Rick Waller

Have a look at the new Nikon lens cap design for the new 70-200/2.8 VR lens and your troubles will be over. It is a pinch model, similar to the Tamron kind and it is terrific.

See if they are available individually - otherwise it will cost you about $1500 to buy the lens cap.

This forum won't allow me to cut and paste the ebay link - but as of right now, there are several such cases available on ebay.

type in Nikon F401 and you will get to them

Hard to beleive nobody mentioned Garden of the Gods, a city owned park that, in its own way, rivals some of the spectacular red rock scenics of the Southwest. This is an absolute do not miss photo op rigtht there in downtown Colorado Springs.

Also consider Castle Rock.

I can't speak for all fuji 400, but I can assure you that Fuji NPH rated at 320 (overexposed) yields far better results than it does rated at 400.

In my experience, most if not all print films respond better to overexposure than underexposure.

You weren't talking about Provia 400 were you?

Actually Martin, I wasn't referring to the Aran Islands, although they are certainly a wonderful place to visit close by to the Burren in Galway bay. The Burren is an area on the mainland of Ireland where rock is the predominent feature.

Go to;

http://www.burrenpage.com/

I also forgot to mention that while in the Kilarney area, do not miss the Gap of Dunloe. Take the jaunty cart through the gap and out to Kate Kearney's cottage. The gap is, surprising as it may sound, a gap in the mountains surrounded by lakes, and the horse car ride is a highlight, especially if you get a good driver.

see:

http://www.vacationkillarney.com/Gap-trip.htm

While you are in the west close by to Limeric and south of Galway are Kerry, Dingle and, jeez, I forgot the name of the southernmost of the three peninsulas. If you like landscape scenics, this is the area for you. The Ring of Kerry obviously had the best public relations people since it is by far the most heavily crowded, mostly by big, lumbering, smoke belching tour buses. If you must do the Ring of Kerry, go from the north to the south, which is opposite of the way most of the buses go. Kerry has most of the famous lakes and is truly beautiful, but the crowds are murder.

I personally prefer the Dingle loop. I find the scenery to be more rugged and the road less travelled. And as an added bonus, the actual town of Dingle is a wonderful place to have dinner and spend the night. Simply gorgeous seaside scenery; it is most famous (to Americans) as the location for the Robert Mitchum movie Ryan's Daughter and the Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman movie where the two first met before getting married. I was actually in Dingle while that movie, Far and Away, was being shot.

The third of the peninsulas is the southern most and is called, damn - I can't remember - something like Argagh. This is the least crowded of the three and qite scenic. I personally recommend doing Dingle if you can choose only one. If you have the time, you can easily blow 2 or 3 days touring all 3 loops. Truly memorable scenery.

On your way north of Galway, the two major scenic highlights are the Cliffs of Moher and the Burren. The cliffs are, well cliffs and quite scenic and the Burren is the area in Europe where the Glaciers stopped their southern movement during the ice age. What makes this area fascinating is that it is almost entirely rock pushed down by the glaciers. There is little earth and green grass or meadows which is pretty rare in Ireland. Interesting flowers and other flora grow through the rocks. Consult any map for these two major attractions.

One last warning - do not take the driving lightly. I have driven often in British countries and driving on the left is one thing, but the roads in Ireland are particularly narrow and that, combined with the never ending lineup of pubs make for a dangerous place to drive. There are warning signs everywhere as the country is in the midst of a crackdown on unsafe driving since it became infamous for having the 2nd highest vehicular death toll in all of Europe. (greece is first).

Signs constantly inform you of the number of deaths on the roads in a particular county for the year as you cross county lines. I cannot stress this enough. A road no wider than my driveway with stone walls on either side instead of a shoulder is a common two way thorofare occupied by buses and trucks (lories). Driving on the left is an unnatural act unless you are British or Japanese and in emergency situations, your instinctual reaction is to swerve right. Keep my warning in your mind each and every time you come to the everpopular roundabouts. (traffic circles to us). Driving around a circle on the wrong side of the road and then trying to figure out how to exit the damn thing is guaranteed to make your palms sweat.

