randall_born

<p>You might consider the 55mm F2.8 Micro-Nikkor. It's relatively small, light , unobtrusive and feels just right on FM2. It isn't as fast as most 50's but it's very sharp and it works well at infinity, plus it provides some excellent closeup capability.</p>

<p>When I want to carry an SLR and still travel light I grab my Nikon FG with the 50mm f1.8. If I need more focal range I'll carry the diminutive 28-50mm f3.5 and 75-150mm f3.5 zooms. It doesn't get much smaller or lighter in the Nikon MF SLR world.<br /> <br /> If I want a lightweight SLR with AF I'd take my F80 with the 28-105mm zoom.<br /> <br /> In the digital SLR realm I have a D300 and a D50 and both are larger and heavier than the cameras mentioned above. I've handled a D3100 with an 18-55mm lens and that package seems smaller and lighter than anything mentioned above. I just don't care for the way it feels in my hand.</p>

<p>I found it to be a useful sunny day lens back in the film days. It was a bit heavier than the 300mm F4.5, but it still weighed less than the 80-200 mm f2.8 or the monster 300 mm F 2.8. The lens is quite long, and unfortunately it does not incorporate a tripod mount, so there is a lot of weight hanging way forward of the lens mount. It takes a very sturdy tripod head to keep the setup from drooping, but I managed to use it with some success on my F3 mounted to a Foba Superball head.</p>

<p>Try heating the cap with a hair dryer, it should both soften and expand the plastic somewhat.</p>

<p>Some one-hour labs will process a roll of film and scan JPGs to a CD with <em>no</em> prints for around $6. This provides a fairly inexpensive way to practice shooting film and you end up with files that you can e-mail or post online, plus you still have the negative if you capture an extraordinary image that you want to get printed.</p>

<p>The 35-70 f2.8D is an excellent lens on an FX or film camera. However it is just a <em>2x</em> zoom so on a DX body it is actually equivalent to ~53-105 on FX. Not a lot of range there but it does cover two of the classic portrait focal lengths (85mm and 105mm), and unlike the 24-85 the aperture remains<em> fixed</em> at f2.8 . Unless you need a wider angle you could do a whole lot worse for an everyday lens.</p>

<p>The 24-85 f2.8-4 is equivalent to ~35-128 on FX. A more useful range perhaps, but I believe it is a lesser lens optically than the 35-70, and it is not as fast at normal or portrait focal lengths.</p>

<p>Given only those two choices I'd opt for the 35-70. It is what I use on my D300 to cover that range when I need a zoom faster than my 18-70 walk-around lens.</p>

<p> </p>

I think the recommendations for the 28-50 are spot on. It is quite small and light, has a non-variable maximum aperture, and it provides good quality images.

 

The 28-50 is not necessarily easy to find as I don't think they were made in huge numbers, but if you find one I think you will like it.

 

I sometimes take my FG out for hikes with the 28-50 and a 75-150 series E lens, that combination makes for an extremely compact and light-weight film kit.

<p>You can buy good equipment for less than $600, but you will usually pay a penalty in weight and/or size and/or sturdiness.</p>

<p><br /> I have a Bogen 3221 aluminum tripod and a FOBA Superball head. The 3221 is fairly large but it is a very sturdy tripod. The Superball is a big heavy ballhead but I love it, the ball (nearly the size of a tennis-ball) is super-smooth and it very easily handles the combined weight of a Nikon F3/MD4/400 mm f5.6 Nikkor. This setup is too large and heavy for extensive hiking duty, but it is quite manageable for most other uses.</p>

<p>The 3221 (or the Manfrotto 055 equivalent) is pretty commonly available on the used market, the Superball is less common but certainly worth looking for. This set up may have listed for $600 or more new, but I bought mine at a well known auction site for less than $300.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>9 bodies (all film), and 24 lenses;</p>

<ul>

<li>5 MF bodies </li>

<li>4 AF bodies</li>

<li>9 MF zooms</li>

<li>3 AF zooms</li>

<li>12 MF primes</li>

</ul>

<p>I had both the 105mm f1.8 AIS and the 105mm f2.5 AIS. I kept the f2.5 and sold the f1.8. Both were excellent lenses but the f2.5 version is a little jewel, quite compact and lightweight compared to the f1.8. If I need more speed or less DOF the 85mm f1.4 AIS does the job.</p>

