prof._bob_turner

<p>I'm trying to find a way to use an old Quantum Battery with an SB-800, and found this forum most enlightening. But I write to respond more specifically to the angry member who had a bad experience with Quantum. I've had several dealings with Quantum dating back several years (I also have a Q-Flash with an old Turbo battery I recently had repaired), and my experience with them has been truly outstanding. I've been able to get through to them without a long wait, and they have in every instance (by phone or email) been extraordinarily patient and helpful. I'm not challenging a single word the other member said, and assume he is accurately expressing his frustration from an unfortunate experience. But my own experience with Quantum has been very much to the contrary. Their prices aren't cheap, but the quality is great and the customer service from my experience has been outstanding.<br>

- Bob</p>

<p>I'm trying to find a way to use an old Quantum Battery with an SB-800, and found this forum most enlightening. But I write to respond more specifically to the angry member who had a bad experience with Quantum. I've had several dealings with Quantum dating back several years (I also have a Q-Flash with an old Turbo battery I recently had repaired), and my experience with them has been truly outstanding. I've been able to get through to them without a long wait, and they have in every instance (by phone or email) been extraordinarily patient and helpful. I'm not challenging a single word the other member said, and assume he is accurately expressing his frustration from an unfortunate experience. But my own experience with Quantum has been very much to the contrary. Their prices aren't cheap, but the quality is great and the customer service from my experience has been outstanding.<br>

- Bob</p>

Judy --

A lot of this is subjective and reflects expectations, so honest and able people are giving

you answers all over the board. My first Nikon was a Nikon F nearly 40 years ago, and

virtually all of the lenses I use on my D-200 are considered "professional" glass (e.g.,

35-70 2.8, 180 2.8, 80-200 2.8, and several others). I paid $950 on eBay to get an

18-200 because I was taking my son to Seattle and got tickets to the Seahawks game on

Monday Night Football. I thought it would be fun to take some pictures and was told the

stadium prohibited lenses longer than 4". Even with good seats, none of my under 4"

lenses was going to reach out and capture the action. (I did get some fine shots of the

stadium with a 10.5 mm fisheye.) This was really my first chance to test the new lens, and

when we got to the stadium the sun was going down and it was raining -- so my

expectations of getting decent shots were very low. In reality, I took more than 200 shots

and could not have been more delighted with the results. (Shooting wide-open at ISO 400

and 1/45 of a second, without VR or at least a monopod at an effective (35 mm) equivalent

of 300mm I should not have gotten a single image worth saving. But the VR did an

incredibly job of reducing vibration, and MOST of the images were in my view very good

for what I was doing -- taking snapshots with which to remember a fun outing with my

son. (And yes, fast moving players were often blurred as was the ball when kicked or

passed -- but the blurs were against a reasonably sharp background and provided an

interesting sense of motion to the images.) Were the images as good as I would have

gotten with my 300 mm lens and good light using a monopod? Hardly. But that wasn't an

option. It was the ideal lens for that situation, and was worth the premium price (given

that I had already invested $400 for tickets to a sold-out game and $1000 for plane

tickets to get us there from Virginia). I've used it several times indoors since returning

with a flash, and again have been delighted with the images. It's not a pro lens and I don't

expect to make enlargements of more than 8X10. But it is TINY as compared to zooms I

owned in the 1960s-1990s, the VR feature is fantastic, and I could not he happier with the

"snapshots" it takes. If you can get one for anything close to the MSRP, I'd recommend

grabbing it. (Heck, if you don't like it, put it on eBay and you'll likely make a profit.)

Good shooting!

Bob

Ivan--

This will be a very unresponsive reply, but (having started out in SLR photography 38 years

ago with buying a "normal" lens) I would urge you to think through whether that is really

what you want. If so, the 35mm will give you a 52.5 mm effective focal length on a

consumer Nikon digital SLR, which is probably about as close as you will find.

But over the years I have found that the 50-58mm "normal" lens is seldom the right lens

for my purposes. (Now a real 50 mm -- which shoots as a 75mm on a digital SLR -- can

be a fine portrait lens.) The 50mm effective lens (e.g., a 35mm lens on a digital SLR) is too

short for a close up portrait of a person (and will produce unflattering distortions of facial

features), and not wide enough for most landscapes or group shots. (This is obviously a

subjective comment, and many fine photographers will disagree.) I own more than a

dozen Nikon lenses from 10.5 to 500 mm, and my current favorite travel and walk-around

lens is the new 18-200 VR -- which gives the same view as a 27-300 mm zoom on a

35mm film SLR. But even with that, I often find I am shooting at 18 and wishing the lens

were a bit wider, or shooting at 200 and wanting a bit more length. MOST of my shots

with zoom lenses tend to be at one extreme or the other. (I should admit that my favorite

portrait lens is a 180 f2.8 -- the equivalent to a 270mm, while most photographers prefer

something in the 80-135mm range for close-up portraits. I find the 180 produces

consistently tack-sharp images, while allowing me to stand far enough back that I don't