And believe it or not, there are so many non british drivers driving the Irish roads that you can't even rely on the skill of the native drivers to avoid an accident. A German or Frnech or Dutch driver and and American driver, each uncomfortable with driving on the left and coming at each other around a blind curve on a narrow road without shoulders having had a pint or two with lunch and....well you get the picture.

Otherwise, have fun.

Gee....I don't know what you guys are talking about. It seems that way too often ALL of my Nikon lenses have performed as "defocus" lenses. Especially when I have had too much coffee in dimly lit, handheld situations.....

:)

It is clearly a problem with your equipment. I have used the F5/80-200/2.8 combo for years with no problems.

Just one quick thought - do you have the focus limiter switch set incorectly on the lens? If you have it set to "limit" and are trying to focus something too far away, that will cause non focusing. Perhaps when you switched to the F100, you tried to compose on an item withing the "limited" range.

Just grasping at straws here - go to your lens and set the AF slide to full, not limited focus and try again.

I am lucky enough to have a 70-200/2.8 and the two Nikon TC's (1.4X and 2.X) Allow me to tell you that this lens is simply sensational optically - everything that folks loved optically about the 80-200/2.8 is present in the new 70-200 PLUS the ability to use TC's and of course the VR capability.

To me this is an absolute no brainer. I disagree with Yaron; if you want 400mm, the 70-200 with TC will give you an excellent 400mm/5.6 lens that has VR so you can shoot at 5.6 at substantially lower shutter speeds. Try shooting the 80-400 @ 5.6 at say 1/60th of a second or so handheld. I doubt you will like the results.

Then consider the lens itself without the TC's. The 70-200 will give you a 2.8 aperture; nice to have when you are shooting in low light as you say you often do. And the 70-200 at 200 will optically outperform the 80-400 @ 200mm, in my brief experience with a friends 80-400.

Also - the 80-400 has to be the noisiest lens I have ever heard from Nikon when it autofocuses. Unless there is something wrong with the sample I borrowed, the noise alone would probably scare away any critter you were trying to shoot in the wild. (anyone else have a comment on the noise?)

Lastly - remember that the 70-200/2.8 has NO aperture ring, but since you are shooting with an F5, it should not be a problem. Some folks complain that they do not like using the command dial to change apertures, but I have not touched my aperture rings on any lens since I purchased my F5 years ago. Frankly, I find the control knob to be easier and faster to use.

Jeez - I have seldom seen such a bunch of poor answers as I have just read in response to this question.

Mr. Grennburg, the poster before me, seems to be one of the few who had a response that made sense.

Let's break this down. There are Nikon snobs (or Canon, etc) who will never be caught dead with anything on their cameras except for Nikon glass. These are often wealthy types who can afford the Nikon name regardless of their photo ability or necessity.

Then there are the "label" freaks who simply dismiss Tokina or Tamron or Sigma as "cheap", "plastic" and therefore "inferior" across the board.

I wonder how many of these folks have actually used some of the third party lenses and made actual comparisons?

In my experience (as a pretty decent amateur photographer who happens to be lucky enought to be able to afford pretty much any lens he wants...)the folks who have it right are those who suggest that there are great lenses to be found among all of the 3 major indies and the Nikon/Canon OEM lenses.

Lets talk real cases here. I am particularly partial to the Tokina line. Let's start with their 300/2.8 AT X Pro. This lens is nothing short of outstanding in optical and build quality. Period. I defy anyone to point out the difference between a chrome shot with this lens and the Nikon 300/2.8 AF-S lens, projected at normal size or enlarged to 11X14. I routinely enlarged to 16x20 with this lens. The Nikon IS faster to AF - no question about it -but the optics of the Tokina really cook.