<p>While i have not used it on a D300 I do have a 135mm f2.0 AIS and it's been a very good lens on myF3 or F100, but as mentioned...it is heavy. <br>

Another low light option you might consider is the 85mm f1.4 AIS, although it may not offer the reach you need. When I can get by with the shorter lens I tend to use the 85 more often than the 135 because it is both faster and lighter. If 135mm is what you need I think the f2.0 version is the one to have.</p>

<p>Nikon's past is quite important to me on several fronts. First and foremost is the fact that I am "living in the past" in that I still shoot primarily film, using now discontinued Nikon bodies and lenses. I shoot as a hobby, just for fun not for profit, so I've never felt the need to be at the very cutting edge of technology. Film produced wonderful images for decades, and it still does. It works for me.</p>

<p>Having said all that I do appreciate the advantages of newer technology. I have a lot of MF gear, but I also have some AF bodies, and I certainly see the benefits of digital imaging. I've waited quite patiently for Nikon to produce a full frame digital camera that is fully compatible with most of my older lenses and the D700 seems to that camera. However, since I shoot strictly as a hobby, I can wait a bit longer. Given the rapid "obsolescence" of digital cameras Nikon's <em>next</em> full frame digital should make the D700 affordable for me. That's how I've been able to acquire the collection of fine old equipment that I am currently using. The advent of AF made some of the best MF lenses affordable, digital cameras made top quality film bodies affordable, and the need for DX lenses coupled with the desire for the very latest technology (faster AF, vibration reduction, etc.) has made some pretty nice AF lenses affordable. One brand new pro body and two or three of the latest zooms would probably cost more than I have invested in my entire collection. Some might argue that would be the better deal, but I'd sure miss the variety.</p>

<p>One of Nikon's most notable features for many decades has been the backwards/forwards compatibility of their lenses/bodies. The F mount has withstood the test of time. Some of my lenses are 30+ years old, but all 12 of my Nikkor primes and all 12 of my Nikkor Zooms (both MF and AF) will work on all of my 8 film bodies, and I believe many of them would be equally at home on a D700 or a D3. That means a lot to me, and I expect it does to many other photographers who own fine old lenses.</p>

<p>The other impressive things about much of Nikon's older gear was their great design and quality construction. I appreciate fine machinery, elegant precision engineering, and first rate materials and construction. A brand new Toyota or a vintage Mercedes-Benz will each take you from here to there; the Toyota may do it more efficiently but the Mercedes provides the looks, the feel, and the quality materials and construction that I prefer. Sadly these qualities are not always as evident in some of the newer Nikon gear.</p>

<p>Finally, let's not forget that Nikon's reputation as a purveyor of fine photo equipment was built over the past half a century or so. Without that sterling reputation the company as we now know it would not be here to provide the newest generation of photographers with the hi-tech DSLR's and lenses that they are purchasing today.</p>

 

<p>There is no manual focus Nikkor that covers precisely the range you want in a single zoom. </p>

<p>The closest one-lens answer to the range you specify might be the 35-70 f3.5 AIS. It's not as wide as you'd like, but it is a very good lens. Look for the smaller version that takes 62mm filters.</p>

<p>If you really want small and light I'd recommend a 28-50 f3.5 AIS. Pair it with a 75-150 F3.5 Series E (both lenses take 52 mm filters), and you cover a pretty wide range of photo opportunities. These are both excellent zooms and they are both quite compact and lightweight for their ranges.</p>

<p>I believe the the only MF zoom that Nikon made that was wider that 28mm was the 25-50, but that is a considerably larger and heavier lens and it still doesn't get you over 50mm.</p>

<p>The 50-135 F3.5 is also a fine lens, but it is longer, fatter (62mm front element), and heavier than the 75-150. Ignoring size and weight, the 50-135 makes a very nice companion lens for the 25-50 or the 35-70.</p>

<p>Nikon also made variable aperture zooms in the 35-105 and 35-135 ranges, although I've read mixed reports on these. Generally speaking I prefer fixed aperture zooms, but a variable aperture zoom will work fine on the FM2...just zoom first and then set your exposure.</p>

