nick_baker

<p>I have found these pants excellent for tropical wear. Very lightweight, comfortable, dry out in no time. They have a few pockets. http://www.prana.com/stretch-zion-convertible.html?color=darkkhaki</p>

<p>well, if it is different on the D3200 that would explain it. I've never used that camera.</p>

<p>I use Auto ISO routinely in M mode (D7100/D7200). That gives me direct control over shutter speed and aperture. If desired, it is easy to see when you are at base ISO or at the high set point from the under/over exposure indicator in the viewfinder. Someone complained about difficulty turning Auto ISO on/off but I don't see the problem. First, to go beyond the high limit simply underexpose and lift in post. Since these cameras are ISO-less at high ISO there is no penalty. Secondly, one can easily save Auto ISO on/off using U1/2.</p>

<p>If you can really get D750+24-120VR for less than D7100 + new lens then this may be a good choice. FX does have advantages, they are not huge but if there is no financial penalty, why not? It will be a little heavier, primarily because of the lens. The disadvantage is that you can forget getting any small, inexpensive 450mm telephoto in future (equivalent to your 300 mm DX). You could get a used manual focus 200mm f4 AIS lens for not much money, it is a decent lens although only modestly longer than the zoom.</p>

<p>the better OM lenses I mentioned hold their value better, of course. I am not sure whether a random legacy lens, 28/2.8 say, would be cheaper from Zuiko or from Nikon, if you say so I have no reason to question it. Regarding longevity, sure, I used an OM2 for my amateur photography for nearly 30 years with little problem, but did eventually bend the mount ring on two bodies, probably with the aforementioned Tamron 80-200/2.8. I suspect the OM's may be less than robust with such a big, heavy lens than some other brands. OM never really captured the pro market, did they? Galen Rowell was famously lightweight with camera gear, but preferred more robust Nikon bodies over OM for (perceived?) reliability in the field. I suspect this may also be why Zuiko added bigger, faster lenses over time (f2 series), pros are prepared to carry what it takes.</p>

<p>I used an OM-2 body for nearly 30 years (1978-2007). I've also used OM-1, OM-2sp and OM-4. To me the OM-1 I tried seemed a bit better than the others (nice shutter) but perhaps that camera had simply been better treated. The OM camera and lens system was very compact and had some nice design features, but this was also its weakness. The bodies are not as robust as some larger models of other brands. The telephoto lenses in particular are a little slow presumably to save weight. There used to be an online compendium of OM lens tests that was very helpful, but I don't think it is still available. Don't flame me but in my opinion most of the Zuiko lenses are nothing special by modern standards. The best are the later models, 28/2, 50/2 macro, 90/2 macro, 100/2, 180/2.8 and reportedly 250/2 although I have never used this large expensive pro lens. These models will also be the most expensive used. None of the Zuiko zooms seem particularly good except the 35-80/2.8 has a good reputation. The best telephoto zoom for OM cameras is the Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 Adaptall 2. Most of the other OM Zuiko lenses must be very cheap by now. </p>

<p>You seem interested in the minimum focus distance. I had always hoped the 80-400 VR1 would be useful for large butterflies and such, but in my experience this lens is rather weak optically at 400mm and MFD. I would not recommend it for that use.</p>

<p>I would tend to agree with Shun. The 80-400 VR1 AF-D is a lens that does work, but with multiple limitations. It's AF is slow. It's VR is good for maybe 2 stops. At 400mm it really needs to be stopped down to f8 or beyond to be sharp. I decided I would rather carry a 70-300 VR which is much smaller and lighter with better AF and VR. While the 80-400 VR1 AF-D is smaller and lighter than the new 80-400 VR2 AF-S lens or the 200-500VR, it is not exactly a small lens itself. So while if you get a good price, and think you really will benefit from the zoom range, perhaps it could work out for you, there would only be very specific circumstances where you could not find something better. I suppose that the one plus is that you would have 400mm available, if needed. Note: I used this lens only on D300, I don't know how it compares on higher resolution sensors.</p>

<blockquote> <p>They provide a spec chart that compares the D500 with the D7200 and the D300s. About the only thing that is left out are the sizes of the cameras. There is a reason for this and that is that the D500 is larger than both of the other cameras. For that matter, it is larger in every dimension and heavier than the full frame D750. It is the same width as the D810, .3" shorter and only .1" thinner.</p> </blockquote> <p>I noticed that too and was disappointed initially. But I realized that the D500 is not meant to be a DX D750 or D800. It is a DX version of the D5, and much smaller and cheaper than a D5. If the specs are to be believed, it will blow D750/D810 away for certain kinds of uses, almost as a D5 would.</p>

<p>I think your best single option would be the new Nikon 300mm F4 PF lens. It is amazingly small and light, no tripod will be required because of the VR, and it focusses close enough to fill the frame with larger insects, as well as being excellent at distance. If you were able to pair it with a 1.4x teleconverter, you would have both as much reach for distanct wildlife as will be convenient to handle, and enough magnification for even average-sized insects. The downside is that this lens is not cheap at around $2000. It sounds as though your trip is too long for renting to be an option. The lens is is so close to your requirements, however, that perhaps you can consider buying new and selling upon your return? Very few of these lenses have appeared on the used market, it would not surprise me if you could recoup 85% of the purchase price by selling later. The older 300mm F4 AFS is probably equivalent optically, but at several times the size and weight and without VR it is going to be nowhere near as convenient and is unsuitable for use in forest shade without a tripod. Any kind of zoom lens (at least, any that is cheaper) is going to be at least 1 stop slower, and more in practice because the optical quality will be inferior unless stopped down. </p>

