rolf_lockwood

This will be a 'sorta' answer because I've never used the Sigma 28-70 EX. I looked at a couple of new examples in a shop, tried them on bodies, and had very bad feelings about quality. Both the lenses I tried were a lot less than smooth in both zooming and focusing. There was binding of some sort, a metallic raspiness that I didn't like at all. So, as I would suggest that you do, I tried the Tokina 28-80 2.8 when a slightly used one appeared in a local shop. Build quality was miles ahead of the Sigma so I bought it and like it a lot. Tokina also does a 28-70 2.8 (the newish 'SV' model, the 2.6-2.8 Angenieux-derived version having been discontinued apparently)which is a fair bit cheaper, more or less on par with the Sigma. I have no experience with that one, but I would definitely cast a vote for the 28-80.

I have the 70-210 4-5.6 D and used to own the straight 4.0 version. Notwithstanding an earlier post to the contrary, I think the 4.0 lens will indeed be slower to focus because its trip from closest focus to infinity is quite a bit longer. I'm not convinced that it's the sharper of the two, but having the extra stop is definitely worthwhile. Aside from that, not much to choose, unless you anticipate using the faster of the two in manual-focus mode, in which case the skinny focus ring will drive you nuts. If you decide on the variable-aperture model, I've read some reviews that suggest you shouldn't buy the non-D version.

The Nikkor 70-300 ED lens is in fact made by Tamron, and the Tamron equivalent is almost exactly the same in design and construction. I use the Nikkor version and it's OK but a lot less than spectacular. It's fairly soft at the long end. Don't know the Sigma 70-300 lens from personal experience, but I used to have a 28-105 Sigma which was softish and not as well built as most Nikkors. That's no surprise, given the price. I believe there are two versions of the Sigma, one being designated 'APO' for a higher price. I read a review -- in Shutterbug, I think, though that's no recommendation -- that said it was worth spending the extra money for the APO. The Nikkor/Tamron 70-300 does not feel terribly robust. Much plastic. I wouldn't buy it again. In this range I'd go for the Tokina 100-300 4.0, about which some people rave. More money, but you get what you pay for.

Tanya, it seems to me you've had an odd mixture of good and not-so-good advice. Lots of it, too. But I don't think anyone has addressed your fear of overly complicated 'modern' cameras or of using flash with them. I have both manual and autofocus Nikons (including an FT2), and appreciate them all in their various ways, but there's not much question in my mind that an AF camera like the N8008 or the N6006 or the much mailgned F70 coupled with a Nikon flash (anything from the old SB-15 up to the current SB-28) would suit you perfectly. Using the flash with these bodies needs no brain at all, no mental gymnastics, no thinking. Turn the camera on, turn the flash on, and shoot. It can be that simple, simpler even than the basic point and shoot. You can certainly use the many controls on both camera and flash to manipulate this or that, but you absolutely don't need to. I have an F70 and F90x (Canadian/international designations -- N70 and N90s to you) and just traded an F801s/N8008s (dumb move), used with SB-22 and SB-24 flashes, and they just never fail to deliver the pic. My hit rate, even trying to grab kids running around, whether I'm bouncing flash off the ceiling or shooting straight, is nearly 100% all the time. And most of the time, I let the camera/flash do the work. Every once in a while I feel like using one of my manual bodies for the same sort of shooting, just because they feel good in my hand, but the hit rate drops. My eyes are lousy, so that explains part of it, but the newer cameras are verging on being foolproof. Note too that the N6006 and N70 have built-in pop-up flashes that work great with short zooms and around-the-house or in-the-yard sort of distances.

 

You couldn't use your existing lenses but something like the Nikkor 28-70 3.5-4.5 AF zoom would be a great choice at under $200. An older but actually quite sharp 35-70 3.3-4.5 AF zoom would be half that or less. The body (any of the three I mentioned) would go for $175 to $275, and you'd just have enough left in your budget (or you might have to add a bit) for an SB-22/SB-23/SB-24. I'm talking KEH prices there (www.keh.com), not the unbearably awful auction site.

 

Sure, you could have your FT2 CLA'd and add a couple of good Nikkor lenses, but you'll end up spending nearly as much dough. And you won't have a camera that reacts as quickly to a given situation with the same chance of getting a useful photo out of it. It was exactly the onset of kids that pushed me into AF a dozen or so years ago and I've never regretted it for an instant. Because my kid pictures are just plain better.

 

Maybe you're an MF sort of person, in which case this blather is useless, but I suspect you're really looking for a point-and-shoot that's also a real camera when you want it to be. If so, find an N8008 or an N70 and I'd bet you'll be happy.

