glen_sansone1

<p>Thanks. Fisheye is really for fun. It has its place, but not a regular workhorse. <br>

I sort of agree with you Rob. It is a small gap to fill with such a beefy lens. I agree that the 24-70 will get a lot of use, and having some primes sprinkled in rounds things out nicely. I do like to shoot landscapes, so that was the major reason for having a 17-35 -- really for that purpose. I will look at the 20 AF. Interesting thought....</p>

Here is what I am configuring as my lens stable

I shoot a lot of events and kids and people and scenery, so I have to be quick and versatile. .

16mm AF Fisheye

17-35mm 2.8

24-70mm 2.8

50mm 1.4 G

85mm 1,4 Ais

105mm 2,8 G

70-200 2,8 VRII

Do you think I am bunched up in the wide angles? There's a little overlap. A few of these lenses I don't have yet, specifically the 17-35. I

want an f ring so I can use it on my film bodies (I am sick of all these gelded lenses), plus the 14-24 doesn't take filters and is too

unorthodox despite its brilliance. Anyone have a 17-35? I hear mixed feedback, with some claiming its the softest wide angle zoom Nikon

makes. Do you agree? Is it noticeably soft? I like the build of the older pro lenses better. I've seen a 14-24 break into 3 pieces from a very

short fall.

<p>Sorry, Dieter. You can have the glory. I am looking forward to telling the seller that he (or someone) fitted a DP-12 to a Titan body. Just don't tell me that this is a rare specimen because it never actually was issued in this configuration. <br>

The crazy thing is that I've seen *mint* Titans selling for $2K and up, and very clean F2AS' WITH the MD-2 for under $1000. If I really want an F2AS maybe get a really clean one or do you think the Ti model is a good investment. <br>

I want to use it, not put it under glass. </p>

<p>Aaah, now you're making sense. It very well could be a F2 Titan -- without the inscription -- fitted with a DP-12 prism. Still makes for an impressive setup, tho a bit of a hybrid.<br>

I am going to get the serial number tomorrow and see what I can find. </p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. <br>

Your ideas are possible...BUT....<br>

The word "Titan" is not engraved into the body anywhere. <br />Mine looks like an F2/T with a F2AS prism on top, but the controls on mine are distinctly F2.<br>

The seller has been in the repair business for well over 30 years, so I am pretty sure he's not messing with me. He has sold me many classic lenses and an F3 body and they've all been incredible items...and he holds things special for me (i.e. won't sell to anyone else) if I am seriously interested. He knows every dial and switch on it and took it apart for me and showed how it works. Touching it I know the difference between brass and titanium. This felt like I could cut my hand on the corners -- like it was chiseled from a solid block. Not a mark on it. Now, his words were, "Don't even ask me how much because I have no idea what it's worth yet -- you won't find this model on eBay or anywhere. It's very rare." It's not that I doubt him, but for my own knowledge I'd like to know the approximate value of a mint condition titanium F2AS. It been hard to find anyone else who has even seen one!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can't seem to find any info online about a camera body I have an opportunity to purchase, and that is a NIKON F2AS Titanium. I know there was the Titan and other F2 Ti model, but I can't find anything on an AS titanium. This one has the large pentaprism like a standard F2, stacked ASA, etc. controls and such. Is it that rare? I saw it, held it and marveled at it. The one for sale is in immaculate condition with the MD-2 motor drive, but I am trying to figure out what it's worth. <br>

It was all black, no titanium indicators, just an AS on the prism and a crinkle paint finish on all covers. It was definitely not brass. It felt incredibly solid. <br>

Can anyone tell me something about this model? Should I snatch it up? </p>

<p>Much thanks! </p>

<p>Can anyone recommend an online lab that can: <br>

1. process c-41 color film<br>

2. process B&W film <br>

3. Allow me to order prints, enlargements, products, etc. <br>

4. Allow me to order digital copies of my images<br>

5. Not take forever to do it and do it well</p>

<p>I am struggling to find a lab that can do it all -- or most. Some that I've tried will process film and make prints but can't give me a hi-res digital copy (TIFF, jpg). <br>

Everyone wants me to buy coffee mugs, t-shirts, wall clings and lots of merchandise with my images on it, and I just want to process my film and get a digital copy as well as a print. <br>

Am I asking too much? </p>

<p>PLEASE ADVISE! </p>

<p>Thanks all. </p>

I have an F3HP and F5 along with my D700. I just pulled some pics I took with my F5 in Italy and couldn't get over how

much nicer film looks. They looked like little paintings--beautiful contrast, texture and saturation. Can't get that print quality

with a digital printout. film still rules!

<p>Very well said, Skyler. <br>

I think it really comes down to finding whatever it is that inspires you. Your gear is definitely a factor. If you put on a 24mm 1.4 and head out to take some images, or shoot some at an event, for me that lens is what I am talking through, so there is a connection, and inspiration is partly drawn from the lens and trying to speak through it. Everyone wants to be happy with their gear and feel as if it's an extension of one's creativity. <br>

There are practical reasons for choosing the gear that we do, and wedding shooters really DO need a zoom since the photographer often times wants to keep some distance between the camera and subject, esp. for candids. But as a hobbyist (or the one in the family always expected to be the default photographer for all special events), and a person looking to push their creativity whenever possible, I think I benefit more from choosing primes. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now all you have to do is give up AF too! ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And AE... and digital... :)</p>

<p>Don't tempt me!!! Again, I am certainly not knocking zooms -- someday I'd like a 24-70 f/2.8 just for that convenience normal zoom. The 2.8 Nikon zooms are amazing. </p>

<p>Completed revamping my lens setup. <br>

Sold my 16-35 f/4, and two older D 35mm and 50mm primes, and another zoom. <br>

Now my setup consists of: <br>

24mm 1.4G <br>

35mm 1.4G<br>

50mm 1.4G<br>

105mm 2.8G MICRO<br>

80-200mm 2.8 ED </p>

<p>Really got sick of lugging big heavy zooms around. Don't really care for them -- they just offered convenience for me..and I became a lazy shooter with them. I'd rather lug around big heavy primes. <br>

Anyone else not like using zooms? Just feel like I got lazy composing shots using a zoom. Easier to stand in one place and crop the shot rather than to move around and find the best perspective with my feet. I think primes push you to be creative. Not that people who use zoom are not creative, but for me I found myself taking a lot of mediocre shots with the zoom and more better attempts to be creative with the primes. And with 1.4s it means I can use my flash even LESS! That's a plus. <br>

Next purchase will be the 85mm 1.4G and not sure about keeping the 80-200. May hang onto it for action, when my kids get into sports or something. </p>