markp

After numerous negative experiences with Nikon's CA

repair facility, I began using Authorized Photo Service as

referenced above, years ago, for both warranty and non-

warranty work. Better, faster, lower-cost work...can't argue

with that.

<p>A photo from the "iPhone Photo Adventure" iPhone imaging workshop I taught Sunday in Iowa...</p>

<div></div>

<p>William,</p>

<p>I recommend this site for info on Iowa eagle counts: <a href="http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/missriver/">http://www.mvr.usace.army.mil/missriver/</a></p>

<p>There's a lot of info to help you plan your visit. In particular, if you click "2009 Bald Eagle Watching" at the above page, and then "Lock & Dam Eagle Counts 2009," you will see weekly-updated info on eagle concentrations at the various locks an dams along the Iowa Mississippi.</p>

<p>

<p>Good luck with your trip!</p>

</p>

I don't take my L-brackets off, either, even when shooting an event handheld. I find them to be low-profile enough that

it's not necessary.

 

In fact, I find them handy to have on - if I need to brace the camera against something (tree, fencepost, lamp post,

etc), they offer some protection against scratching the camera body itself. I'd rather the $150 bracket take the

scratches rather than my camera.

The Kirk and RRS L-brackets are cut away around ports and control access points, they don't interfere. I couldn't live without L-brackets - the first thing I do when I get a new camera is order an L-bracket for it. For verticals, your center of gravity is then over the tripod head and not hanging off to the side, thus stability is increased.

I used to love this lens with film because it offered the best image quality of any normal zoom and was a lot smaller

than the 28-70 f/2.8. However, IMO the DX factor wrecked its usefulness and after never using it for a couple years, I

sold it a few years ago. Now that I've been using the D3 a while, I do at times wish I had mine back.

 

Yes, it has some drawbacks as noted in above posts, but how significant those are to you rather depends on how -

and how much - you need the "standard zoom" range. If you spend a lot of time in that range, I agree you should

look at the 24-70. But if you only occasionally shoot in that range, the 35-70 is a lot smaller/lighter than the 24-70,

would be useful to keep in the bag for mere occasional use, and is a great performer from a sheer image-quality

standpoint.

When I first got my 70-200VR, I was still using an F5 actively. There is falloff as the others above mention, but I never found it to be a problem. Like many photographers, I often/usually add a bit of vignetting in PS anyway, to draw viewers' eyes into the image (as Ansel Adams once said, "no print is finished until the corners have been burned in" or very similar), so it doesn't bother me if there's some there to start with.

I have used, and recommend www.slides.com. You upload images to their website, and receive slides in the mail in a few days.

 

For you, a strong benefit is that slides.com is located in Verona, WI. So I would expect that you would receive your slides back very quickly.

 

Good luck,

Mark

Thanks for the additional comments. I had promised to report back on the outcome with this optic.

 

I received the lens back from John at FocalPoint on schedule - turnaround took right about a month as he had said. He cleaned the optics for me, and removed the fungus.

 

The fungus had etched the coating (i.e., the fungus growth pattern in the above jpeg is still visible, but it is much more faint now). But since this is so far to the edge of the front element, both John and I agreed that it wouldn't affect performance and didn't warrant the (significant) expense of recoating the lens.

 

So, I have a clean lens, and I do recommend John at FocalPoint, Inc. for this sort of service.

I second Q.G.'s recommendation. Also, if you're in the US, every library in reasonably-sized cities will most likely have a copy of Wildi's book on the shelves. If your local library doesn't, they can borrow it from another library for you.

Rene wrote:

 

<i>I have been using the old version AF 300 D and I really like it</i>

 

<p>Just a point of clarification for posterity: the "old version" of the 300mm f/4 EDIF-AF is _non_ D. The AFS version is the only version (so far) of the 300mm f/4 that is also "D".

I'm another that uses UV filters only when in high-risk environments (blowing gritty sand or lots of salt spray), and generally only with my f2.8 zooms that are the ones I tend to use most in those environments. For daily use, I just keep the dedicated hoods and lenscaps on to protect my lenses.

 

I did have a thin-mount 77mm Heliopan UV filter that received a large, nasty chip almost in the center from a blowing piece of debris of some sort that hit it, during a windy day on the shore of Lake Superior last summer. This would most likely have damaged the front element of the lens (17-55 f/2.8), so I was glad to have the filter on at that point.

 

My couple of UV filters are also Heliopan and B+W. I do have polarizers in sizes to fit all my lenses (some B+W, some Nikon brand). But I don't even have UV filters for lenses like my micros and 50mm that have deep hoods and/or that tend to be used indoors or in mild conditions.

Shun wrote: <i>"Mark, I am curious about what APS isn't able to repair. E.g., was that any F5, F6, DSLR or VR lens issues?"</i>

 

<p>Just got back to this thread. Interestingly, as with the other poster above, it was the 70-200VR. But this was when the lens was just newly available - after only a few hundred exposures on mine, the aperture assembly died. APS said they didn't have the parts for this fix yet. <p>I don't know if that was an isolated case of 70-200VR parts being delayed, or (more likely) that it simply takes a while for new-item parts to get out to third-party facilities in general, which is understandable. Nikon USA was able to fix it under warranty, though it took them some time.

 

<p>Regardless, one should always phone ahead before sending an item in to any repair facility, just to avoid surprises and unexpected delays.

 

<p>Mark

I use <a href="http://www.authorizedphoto.com">Authorized Photo Service</a> in Morton Grove, IL, only falling back on Nikon USA for things APS may not be able to do (which isn't much). 100% positive service so far, compared to a pretty low level of satisfaction with Nikon USA over several repair jobs.

