

It's a toss-up but my vote goes to the 75-150. It's probably the sharper lens, but it's also smaller, lighter, slightly faster and uses 52mm filters instead of 62mm. Compared to the Tamron and others... well, no comparison at all. The 75-150 will kill 'em. And for those last 50mm, zoom with your feet because 200mm really isn't very much longer. Think how often you shoot at 200. I have 3 zooms in that general 70-200 range, plus the 75-150, and whenever I'm at 200 it seems I really want 300. Like a 28 is never wide enough, 200 is rarely long enough. If 200's OK for you, why not consider the Nikkor 80-200 4.0 or 4.5 AI lenses too? I'd still choose the 75-150.

Nope, it won't work. Well, you could fit the gear in but it wouldn't be terribly accessible and you could have at least two items rubbing against each other. I use one frequently, but only with body (F90/MB-10 usually), flash, and 2 lenses -- one prime or short zoom mounted, one longer but slow zoom and my SB-25 in the internal pockets. Film in one side pocket, batteries/cell phone/Palm Pilot in the other side pocket, filters, etc in the front. I've been known to pile a body with lens mounted on top of a wrapped short lens in the bottom of the bag. Forget it as a book bag.

I first bought the 28-105 and later tried the 35-105. Still have both (because I never get around to selling anything) but it's the 35-105 that I'll keep. It's built much better, it's much, much smaller, the hood is a sensible size, it's just as sharp at any aperture, and it uses 52mm filters. Combined with a 24, it makes a great small travel kit. The downsides: that 3-ft close-focusing distance and the push-pull zoom action.

Can't help much with the small hip bag based on experience. I have a Lowepro Off-Trail 2 with the lens cases replaced for larger ones to carry f2.8 zooms, but that's overkill for you. Haven't used it, but the much smaller Off Trail should be about right for you. They're well-made bags and nicely thought-out. For the bigger bag, you can't beat a Domke F2. It's strong as hell, swallows a ton of stuff, and isn't over-engineered like so many bags are. Access is easy too. Mine is 20 years old and still going strong. Not a stitch has gone bad. If money's a factor, try the Lowepro Nova series (www.lowepro.com). I think the Nova 4 would be about right -- basic, dirt cheap (like $60 or so) and well built for relatively casual use. I've had one of those for years as well, to haul my Mamiya C330 TLR around. There's a new 'AW' version (all weather) so the old ones are a bit scarce but should be on sale.

Agree wholeheartedly -- travelling that way isn't worth it. If you aim to stick with the F100, I'd suggest the 35 2.0. A better lens than the AF 28, the tests tell us (I only have the 35), and I think the extra stop is useful. A 28 isn't much wider anyway. I'd take two, though -- the 35 and a 24. Or if you don't anticipate needing lens speed, maybe the very light and reasonably sharp 28-70 3.5-4.5, or even the dirt-cheap 35-70 3.3-4.5 (a sleeper lens). You can also find lighter but very capable bodies -- I swear by my F70, and it's a lot lighter than my F90, so that's my travel body. But last year I did a working trip to Germany and took just my Konica Hexar with its fixed -- and sharp -- 35 2.0 and found life was fine. Bought a Ricoh GR1 while I was over there, which is another possibility, even lighter still with a crisp 28 and all manner of controls. And by the way, I sure don't agree that a Leica M and 35 combo is light. I have that setup too (wanna buy it?) and there's no way it's lighter than my F70/35 2.0 kit. More compact, yes, but not lighter. Bottom line: buy a Hexar.

Given that you did say "manual", my vote goes to the FE or FE2. I always keep an FE nearby, not just for AF backup but also because it's a capable and compact hiking/walkabout camera in which you can install a Beattie screen as I've done. It's in the $200 range, the FE2 $300 or so. Advantage over FM2: easier and more precise manual exposure control (at least in daylight) via needles, not LEDs. The next option: an F3 at $400, a much better camera than its smaller brethren, but twice the price of a decent FE. All of them built like tanks, batteries last forever, cheap motor drives, and the FE & F3 (not the FE2) will meter with non-AI glass in case you find some wonderful, quirky old Nikkor.

