frank_field

<p>After many years of doing it the other way, I have come to realize that there is a lot to be said for "keeping it simple." Two lenses (e.g. your choice of 24-70 and 70-200) and, hopefully, two bodies to minimize the number of things to carry, number of lens changes in the field, etc., while maximizing the probability that you are 'ready to shoot' most of the time in the field. If the two bodies are identical, or nearly so, you also maximize interchangeability of accessories (filters, flashes, remote releases, etc.) which also tends to reduce the number of different accessories you need to carry.</p>

<p>Like others have said, you will almost always find it better to sell your used lenses on eBay. Used, recent lenses generally sell for at least 80% of the new price and sometimes even go for more than new price (guess some folks get carried away in bidding frenzies). As both a buyer and seller, I've found this 80% point to be pretty consistent. </p>

<p>I have been using a pair of D200 bodies for about 3.5 years now and do primarily landscape photography. Much of my work is at focal lengths of 35 to 200 mm. I have never been a huge fan of very wide angles for landscape photography so I do not feel pinched by using a DX-sized sensor and, in fact, prefer the added "reach" provided by the cropped frame sensor. As a landscape photographer, much work is done in the damper early and late hours of the day so I appreciate the moisture sealing in the D200. With depth of field a key priority for landscape work, one really does not want to go beyond a 10-12 MPixel DX-format sensor. Diffraction limits start to set in beyond f/11, I find f/13 to be a practical working limit and find that losses due to diffraction at f/16 tend to cancel out any advantage from added depth of field. Situation only gets worse if one opts for a camera with more pixels on the same size sensor (e.g., D7000). Most of my shooting is done at ISO 100 or 200 from a tripod; I will occasionally shoot hand-held at ISO 400. Noise performance of the D200 is OK at these ISOs while it starts to become quite noticeable at ISO 800. The D200 features mirror lock-up; I can't imagine doing serious landscape work, especially with longer lenses without this feature. Lastly, the D200 has the older style (~250 kPixel) monitor while newer bodies are more like 800 kPixel. Not enough resolution to judge critically focus accuracy tho fine for overall composition and display of three channel histogram data.</p>

<p>I have only thought of two features missing from the D200 that I would like to have: live view (for use as a focusing aid when doing macro work) and the ability to fine-tune autofocus. (The D700 has both of these features.) As such, I have not been tempted to upgrade to the D300 tho that would be my current DX-body of choice if I were to make a first purchase today. </p>

<p>Both of my D200 bodies have been trouble-free - one was purchased new and the other used. One now has 30k - 40k shutter clicks. </p>

<p>I don't have personal experience with the D90 tho it clearly has been a popular advanced amateur body. Data at dxomark.com suggest that it is the best performing DX-format sensor in Nikon's line (best in terms of noise performance, slightly beating the D300). I would suggest you check closely for features like mirror lock-up.</p>

<p>I have found a working 'kit' of one D200 with a 17-55mm f/2.8 and a second D200 with an 80-200mm f/2.8 meets most of my needs, keeps the 'kit' fairly simple and maximizes interchangeability of accessories. The lenses spend about 90% of their time on one body and I've had much less challenges with dust on the sensor since I minimized lens changes in the field.</p>

<p>All the above comments are from someone who primarily does landscape work. I know that would have different criteria and evaluation if I did distinctly different types of photography (e.g., weddings, etc.).</p>

<p>Frank<br>

www.edgelightimages.com</p>

<p>John --</p>

<p>The 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2.0 and 50 f/1.4 that I mention are all AF-D lenses. I also own a 24 f/2.8 AIS lens that I have used on the D200. Its major issue is very noticeable chromatic aberration. I would rate both the 20 f/2.8 AF-D and 24 f/2.8 AIS as inferior to the 17-55 f/2.8 G DX lens. I do, however, rate the 35 f/2.8 AF-D and 50 f/1.4 AF-D as somewhat superior to the 17-55 mm lens. More modern lens design, with the use of aspherical elements, has improved wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>Have you considered Nikon's 16-85 mm zoom? All reports are that it is a good walk-around lens (good every day lens) while admittedly not being outstanding at any one thing yet weighs about 1/3 less than the 17-55 and is less bulky.</p>