 

Rolf in Toronto

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Ricoh GR1 and its variations. Incredibly small, great 28mm lens, and a fair bit of manual control when needed. They can be a bit hard to find in North America, but I think I noticed that B&H is importing them again (am I dreaming there?). They're around on the used market too. In fact, isn't there one listed here on photo.net right now for under $300? I've had one for most of a year and utterly love the thing. Also have a Hexar Silver and an M4-P, and the Ricoh compares very favorably while being totally and easily pocketable.

 

Rolf in Toronto

Big question, but fun. First the body: my choice would an F2A, as others have suggested, with an F3HP next in line. They're both tanks, the F2 more so, but the best thing about them is 100% viewfinder coverage, among other features. That matters to me, perhaps not to you, and it's why I rule out the FM/FE/FM2/FE2/FM3A family. I wear glasses, and while I truly love my little FE, it's annoying to have to move my head around -- or the camera -- to see the whole frame. I use it when size/weight is an issue.

 

Don't worry too much about spare parts, though Brazil may present a problem in that regard. Even old F Photomic FTn meter heads can be repaired, usually by easy cannibalizing. But with the metering exception, they don't break. I would actually go so far as to recommend you consider a Nikkormat FT3 -- modern AI lens indexing, mirror lockup for your 300 on a tripod, and truly built like a tank. Often more expensive than an F or maybe even an F2 to buy, which indicates how good they are in some people's eyes. I have an ancient Nikomat FTn which is still going strong after 30 years. Have never touched it internally except to have it cleaned. Nikkormats (or Nikomats, the Japanese domestic name) feel better in my hands than any other Nikon, for what it's worth. The only downside I can see is a slightly dimmer screen than more modern cameras.

 

As to lenses, how about a 50 1.4 AI, a 28 2.8 AIS (better than the AI, by all accounts) or an AI/AIS 24 2.8. Get the 28 2.0 AI or AIS if you can afford it. Then a 105 or 135 (the latter much under-rated). And if you really want a zoom to bridge the gap to 300, Nikon actually made a 50-300 AI 4.5 with ED glass. Huge and likely pricey (check www.keh.com). The suggestion to use an AF 80-200 2.8 with a 1.4x converter is good, and you shouldn't ignore those high-quality AF lenses. They're pretty robust at that price level. Another option, still AF, is the Tokina 100-300 4.0, apparently not a bad lens for the money (US$550 or so used at KEH right now). I think Sigma makes one too, but the upper-level Tokina lenses are built much, much better in my experience. Another decent combo, non-AF, would be a Nikkor 80-200 AIS 4.0 zoom ($250 or so?) plus a Nikkor 300 AIS 4.5 EDIF ($500 or so, I think). That 300 is a great lens, I believe, though I've never used one. I have had the 80-200 4.0 and it's OK, though the AF 2.8 is better.

 

That covers it, though of course it's all just my opinion. Remember that not all Nikon glass is excellent. There are some dogs in there, and a few great lenses amongst the independent makers.

 

Have fun!

As to your latest lens question, Nate, there's quite a big difference between the 20 and 24. I have both, plus a 17, and 28 and 35 on the other side, and I use them all regularly -- for different purposes. For years I thought of the 20 as my standard lens (on an F, FE, or F90x, all of which I still use). It still gets lots of use, but the 24 is probably more practical. A 28 just isn't wide enough. The real difference between 20 and 24, aside from the obvious field of view, is the ease with which distortion can be controlled. It's easier to make pictures that don't bend/exaggerate straight lines or stretch out faces with a 24. In other words, how you hold the lens in relation to your subject matters a little less. You may like the extreme wide view, in which case the 20 can be made to do neat things (especially with a slim extension ring to get closer still!). But if you're not careful, you can easily insult the people you shoot with it. I've done that more than once, without seeing it at all in the viewfinder -- or even in the final slide/print. Nikon's various 24mm lenses are almost all terrific optically, going back to pre-AI models (I use one happily), but there seems to be a little more variation in the 20s. Mine is a fairly rare 20 3.5 AI that absolutely never has a flare problem, delivers pleasing crispness even wide open, and uses 52mm filters, but I'm led to believe that later ones -- AIS or AF 2.8s -- are better. I'd guess that the differences are small, so small that most of us normal folks wouldn't see them. In the end, my advice is go for a 24 AF non-D. It'll work a treat on your FE (keep that great camera!) and it's the best balance of affordability and optical quality among your various options. Build quality is NOT the same as on the MF models, if that matters. I'd go wide before I launched into that beautiful 80-200 monster, but that's just me. If you want to do head-and-shoulders portraits, why not get a 105 as well as the 24? You'd have a classic kit with money to spare, compared to the big investment for the zoom.