I live in Toronto and I've bought a lot of gear from U.S. sources over the last few years, from private sellers here on photo.net, KEH, Adorama, B&H, and Cameta, and can say with conviction that the USPS is as good as the couriers unless you want to track your new toy. And it's just about as fast -- a week or so. I avoid UPS too when I can but have yet to be hit with anything worse than a $5 charge. I don't believe there's actually anything complicated about it for a private seller on the U.S. end, so I'm always mighty annoyed when I see that "Will only ship to U.S. address" note at the bottom of an FS notice.

OK, you wanted Tokina 80-200 2.8 Pro comments. I have one and love it, though I can't compare it to the Nikkor equivalent. I hand-hold it all the time on an F90x and it's not at all difficult or even that heavy, once you get used to it. Depends on what you're used to, or willing to get used to. When I want light, I stick the Nikkor 70-210 on my F70, assuming film and conditions allow the slower apertures. I also have the Tokina 28-80 2.8 Pro, which I also like a lot. Both Tokinas are more than sharp enough for most work, and they represent excellent value for money, IMHO. I really can't find a fault with them. If utterly critical sharpness or unobtrusiveness are issues, then I'll switch to Nikkor primes. All of that having been said, I have to add that the first lens I'd add to your collection would be a 24. You haven't got a wide-angle lens (a 35's not wide in my book), so unless you borrow one occasionally, you can't say that you've tried and failed on that front. The 24 is my desert-island lens. Have fun with your case of NAS!

Get the lens, Brett, unless the AF 20 is just a month or two away and you want AF and matrix metering and all that. The price is right, on the face of it, and the lens is indeed wonderful. I've had the 20 3.5 AI -- same lens essentially -- for 20 years and wouldn't be without it. Others have summed up its virtues so I'll say little more. It's small, it's capable, and it doesn't demand thin filters. I too have an L37C on mine without vignetting. The HK-6 hood can be a pain, attaching as it does with a little set screw on the outside of the lens front -- mine comes adrift with little provocation. It's a great lens otherwise. Best $220 you'll spend.

Sorry for the delay in responding to your second question, Howard. The computer failed me and it's taken awhile to get rolling again. In any event, I think there are some substantial differences between the 'D' and 'non-D' versions of the 35-105. I've never owned the earlier lens -- except the MF version, which I didn't like much -- but I believe they use different optical and/or mechanical formulas. Nikon added internal focusing to the 'D', but I think they also increased the closest-focusing distance from about one foot to three. That doesn't bother me at all but other folks see it differently. Doesn't the non-D lens get a 'macro' moniker from Nikon? The only other difference I'm aware of is that the hoods are different for the D and the non-D, which signifies substantial changes. Is one better than the other? Sorry, I just don't know, but I can't imagine that the differences would be worth the switch. Can someone who has owned both lenses help here?

It's a good question, Howard, and one I wrestle with too. I'm embarassed to say how many lenses (both primes and zooms) I have in this general range, but I too am drawn to the 35-105 (AF-D version). I have or have had every AF Nikkor in this range, plus the Tokina 28-80 2.8, and I don't think you need to change a thing. The 28-105 has some advantages but none that seem, to me, anywhere near worth the cost of switching. I don't think it's any sharper, at least not when comparing my 2 samples. Sooner or later I'll settle on one of them, plus the Tokina for its speed, but I think you're already there. Spend the money on film.