I have both the 18-70 and 17-55.

 

I use the 18-70 for outdoor activities like backpacking, hiking, outings with my kids, when I anticipate plenty of light. For backcountry skiing or hiking in daylight, one can set the 18-70 at f/8 or so and forget about it - it performs nicely and is perfect for this.

 

For indoor or low-light situations, though, it's different. With both lenses wide open or at f/4, there's no contest - my 17-55 kills my 18-70. That's not that the 18-70 is necessarily bad. Without a 17-55 image for comparison, wide-open 18-70 images look okay. It's just when there are similar images made with the 17-55 for comparison...the 17-55 is simply outstanding wide-open.

While the VariND filter doesn't fit Cokin P, Singh-Ray makes other filters that do.

 

With lots of photographers applying their filtration in postproduction these days, one can find great deals on barely-used second-hand Singh-Ray filters on some of the web classified forums. A couple years ago I built a nice collection of Singh-Ray's in the Cokin P size by scanning the used gear forums now and then over a couple months' time. Most were in new condition and were priced much lower than new ones.

"I worry that if I ended up getting the camera and it wasn't a USA model no authorized repair service would fix it."

 

I second Shun's advice to contact APS in Chicago. They won't care if your F5 is US or not, it's just a question of how long they anticipate being able to get parts for the camera. I have been more satisfied with their work than that of Nikon's California repair facility (I've never tried Melville). On one repair I sent them they had parts that even Nikon USA didn't have in stock. And I've found them to be cheaper and MUCH faster, with a simple work-approval process.

 

All that said, I've never experienced a USA sticker just falling off of a film camera. Every film camera I've owned since they started with the little-sticker program has had the sticker in the film cartridge chamber. They stick really well. My suspicion would be that if there's no sticker in there, it's not a USA camera.

Thanks again, everyone, for the replies and info. At the same time I posted this original query, I also emailed the jpeg to John Van Stelten at Focalpoint Lens. Like all of you, he also confirmed my suspicion about this being fungus.

 

Since I plan to keep this lens for the long-term, it is in transit to him for cleaning. John says he has about a month turnaround time right now, but I'll report back on how this turns out.

 

Happy new year...

Mark

Thanks gents! I greatly appreciate your helpful info confirming my suspicion, and your advice on how to proceed from here!

I just acquired a used copy of the 80mm Rollei Zeiss Planar. It arrived last

Friday, but I had my first chance to look it over closely and use it a little

today.

 

It didn't take me long to discover this "fuzz" that appears to be under the

front element. I have searched PN for other "fungus" threads, but didn't see

any threads or links that contained an image with a suspected fungus shaped

anything like this that I've encountered.

 

The suspected growth, pictured, looks like tiny cotton fibers, or perhaps

frost. They are 1.5-3mm long.

 

If anyone has seen something that looks quite like this under their lens

elements, I'd sure like to know what I might be facing.

 

Thanks!

Mark<div></div>

Juan, did you shoot any with your D2x that you can post for comparison? For now I will keep using my D2x, even though all you guys with your new cameras make me feel somewhat bleu.

I have owned the D2x since Jan'06, and like Shun, I found that it basically ended my use of medium format film (Rollie 6000 series in my case). I already had barely touched my 35mm stuff (F5, FM2) since getting a D70 in '04.

 

I picked up a mint used D200 this past July or so to replace my D70, and I've been really impressed with the camera. I hadn't even handled a D200 before that. Images are very impressive - I find them to be pretty close in quality to that of the D2x.

 

I had already heard the substantiated rumors of the D300 by the time I bought my D200, but went ahead with the purchase anyway. Given my now-several months with the D200, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase another one.

 

As others have said, sure there will be improvements in the D300, there always are with new camera models. But the D200 offers a very high image quality, and I expect 600 pounds is what, half the anticipated UK price or less of a D300? That's a big difference! Unless you feel you must have 50+ AF points and noise-free ISO 800 or so, and from your comments it doesn't sound as if you do, I don't think you'd regret the D200.

 

Good luck!

As the others have pointed out, it depends upon one's vision. I guess I'm in the minority, but for my own landscape work, the wide end of the 17-55 tends to be plenty wide. I own it and find it to be a great landscape lens. But then when shooting film, 24mm was my "go to" lens for years - I really like the (35mm equivalent of) the 24mm optic and virtually never used a wider lens at that time, either.

 

I should mention that I have the Tokina 12-24 as well, and while I really like that lens, I seldom reach for it for landscape shooting.

 

As far as sharpness goes, I am on my second sample of the lens. As Shun pointed out, some have assessed the 17-55 as less sharp than various alternatives at infinity. That was definitely the case with my first sample of the lens - awesome at close range and a stunning event/wedding lens, but dissappointing at 17mm at infinity at f8-11. However, this is not the case with my current copy of the lens - it's sharp and contrasty at infinity, producing lovely landscape images.

 

All the above having been said, and coming back to the "all depends upon one's vision" point, my most-used landscape lens - by far - is my 70-200...

 

Good luck!

Hyla versicolor in N. Mighican - the Eastern Gray Treefrog.

I have had the same experience with 24mm f2.8 Nikkors as Paul. It's long been a favorite lens with my film Nikons, and I've owned more than one copy over the years. But I haven't found it to be a very good performer on any of my Nikon DSLR's (D70 previously, D200 & D2x currently).

 

I use the 17-55 as my bread and butter wideangle on my DSLRs. These days, if I need to "travel light" I remove other items from my bag, and still bring the 17-55 to cover the ~24mm range.