<p>The ultimate one-lens MF zoom solution is probably the 35-200 AIS. Not as wide as you'd like, and it too is a variable aperture, but this is a high quality lens with a very impressive range. I use mine a lot when I'm want that "one-lens" answer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Would one be better off trying to find a good used Manual Focus<em> </em> 105mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor? The MF version was not an internal focus design so I suspect focal length changes while focusing were much less of an issue.</p>

<p>In my opinion AF is of little use for most macro photography and, while vibration reduction might be useful for non-macro shooting, if I understand correctly VR is not recommended when tripod mounted as it would be for a lot of ones macro work. </p>

<p>For purely macro photography, does the AF version actually provide any better image quality, or offer any other advantage over the MF version?</p>

<p>+ 1 on the 28-105. I'd bring the 20mm along with it though, and probably use them on a nice lightweight F80. Film still produces great images and this would be a very lightweight hiking set.</p>

<p>If buying a new camera and lens (and film) is out of the question just take what you have it is excellent gear. If you pack the 20 and the 24-70 you should be able to leave your 35 and your 50 at home. Besides, you are not going until April...there is still plenty of time to hit the gym :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A bit late replying here, but if you are still looking for advice here are some suggestions for a few very nice MF zooms that will work well with an FM2:</p>

<p><em>28-50mm f3.5</em> and <em>70-150mm f3.5 Series E </em> (both take 52mm filters, the same as your cousin's 50mm f1.4).</p>

<p><em>35-70mm f3.5</em> and/or <em>50-135mm f3.5 </em> and/or <em>100-300mm f5.6 </em> (all three use 62 mm filters)</p>

<p><em>35-200mm f3.5-4.5 </em> (uses 62 mm filters)</p>

<p>I own and use all of these and they are all very good lenses. All but one of them have a constant aperture, a feature commonly found only on Nikon's very expensive "professional" zoom lenses.</p>

<p>The first set is quite compact and light-weight.</p>

<p>The second set is considerably bulkier but covers a very wide range.</p>

<p>The 35-200 is the only variable aperture MF zoom that I own, but it is an extremely versatile lens that provides excellent images and covers an impressive range, because of that it's the zoom that actually sees the most use (for me). If I lost mine I'd be looking for a replacement.</p>

<p>Now is a good time to be buying MF glass. The lenses work just as well as they ever did and you can find some really nice lenses for a fraction of what similar AF glass would cost, besides there is just something quite pleasing about the feel of Nikkor MF lenses. Good luck finding what you are looking for.</p>

 

<p>You can't really go wrong with any of the bodies mentioned, they are all excellent cameras.</p>

<p>Faced with the same problem (deciding which to buy) I've ended up with a fair collection of manual focus film bodies (F3, FM3a, FA, FE2, FM2, FG, FT3). I use them all, and I like each one for different reasons. Having most recently acquired the FM3a I'll probably end up parting with the FE2 and the FM2 just to thin the herd a bit, since the FM3a is basically a hybrid of the FE2 and the FM2.</p>

<p>Each of these bodies have their own strengths and weaknesses, and most of these have been pretty well discussed in previous responses. The only one of my favorites not mentioned so far in this thread is the FG.</p>

<p>The FG is often seriously underrated, but I think it is a little gem. It is by far the smallest and lightest MF film SLR that Nikon ever made. It offers TTL flash capability, full manual exposure control, AE mode, and a Program mode, and it can be fitted with the compact MD-E motor drive. Aside from it's size the feature I like best is it's match diode metering system, it is sort of an LED version of a match needle system and it is absolutely the best MF SLR readout I have seen for shooting in dark conditions.</p>

<p>While the FG is very small and lightweight it is far more rugged that many people realize, although it is not nearly as well built as the FM series and it is nowhere close to the near bullet-proof build quality of the F3 or the older Nikkormats. Like the FM series it has no mirror lockup but the only thing this camera lacks that I ever really missed was a depth of field preview button.</p>

<p>While I would not give up any of my other bodies, as I said I like them all, when I want to travel really light I grab the FG with the 28-50 f3.5 AIS and the 75-150 f3.5 Series E. That set makes a refreshingly compact and quite capable MF film package. The best part is you can buy a user FG for well under $50, and one in excellent-mint condition can probably be had for less than $100.</p>