<p>There now seems to be an explanation for these phenomena. Seemingly it is caused by the chip in some of the older lenses. See this discussion.<br> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56125043</p>

<p>Thank you, that does look quite nice</p>

<p>Dear Ilkka</p> <p>Yes, any comments you have regarding the close-up use of the 300 PF VR would be useful (I remember reading your comments regarding the 300 F4 AFS and 200mm micro some years ago). I would use the lens for butterfly photography, primarily handheld. Currently I have the 200mm micro and have owned the 300 F4 AFS previously.</p> <p>thanks</p>

<p>Ilkka<br> What do you think of this as a closeup lens? Any comparisons with the 300 f4 AFS?</p> <p>thank you.</p>

<blockquote> <p><br /> Return to Nikon as a failed lens.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, looks that way</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you rotate it manually and it feels smooth, could you look into the front of the lens and see whether the front element group moves forward and backward as you rotate the focusing ring?</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks for the suggestion Shun.<br> As expected, the lens elements do not move with the MF ring</p>

<p>Hello</p> <p>I wonder if anyone has a solution to my current problem. This morning I decided to try extension tubes on by 70-200F4 VR. I mounted a 20mm Kenko extension tube between the lens and my D7100 body and everything was fine. The I tried the 36mm tube. From this point onwards the 70-200 lens has not focused. Both AF <em>and MF</em> are kaput. The MF ring turns smoothly in the normal way, but to no effect. The D7100 body focuses other lenses; the 70-200 VR does not focus on another body (D5100). I have cleaned the contacts, not that this would explain the failure of manual focusing.<br> Any suggestions?<br> thanks<br> Nick</p>

<blockquote> <p>Here are some experiments with the 500d on a 180mm and 300mm nikon lens.. : <br /><a href="http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/whatsnew_2.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/whatsnew_2.html</a></p> </blockquote> <p>Those are very nice photos. The disadvantage I would see with the 500d is that you are limited to a narrow range of subject distances, nice for when you can stake out a fixed location, as you suggest, but not so useful for chasing insects. I appreciate that for you, insects may be plentiful and predictable so that one can spend some time preparing fora photo but that is not always the case. You do of course obtain better results with flash and a tripod, <em>as with any photography</em>. </p>

<p>Mike, you will never get some people to understand. I don't really know why. Personally, at the moment I have been favoring the 200mm micro over the 300mm AFS, because it focuses between 1:1 and infinity without taking tubes on and off, and it is somewhat smaller and lighter. I think it is better optically as well. With a 24MP DX sensor and no AA filter the cropping potential is impressive. As it happens I was just in a store yesterday, evaluating the screw drive AF of this lens on different bodies. I was surprised how little difference I could detect in those limited circumstances.<em> </em>There <em>may</em> be a speed advantage D810>D750>D7200, but I am not really certain. The greater subject distance of longer focal length lenses can be a disadvantage, for example Shun's 80-400 could not focus on a butterfly at his feet, unless he is extremely tall. Ultimately a two-body solution may be best, 300 AFS PF on one, something that goes to 1:1 on the other. </p>

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>As far as I know 300mm F4 PF VR is not compatible with extension tubes, which is a shame considering how well the previous AFS lens performed</p> </blockquote> <p>Considering how most 'smart' tubes are just pass-through contacts, I wonder how the lens will 'know' it's there?</p> </blockquote> <p>Isn't electronic aperture a problem?</p>

<p>As far as I know 300mm F4 PF VR is not compatible with extension tubes, which is a shame considering how well the previous AFS lens performed (on DX only)</p>

<p>I have this lens. Yes, there is slack in the aperture lever. I can hear a slight noise if I gently shake the unmounted lens but it is very slight, I can barely hear it</p>

<p>I would only recommend Leica lenses for an R4. Otherwise sell the body and use Tamron lenses on a much cheaper body from any other brand.<br> I've found the 35mm f2.8 elmarit-R to be a very good lens</p>

<blockquote> <p>Jake, <em><strong>if</strong></em> you're working from a tripod or a fixed/stable copystand, then time is not an issue and you can use the lowest ISO you want and any ANY aperture you want.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, and if you stack images you can have whatever dof you want from whatever aperture. Not hard to do in Photoshop, or there are dedicated programs available.</p> <p>In principle FX is better for your purposes since you are not looking to maximize reach. On the other hand, you will have to substitute the 40mm DX micronikkor with a longer focal length - one of the used 55mm AIS micronikkors would be a cheap option. Overall, you will spend more money for a modest improvement in dynamic range, perhaps 1 stop. Also, D800e, D810 and D7100 are the only bodies lacking an AA filter, which does make a (small) difference. Your call.</p>

<blockquote> <p>If you buy a gray market version, Nikon USA will not repair it under warranty.</p> </blockquote> <p>or outside of warranty either</p>