Then there is the Tokina 28-80/2.8 and the 20-35/2.8. Both of these ATX Pro's are nothing short of amazing lenses. Are they as good as the Nikon versions? Honestly, in this case the Nikon versions are better, but only in the issue of flare control. When flare is not an issue, the Tokina's compare quite well and if flare might be a problem, there certainly are ways to minimize it. If you get to know your equipment.

Then let's speak about the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. This lens is every bit the equal optically to the Nikon 105. My gripe with the Tamron? It feels like a piece of junk, but the "feel" is not what produces the image.

Sigma, which truly did make garbage lenses 10 years ago, has managed to turn out some very good glass, most notably their 105 macro, their 300/2.8 (with motorized focus) and their 80-200/2.8. Again, build quality may leave a little to be desired if you have ever held a pro nikon or Tokina Pro lens in your hands, but....

To me it is quite apparent that there are outstanding third party lenses out there which can be used by ameteur and pro to produce sharp pictures. The key to the whole thing is whether you can afford to buy OEM. I admit it - I have solely Nikon glass in my kit now, but before I could afford the Nikon gear, I used and loved my Tokinas.

Oh - about the issue of resale value being better with OEM lenses - I suppose that is generally true, probably partly due to the ruggedness of the Nikon gear and partly due to the snob appeal. But for the record, I sold my Tokina 300/2.8, my 28-80/2.8 and my 20-35/2.8 for 67% of what I paid for it. The reasons? Well, I think that those who are on a budget and KNOW their photography, consider the Tokina Pro line to be diamonds in the rough and are willing to shell out for these used lenses since 70% of a modest retail price is quite a deal. That is the bottom line - the Tokina 300/2.8 cost about 1/2 of the Nikon version. When you factor in price AND optical and build quality, those folks who don't need "NIKON" stenciled on the lens understand that they can own top notch optical gear for a fraction of Nikon prices.

Don't be so fast to badmouth non Nikon gear, especially if you have not worked with these lenses yourself and made the hands on comparisons.

And, for the record, there is one place where Nikon OEM is absolutely the best.....in the teleconverter area. I traded in my Tokina 300/2.8 on the Nikon version for 2 reasons. One, I shoot a lot of sports and the AF-S fast focus really makes a difference in focusing speed and second, the Kenko 1.4 and 2.0 converters, while pretty good pieces of equipment, are not even close to the Nikon versions. This is one case where spending double (hell, more like triple) the money pays BIG dividends. The pics with the Nikon 2X converter on the Nikon AF-SII lens are simply to die for.

To those who do not like 3rd party gear after experience with them, I say - hey, to each his own. But I dismiss those who have never even handled the 3rd party stuff and just parrot the broad generalizations you find on chat boards like this one.

Don't think I would pay that for a "normal" lens, but I do have a comment for Ian who indicated that he views the results from his 50 by using a cheap plastic loupe.

May I suggest to you Ian, that you throw away the plastic loupe and turn your 50 over and use IT as a loupe. You will be amazed at how good an inverted 50mm lens performs as a loupe!

Man - I just reread the original question and realize that the guy was asking about soccer, not football. Well, I have shot soccer too for years and the concepts are pretty much the same.

Anticipation, composing on the subjects eyes till the camera locks the eyes and burn film.

Just substitute soccer action for my football examples.

Actually, now that I think of it, one exciting play in soccer is particularly easy to shoot. The wing on a long run up the left or right side. If you position yourself behind the back line, or along the touch line if you can get close, the player is dribbling right at you. The F100 excels at this type of action. It is coming right at you with no dekes. Again - nail the eyes and just let him keep coming at you within the 5 focus points. The camera will do the rest.

Same for set plays like corner kicks. After watching the game for a while, it will become pretty apparent who is going to go up in front of the net to try to head the ball in. Watch the players and you can generally figure out the play. When the player is just ready to play the ball on the corner kick, find the guy most likely to take the ball in front of goal and follow him. Even if he misses the header, you will have a good action shot of the guy trying. Or ignore the offense and focus on the keeper during the corner. Keepers, more times than not, are doing something spectacular in front of net during a corner.

