russelharris

<p>The images are lovely and somewhat remind me of the images in this thread that were digitally altered to achieve - what looks to me - to be a similar effect:</p>

<p><a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00Z33P">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00Z33P</a></p>

<p>In January 2011, before I bought my 60 AF-S for copy work, I would have bought this lens. The 60 is a great lens but too long a lot of the time for gallery repro shoots.</p>

<p>Jason, how did it fall apart? It looked pretty solid to me!</p>

<p>Michael A, I don't recall the BQ of the 75-150. Does it have a plastic mount?</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, I agree. Wish I still had mine. Here's a shot I took in Tel Aviv a few years back. It's taken from a scan of a negative.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Wouter, thanks yeah I really do like the subtle way the image is rendered. From the dozen I took in the store and outside, I was happy with three.</p>

<p>Now there is one other point I just noticed: the image has a subtle yellow cast to it (to me, at least) and that is a look I first saw on Nikon ads in American Photo magazine where they profiled a certain photographer. It's what got me into shooting Nikon in the first place - man, I wanted THAT tone. And I have yet to duplicate it. Until now.</p>

<p>How do these older lenses rate on modern Nikon dSlrs like the D7k? A recent thread on here discussed the flaws highlighted my MP counts higher than 12MP.<br>

Not that I plan to replace my D300 for a few years, it's a top-notch camera, but I am just curious? I imagine quite a few PN members use older lenses on their D700s and D7Ks.</p>

<p>Luke, I have decided to not go the 180/2.8 route. It costs too much - from around $450 and up - and I do think it's a tad too heavy</p>

<p>Im looking at 105 F2.5 P AI for now - prices between $150 - $190.<br /><br />Wouter, unfortunately I dont have the Series E anymore; but I may buy one sometime soon!</p>

<p>Thanks Rodeo Joe. I've made the adjustment. Now all I need is the lens :)</p>

<p>Agreed JDM, besides the price, I'm also attracted by the fact that it uses a 52mm filter like my 35 DX and 18-55 VR. Oh, and I don't know about you but I like being able to attach the lens to my camera, compose, focus and shoot. There is something about using these lenses that just feels right. I don;t get the same feeling when I MF my 35 DX or 60 G Micro.</p>

<p>I must say it's been a while since I used an MF Nikon - I used to own an EM with 50 mm and 75-150mm E-series lenses and a Nikkor 24mm H - so I'm quite excited about this purchase!</p>

<p>Quick question: is there anything I need to do to the D300 to ensure I get optimal performance from the 105? Or does the camera recognize the lens automatically as long as I have it in either M or A mode?</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback guys. I must admit I wasn't looking to buy another lens - still looking for a bag, actually, and then I said to the woman whose photo I posted in this thread, "Ah, do you have a longer lens I can put on my camera? I just want to see how it would fit in this bag and my 35mm DX is too short..."</p>

<p>And the rest they say is Nikon Gear Acquisition Syndrome :)</p>

<p>B&H and KEH both offer the 105 AI for under $200. I will see if I can get a friend in the US consulate to ship it to me. If not, then I will have to factor in shipping and customs and ... well I may as well buy locally. </p>

<p>The 180mm is available from around $450 and up for either the MF or AF versions.</p>

<p>Tried both of these out on my D300 at a store today here in Jerusalem, Israel. Loved them both. Lot of cosmetic wear on both lenses but the glass appears clean and scratch free.</p>

<p>Do you think they are worth the price? (I can probably haggle them down to about 275 each.)</p>

<p>If you think they are worth it, which is the better of the two? I intend using it for candid street shots and some portrait work.</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>Russ</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

<p>I managed to check out a few more bags this evening and concluded that I need something that will only take the D300, 18-70; and 35 DX / flash; nothing more.</p>

<p>IOW, I intend leaving the netbook behind so I can focus on taking pics, not shlepping a big bag.</p>

<p>Also the bag would have to have a side or front pocket - not an add-on pouch for my wallet, cell, etc.</p>

<p>I think that narrows it down. </p>

<p>Hi Richrd. Thanks for that but it's way too big. I took a look at some Kata bags at the store this afternoon - kata dt-213 seemed about right. But I will check out some more tomorrow.</p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>Im currently using a <strong>Kata R101</strong> to carry all my gear, plus a small notebook, and my old, small <strong>Lowepro Film organiser </strong>bag for daytrips with my D300 + attached kit lens.</p>