<p>An earlier comment suggested no advantage to the Zeiss lenses on a DX body. My reading of the quantitative data on www.photozone.de suggests that there is a distinct performance improvement over similar focal length Nikon lenses, even on a DX body. The advantages do show up in edge and corner sharpness and especially on wider angle lenses at wider apertures (which may or may not matter depending on your style of shooting). Given the high pricing that Nikon has placed on its newer lenses (both zoom and fixed focal length), the Zeiss lenses start to look quite attractive for those who want to do their own focusing!</p>

<p>Again, as you consider the trade-offs, I do much recommend a careful look at photozone.de where you will find quantitative test data for a wide variety of lenses on both FX and DX bodies.</p>

<p>Frank</p>

 

<p>I own the 17-55/2.8 and the three primes you mention. The 17-55 is big and heavy, no doubt, yet its optical performance is very good tho not outstanding. When I want to go light, I generally just carry the 35 f/2 or the 50 f/1.4. The 35 f/2 is fabulous on my D200 bodies -- crisp, great color rendition and the 50 1.4 does a similarly excellent job. Both the 35 and 50 are somewhat better than the 17-55 at their respective focal lengths. The 20 f/2.8 is a disappointing lens, even on a DX body. The edges and corners, even stopped down, are not nearly as sharp as the 17-55 at 20mm and similar f/stops. Recommend you check out the quantitative lens performance reports on www.photozone.de. </p>

<p>As a workshop leader, I'd look for someone who is both recognized and a good communicator/teacher. I think Brenda Tharp is excellent in both categories. She has published a well regarded book (with updated edition due in March) and is recognized as an outstanding instructor. </p>

<p>Kenneth --<br>

If you have not found it, I strongly recommend Bjørn Rørslett's site at www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. Links are in the left hand panel; click on the link to lenses. Many folks have come to view Bjørn's work as the reference work on Nikon lenses. I certainly have relied on his evaluations in my purchase of Nikon glass. <br>

A second source that I find valuable is www.photozone.de with quite useful test data of many of Nikon's lenses and some third party lenses. Good luck with your choice. <br /> <br /> Frank<br /> <br /> Edge Light Images: Light, Land and Ocean of Northern California, http://www.edgelightimages.com</p>

<p>Three Nikon primes that I much enjoy: 35 mm f/2.0D, 85 mm f/1.8D, 180 mm f/2.8D. I mostly use 17-55 mm f/2.8G and 80-200 f/2.8D zooms (both of which are very good zooms) and select the primes when I'm looking for something lighter to carry or for their special qualities. Images from the 35 mm f/2.0D are especially crisp (great color rendition, zero CA). The 85 mm lens is great for portraits; I've also used the 85 mm f/1.4D -- truly a fabulous lens but also at a fabulous price for a short tele. Nothing beats the sharpness of the 180 mm f/2.8D tele and it is about 1/3 of the weight of the tele zoom.</p>

<p>The best unbiased source of information I've found on Nikon lenses is at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html. Follow the link "Lenses" from the menu on the left edge of the screen. I believe Bjorn is a retired professional in statistics and his reviews and ratings are both thoughful and direct.</p>

<p>I can echo that the Nikon 80-200 mm f/2.8D lens is fabulous -- tack sharp and nearly free of geometric distortion. I shoot primarily landscapes and use this lens more than any other single lens I have. Price on the used market is more than your target range but much less than a new 70-200 f/2.8 AFS. Too, this is a lens that is best used on a tripod (which I do all almost all the time) given its weight and lack of vibration reduction capabilities.</p>

<p>55 mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor. Fantastically sharp lens with great flat-field optics down to half life size. But, this particular design has a reputation for drooling sticky grease on the aperture blades which soon freeze up. My copy was cleaned and repaired twice by Nikon before I gave up on it. Too bad because the optics were incomparable for its time (I purchased mine in the mid-1980s) and the mechanical quality (other than the grease issue) is simply not seen in even today's highest priced Nikon lenses.</p>

January is usually the rainiest month of the year on the coast of California. Storms usually move through fairly

quickly though and the breaks between storms can provide some dramatic skies (clearing storm, etc.). We do

sometimes get back to back storms that can leave it rainy for a full week, though. You need to be prepared to

work with the weather in terms of gear and planned subjects.