frighten kids or other non-professional subjects. If you are only going to buy a single lens

to start with, and want a fixed focal length, a 35mm might be a decent compromise. But

my guess is you will find with most photographs that you wish you had something either

wider or longer. Perhaps consider a zoom (they are MUCH better than they were when I

first started), or decide whether you are most interested in shooting portraits or groups

and start with either a moderate telephoto or wide-angle lens with the idea of adding the

other in the future. (The reason for buying an SLR, after all, is to be able to change

lenses.) I think I still have at least one or two "normal" (50 mm) lenses around here

somewhere, but I'd bet money I haven't put one on a camera in 20 years. (Which is not to

say that I've never set a zoom at that length to crop a subject. I've taken tens of

thousands of images, and no doubt for some the perfect frame was 50 mm.

If you still have a point-and-shoot camera, perhaps hang on to that for awhile to use for

wide-angle shots, and invest in a 50-100 mm lens as your first telephoto lens. A 50 mm

1.4 or 1.8 will allow you to isolate your subject from the background and produce

professional looking shots that most point-and-shoot cameras can't match.

Whatever you decide -- good shooting!

Bob

Michael --

This is a normal characteristic for this lens which we pretty much have to learn to live with.

I was going to Seattle earlier this month and got tickets to Monday Night Football with my

son. I e-mailed the Seahawk organization to find out if I would be turned away if I showed

up with a D-200 and 300 mm lens, and was told they recently changed their rules from

"no lens over 10 inches" to "no lens over 4 inches." We had good seats, but I didn't have a

decent telephoto lens under 4" long. So I paid $950 in e-bay and bought an 18-200. (I've

been using SLRs for nearly 40 years, and in the 60s and early 70s wasted money on some

very heavy zooms that had more than a 1:2 range (e.g., 75-200 mm). The conventional

wisdom at the time was to stick to 1:2 -- anything more would not produce quality

images. This was my first VR lens, and I was blown away by the images I got. I was

shooting in the rain at 1/45th of a second with an effective 300mm lens and getting NICE

images. Sure, there was some motion of running players and the ball was sometimes just

a blur -- but everyone I showed them to asked how it was possible to get so close and

such good pictures at in some cases 100 yards from the subject.

Is it a perfect lens? Is it as tack-sharp as my 180 2.8 or Micro Nikkor lenses. Get serious.

It's not even supposed to be a professional lens. But it has quickly become my favorite

travel and walk-around lens, and I could not be more satisfied. (Of course, I haven't tried

to shoot anyting straight up or straight down.)

Good shooting!

-Bob

Red --

I've owned two 180mm f2.8 Nikkors -- one of the first AF models I bought around 1988

and a newer "D" model. It remains my favorite lens because of its sharpness. I love it for

shooting candid portraits, because it does such a great job of isolating the subject,

focuses quickly, and is tack sharp. Last year I agreed to shoot some yearbook shots for

my 12-year-old's middle school, and for dances I mostly used a 12-24mm wide-angle

lens with my Fuji S-2 Pro. But from time to time I would slip on the 180 and just go

around the room snapping shots of faces, and they came out GREAT. I recently paid $950

on eBay to get the new 18-200 VR Nikkor -- but my 180 stays in my small travel case with

it (and the 12-24 and a 10.5 mm fisheye). And if I see something I want a GOOD shot of

at the 270mm range (which is what the 180 is on the S-2 or my new D200) I pull out the

180. I have a couple of Micro Nikkor lenses, but except for them the 180 is my sharpest

lens by far. And if you're planning on enlarging your image beyond 8X10, the difference

shows.

Good shooting.

-Bob

Bill--

I've had the Micro Nikkor 60mm and 105mm for years, and LOVE both. Nikon is famous

for its microscopes, and its Micro (Macro to everyone else) lenses are legendary. I've never

used the Tamron others rave about and certainly don't mean to criticize it, but were I you

I'd at least take a look at the 60mm Nikkor. I've seen them used at reasonable prices, and

the images are outstanding.

Good shooting.

-Bob

Hi --

I've just purchased a Nikon SB-80 DX flash and would like to power it with an

old (newly reconditioned) Quantum Battery. Quantum does not make a

module for this flash that will plug in to the power jack on the side of the flash.

If I buy their appropriate module, I will need to velcro the battery compartment

cover closed (or just cut it off).

I have an old 6v cord with a plug for the Quantum I battery on one end and a 4

AA battery module on the other made to be inserted in a Vivitar flash unit. I

would like to cut off the Vivitar module (I sold my Vivitar a decade ago) and

add a jack so I can neatly plug it into the Nikon SB-80 DX.

Does anyone know anything about the plug Nikon uses to add external power

to this flash? Is it proprietary or available at Radio Shack or another supplier?

I'd welcome advice. You can reply directly to me if you like at

rft3m@virginia.edu .

Thanks.

-Bob Turner