<p>The problem is I cant fit anything else into the Lowepro and there are plenty of times I would love to have my 35 DX prime or SB-700 along as well.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>I was thinking a box-shaped sling-type bag would be ideal, </li>

<li>with a zip that opened around the top rim of the bag (maybe two zips with a handle attached to open both at the same time for quick access?); and </li>

<li>a pouch attached to the front for a cellphone, wallet etc. </li>

</ul>

<p>Hey, as long as I am fantasizing why not combine it with a Camel-back water container?</p>

<p>So, while the last point isn't mandatory I was wondering in anyone on P.net had suggestions for a bag for me?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>R</p>

<h5>And a 100% crop</h5><div></div>

<p>Hi Anil,</p>

<p>I've had both the 17-50 and the 28-75. Had to let them go when times were tough. But as there will be money coming in soon I will invest in some new kit - probably the 28-75 because I want the extra length for portraits (see the attached image taken by a friend of mine with a Nikon D80 and Tamron 28-75 ).</p>

<p>I have the 35/1.8 and it's a great lens for what it costs, as well as the 18-55 VR which I will probably hold on to as a backup until I invest in a travel-type zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>Cynthia, I have the 60 AF-S Micro. It's a lovely lens. Sharp, with stunning bokeh, and when mounted on my D300 the AF is pretty good. I mostly use it for repro work, and am considering taking some portrait shots, but I never hesitate to take it out in the field for a spin.</p><div></div>

<p>Who would have thought this would generate so many responses? Im currently looking at buying a Leica (duh) and was wondering in addition to the 'possible' cool factor how to get the best bang for my buck. A heavily scratched M3 body on sale at Kamaraz will set me back just over a $1000. It doesn't look cool. It just looks very scratched. I doubt that will affect its picture taking properties as we all know its the lens that has to be immaculate.</p>

<p>I live in Johannesburg and the market here is very small, our currency is worthless so we will always end up paying more bla bla.</p>

<p>Also, a heavily worn film camera 'might' not look like a very attractive investment to a thief which is important when one lives in South Africa.</p>

<p>Ha ha!</p>

<p>I prefer the 'brassed' look. Do they cost more than a 'mint' version?</p>

<p>R.</p>

<p>Hi Mauro</p>

<p>Forgive me if this has been answered but I was curious to know what lenses you were using? I imagine they play a role too when it comes to film vs digital or no?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Russ</p>

<p>Mauro<br>

<br />An old American Photo article I read - in 06 - comparing a Canon EOS D60 (I think), the latest n greatest Fuji SLR of the day and a 35mm EOS SLR, revealed film (all pics taken at ISO 100 / ASA 100) produced results that were nowhere near as clear as digital. Albeit an unscientific test it did convince me digital was the way to go.</p>

<p>Years later, however, I'm not so sure. While digital has enabled me to become a better photographer the only shots Ive sold were taken with a Nikon EM and 50 & 75-150 e-series lenses. So I've been thinking about trading my dSLR for an f3 OR f100 or, maybe a rangefinder to keep my G9 company and your post has had some impact on this idea.</p>

<p>Well you will feel them gears grind. Depends on how hard you do it I guess.</p>

<p>I have owned the Tamron 17-50 (sharp, no built in motor) & 18-135 (AF-S but not as sharp as some say. Lotsa CA).</p>

<p>I currently use the 35/1.8 AF-S (great, no complaints); 60/2.8 AF-S Micro (Yummy, MF override is a bonus here); the 18-55 VR (nice, use as backup, no MF override); and 18-70 (Sharp, small, light, AF-S, decent build, and it's 3.5-4.5, not 5.6. Which ain't a lot but hey.) Only downside it isnt a "virrr" lens. But do you need VR at 70mm??</p>

<p>Jim: wish I could but my budget says 20D. Unless I buy a kit lens ...</p>

<p>Nathan: yeah, I agree as to the unpredictability and it does make sense to move the tripod forward but I am using an Acer Netbook with a 10" screen... though this can be supplemented with an external LCD monitor and an extra gig of RAM will always help. Oh, and congrats on the wedding.</p>

<p>Alan, agreed on buying the tele 1.4 and the 135 together. I must admit I may change this as I anticipate moving to South Africa soon and a 70-200 / 4 may be a more sensible purchase but for the most part it's where I want to go in terms of gradually being able to buy good glass.</p>