 

Do check ahead for accommodations. Some places close for a month or two after New Year's holiday period.

 

Frank

Coastal Northern California

I grew up in New Hampshire tho I now live in California. Generally, the last week of September and first two weeks of October are peak foliage season in northern New England. The peak foliage progresses from higher elevation to lower and from north to south. If you happen to be in an area that is still green, head north and head to higher elevation. In years when it has been quite rainy, like this year, peak foliage tends to occur later.

 

Two routes are absolutely fabulous to drive. In NH, the Kangamangus Hwy (route 112) between North Woodstock and Conway, Hwy 302 from Conway to Twin Mountain and Hwy 3 from Twin Mountain back to North Woodstock. In Vermont, Hwy 100 runs the length of the state along the mountains is should not be missed! One word of caution: the season is very popular and many, many "leaf peepers" visit making it hard to find a place to stay if you have not reserved well in advance. The high cost of gasoline may ironically dampen the crowds this year.

 

Enjoy your trip!

All Series E lenses are AI-S mounts.

Jason --

 

I live about 50 miles from Hendy Woods. Unfortunately, Mendocino County has experienced some pretty bad wild

fires. They were touched off in late June by lightning from a dry thunderstorm. While the national press has

focused on Big Sur area in its reporting, Mendocino County has been pretty hard hit also. Even areas quite some

distance from the actual fires have experienced poor air quality from the smoke. I would recommend that you

check the CalFire web site http://www.fire.ca.gov/index_incidents.php for latest status. Would also recommend a

call to the rangers at Hendy Woods to get the best local view of impacts there.

 

Aside from the fires which are slowly coming under control, the Anderson Valley is very pretty. It is one of the

more northerly wine regions in the state and wineries up and down Hwy 128 produce some great wines with Pinot

Noir being especially good. There are some decent groves of redwoods both at Hendy Woods and further west along

the the Navarro River (west along Hwy 128). Due west of Hendy Woods on the coast, don't miss the village of Elk

with fabulous sea stacks along the coast. Great restaurants in the village of Mendocino but also a mecca for the

tourists so it can seem crowded relative to the rural Anderson Valley.

 

Enjoy your trip!

 

Frank

Hi David --

 

I switched to zooms largely because I'd grown tired of continual lens swapping. Concern about geometric

distortion is what had held me back. Today I'm using 17-55 f/2.8G and 80-200 f/2.8D - each on a dedicated D200 body

so you can see I really got tired of swapping. (One of the bodies and the tele zoom were purchased on the used

market). I do always carry one more lens in my bag and that is the 35mm f/2.8D (also purchased on used market) in

the event I have a need to go very light and compact with just one small lens and one body. About 95% of my work

is landscapes.

 

If you have not seen it, take a look at the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de. I have done careful tests

with many of my lenses and find my results to be very consistent with those on photozone. Another excellent site

to check out is Bjorn Rorslett's site at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (click on the Lenses link on

the left hand side of the screen). I really appreciate Bjorn's insights.

 

Good luck in your search!

 

Frank

I've only recently shifted to using zooms with my Nikon cameras so I have a pretty good collection of fixed focal

Nikkor lenses. In my own experience, the 35mm f/2.0 AF-D Nikon lens is hard to beat on my D200. I find the

images to be incredibly crisp, color fidelity excellent, just about zero chromatic aberation and little geometric

distortion. Some other Nikon lenses from the film autofocus era do not work so well on DSLRs -- I'm thinking

particularly of the 20mm f/2.8 AFD -- far too much geometric distortion and CA and poor corner sharpness for a

fixed focal length lens. I personally found the 35 mm focal length to be noticeably different from the 50 mm.

 

If your budget is limited, you really can stretch your dollars through buying on the used market. If you use

one of the auction sites, look for a seller with a well established reputation (lots of successful transactions

and positives) and look for items with plenty of detail photos to get a very good understanding of condition.

Set a reasonable maximum price in your mind and avoid getting caught up in a bidding war! There will be more of

the same item next week. Probably 2/3 of my gear has come from the used market and I've been quite happy with

nearly everything I have purchased that way.

I'd recommend you check out the reports at http://www.photozone.de. I've done critical tests on most of the lenses I own and find my results to be very consistent with the reports at photozone.