I should be working but I can't resist this one as you're talking about my two favorite lenses, Debbi. Someone suggested you borrow them both to see which one fits your photographic soul best. Good advice. In the end I'd opt for the 24 if I could only have one of them, but I'd agonize over it. The 20 is terrific fun -- and you can do lots of 'normalish' things with it long before you get to playing with the super-wide distortion. I've done environmental portraits with it that didn't scream 'very wide lens'. But put a K-1 extension ring on it, get close to a toe or a flower or the fender of a car, and then you'll really have some perspective fun. It takes some care, however, whereas the 24 can be treated more casually. You can also fool with distortion using the 24 -- even the 28, for that matter -- but you don't have to be so deliberate if you want to avoid it. So in the end, it becoms more versatile. It's also sharper in the final analysis -- my old first-version 24 2.8 AF Nikkor is the sharpest lens I own, aside from a scary Summicron 90, and my even older 24 2.8 non-AI Nikkor is nearly as good. The 20's no slouch either, but not at the same level. I'm assuming that the 20 in question is the little AI or AIS version with 52mm filter size, by the way. The older UD is a bit of a beast and if that's the one on offer, I wouldn't agonize at all -- I'd grab the 24. For what it's worth, my little 20 was pretty much my 'standard' lens for many years but something in my own photo soul has changed and it's been supplanted by the 24. So it's a toss-up that only you can judge. If your friend is a truly fine human being, he'll let you play with them both for at least a couple of weeks. Let us know what you decide.

The 'EX' line is Sigma's premium AF series -- better glass, better build, faster wide-open apertures -- aimed at people above the lowest-cost consumer levels. Most reviewers speak highly of them. Come to think of it, they do a 20mm AF 1.8. Ah, but you're a Minolta MF guy. Hope this helps, Michael.

If you're looking for a super-wide and you're happy with your Tokina 24-40 -- and at the risk of being flamed by the Tokina-hating Roberto T. -- why not think of the Tokina 17? I'm not sure that the MF version is the same optically as my 17 3.5 AF ATX Pro, but mine is very much OK. It flares when pressed, but its virtues outweigh that limitation. I also have two Sigmas which are both fine in their ways -- a tiny, 15-year-old MF 28 2.8 that focuses to just a few inches and a 600 8.0 mirror that does OK within its obvious limitations. I got them both in package deals years ago. The 28 is very nicely built and more than sharp enough for family snaps but it flares more readily than any other lens I own, most of which are Nikkors, plus four Tokinas, three very old Super Takumars and two 1970s-vintage Leitz Summicron Ms. Still, I'm happy to keep it. I had a Sigma 28-105 4.0-5.6 AF version II for a couple of years too, and then I got the Nikkor equivalent, the 28-105 3.4-4.5. Huge difference! The Nikkor produces crisp and distortion-free pictures at just about any focal length and aperture, whereas the Sigma couldn't manage crispness anywhere except shorter focal lengths at f11. And even then it wasn't great, though it was also about 25% of the Nikkor's cost, so factor that in. It was worth it to me to spend extra on the Nikkor. Who wants fuzzy pics? As for the current 'EX' Sigmas, most of them get good reviews, but I opted for the Tokina 28-80 when I went shopping a couple of years ago because it seemed much better built than the equivalent Sigma. It's proven to be a fine lens, at least the equal of my Nikkor 28-105 in almost every test (the Nikkor's now for sale). I think what you get with third-party lenses is, aside from the variety of gems and dogs, greater sample variation. But even Nikon and the rest of the big boys suffer that affliction sometimes. You take your chances.

You're getting a lot of odd answers here, Oliver. If it has to be AF and has to be less than 20mm, you only have two choices aside from the Vivitar -- the Nikkor 18 and the Tokina 17. I have the latter, used on an F90x, F70, and an FE. It's fine, and for the money it's a good value. Lots of fun, in fact. Big and heavy, though, and it will flare if you point it toward the sun. Otherwise, no complaints. A better bet, however, might be the Nikkor 20 2.8 AF. KEH sells non-D versions for $300-plus. The perspective isn't that different from the 17/18, though it's definitely not the same. If you're considering the Vivitar 19, though, the difference between that and 20mm will be small. I'd recommend the 20 in the end. I also have a Nikkor 20 3.5 AI and it gets used all the time, far more often than the 17. The 20 offers a slightly gentler super-wide perspective somehow, and I find that it's much easier to use well than the 17. IMHO...

No sweat, Daniel. For many years I've used an L37c on both my 24 2.8 AF and 24 2.8 AI'd oldie, both with an HN-1 permanently attached. No vignetting to be seen.