I wish to disagree a bit with the suggestions to stop down for greater depth of field. Of course the concept is entirely accurate - I mean that WILL work, but if you look at great sports photography, you will notice that the really good ones "pop" the subject from the backround. Now I don't know what lens you are using (what aperture, I mean), but if you have a 2.8 lens that is sharp wide open (like the 80-200/2.8 or a 300/2.8, I submit that the idea is to shoot as wide open as possible to capture the subject in sharp focus and blur out the backround.

I shoot with an F5 and an F100 with 2.8 glass and it is really pretty simple to get sharp action shots with the F100. I always use continuous shutter and set the MSC switch to continuous. It takes some practice, but the trick is to anticipate the action, decide ahead of time who your subject is, and be ready to shoot him. I tend to select the focus spot to the left or right of center, depending on the direction of the action. If the action goes right to left, use the left spot to start with so the subject runs from the left spot through the center spot to the right spot.

Where the practice comes in is in placing the selected focus spot over the eye of the subject, letting the camera "lock on" the focus BEFORE YOU TRIP THE SHUTTER, and then firing off a burst keeping the subject within the circle of the 5 spots. Your F100 is an amazing camera and will do the rest. If you nail the eye before you fire and keep firing, you will get a large percentage of keepers, (not to mention a large dent in your film budget.)

Two more points - first, it is MUCH HARDER to wait for the play to develop and then try to frame and focus a particular subject. Your odds of getting a good shot are greatly diminished. As I said, anticipate the play, decide who to stick with, and work with him. If its 3rd and one, I am looking at the running back or the qb for a sneak or an off tackle run. 3rd and 8 has me focusing on the hot wideout. Or perhaps the corner covering the hot wideout. On a punt, either shoot the punter or the return guy.

Second - when I shoot afternoon games, I am shooting 800 speed fuji film. I want the very fast sutter speeds. On my F5, I am often shooting at 1/8000 sec at 2.8 in the sun, so I know that any blurryness in my pics are the result of poor focusing and not camera shake. Also, the very fast shutter enables you to crank off your shots in rapid succession which means you often have a selction of great shots per play to choose from. Out of 5 shots, one of them is bound to have the eyes visible. And if I am using my F100 and my shutter speed is not fast enough, I don't care because Fuji 800 will easily take +2 overexposure and still yield great prints.

Try it - I think you will find that it works fine. I find the hardest part of shooting football is to get the eyes properly lit. The helmets, midday light and facemasks all conspire to hide the eyes. And if you can't see the eyes sharply focused and well lit....well you haven't gotten the shot. Look in Sports Illustrated or your newspaper for the football pics they publish. Ever see one where the eyes are not visible? To me, this is the tough part.

I am planning a trip up Route 97 from Port Jervis to view Bald Eagles

along the Delaware River and in Mongap falls area. Anyone know if

the eagles are in residence there yet.

also, any tips on locations, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Please don't take this reply as a wise-ass answer....it is in no way intended to be one. But asking about good photo-ops in the Canadian Rockies is like asking if there is any sand to shoot at the beach or any paintings to see at the Louvre.

While all of the above replies gave excellent spots to shoot amazing scenics and critters, my experience in the area is that you would have to work very very hard to find a location anywhere between Calgary and Jasper that was NOT a photo-op in waiting.

By the way - one fellow mentioned the Vermilion lakes just outside of Banff. I must admit that that location was sensational, but don't limit yourself to dawn. The best alpenglow shot I ever took was of Mt. Rundle a little past dusk one summer evening.

One last suggestion - after you determine how much film you should bring........add another 30% or so. You won't beleive how much film you will burn there!

You are gonna love this trip.

I suggest that you try the blue/yellow polarizers if you are trying to match the view thru those glasses. The best is the Singh Ray at $160, but the Cokin is useable and it cost about $20. Look for the Cokin P173 filter.

I am pretty sure this will give you the look you want.