Wow! I'm astonished that nobody has mentioned the perfect lens choice, given Gordon's wish for something longish -- the manual-focus Nikkor 80-200 4.0/4.5 AI/AIS. It may not hit 300mm, but it's a better lens for an FM than any variable-aperture AF zoom. It's built like a tank, can be had for less than $200 in awfully good shape, and will beat the plasticky 70-300 AFD ED in handling terms by a very wide margin -- including a much brighter screen. I have and use both lenses, and others in this general range as well, so I can speak from experience. Get the 80-200, either version, and don't even consider an AF zoom unless you can spring $500-plus for an 80-200 AF 2.8. I wouldn't bother. The only other affordable option that will leave you with reasonable screen brightness is the 75-150 E 3.5, which I've also had and which is also a fine lens. This one's pretty much a no-brainer, IMHO.

I too went looking for a 400 priced lower than my car and settled on the Tokina AF 5.6 after reading all that I could find on the subject. It seemed to be the clear choice -- hand-holdable, for one thing, and smaller than the others while being generally sharper, the reviewers all said. That was the theory, and it seems to be a good lens so far. I've only put two rolls through it, though, and haven't tried any of the others you mentioned, but I'm pleased. It took a while to find one, I should add. Another option seems to be the Tokina 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4 converter, though that, once again, is theory only.

I see there's been only one other vote for my favorite Nikkor: the 20 3.5 AI. It's tiny, sharp enough, unfazed by being pointed sunward, and takes 52mm filters. And it's not very expensive at all. I've had mine for 20 years or so and there have been periods when it was my 'normal' lens, always mounted on a body in my bag. Great for landscapes and urban street stuff, and I've managed interesting environmental portraits as well. I often shoot cars and trucks for both professional and personal reasons and the little 20 can be great fun there. If I had to give away all my lenses but one, this would be the keeper.

Sam, this is a tough one. The FM and its various kinfolk are great cameras. I'd keep that one for sure, and maybe the earlier suggestion that you simply add a handheld spot meter is the best approach. I'd consider that carefully. I own an FE and love it except for the viewfinder (I wear glasses and can't see the whole frame, not even close). I've never owned an N80 and don't want to because, while the feature list is impressive, it just feels too light and plasticky. I have an F90x (N90s), among other AF bodies, and that's the one I'd recommend. Or even the F801s (N8008s) despite its age. Depends on what you mean by "decent auto focus". The F801s is slow, the F90x much faster, but they're both solid cameras with a good feature set that answers your needs in theory. I'd love to have an F100 but I think it's overkill for most of us. And the F5 is over the top. If you like the FM and its down-to-earth nature, you don't need to go as far as the F100 IMHO. Then again, there's that issue of VR and G lenses. Good luck!

As Neil has already bought -- or at least decided to buy -- his Sigma, this response is for Roberto only. Give me a break, man! Relax! You didn't read my post very carefully. I said very clearly that I had experience only with the mechanical quality of a pair of new Sigma 28-70 EX lenses I tried in a shop. I went in there with the intention of buying the Sigma, which seemed great on paper and from reviews I'd read, but both of them sounded raspy -- metal against metal -- and I felt the obvious mechanical binding in each of them as well. Would you buy a lens like that? I think not. I didn't need any more experience with them, didn't need to do any more 'testing' to know that neither one of them would have pleased me even if it was wonderful optically. If the lens is binding right out of the box, what's it going to do in a dusty/sandy environment like the ones I work in sometimes? I have one Nikkor zoom that's essentially toast after apparently ingesting dirt at the Pikes Peak Race to the Clouds a couple of years ago. It binds like crazy. My Tokina, on the other hand, didn't mind it at all. So with respect, may I suggest you read more closely before you vent? Too bad your Tokina's a 'dog', by the way. My 28-80 isn't, though I agree that it's better at 5.6 than 2.8. Seen many lenses other than Leitz products that aren't? Optically and mechanically it's terrific. Just like my Tokina 80-200 2.8 and 17. Wish I could afford the equivalent Nikkors, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't see enough difference to warrant the extra expense. Optically, mechanically, or otherwise.