chris_gibbons2

It strikes me that with 18 months to go before the moon is in the right position, you have ample time to experiment with a couple of variations. You could hire both of the Nikons to try them out or, if hiring is not an option, buy carefully second-hand. At least that way, if you don't like the lens, you should be able to sell it on for close to what you paid. You could even ask your local camera club if they have any members who have either of the Nikons and see if they'd be prepared to let you try some test shots. One of the local camera stores I used to use would even allow me to take a lens out to try it and then either refund me the full amount or swap it for something else.

It does sound like an interesting project, though - please keep us posted.

Distributing controls on both sides of the camera body makes sense when it is used with lenses that are generally light enough to hang temporarily from the body. But for people who want to hand-hold heavy teles, this is not such good design. I personally don't mind either arrangement as I believe in generally supporting heavy teles from tripod/monopod/car mount. But there are situations where hand-holding is easier even though not good for one's neck, back or knee. I don't change AF area mode frequently so I can work with the quirkiest of designs that they have put out. I generally choose an AF area mode for the situation in advance for both horizontal and vertical orientations and the cameras since D810 can be set to memorize both and switch automatically. Works great.

Ilkka, I agree - on my D500, my left hand holds the 500PF, my right hand does the buttons and dials. The decision on the D500 to move the OK button out of the centre of the D-Pad to the left hand side still irritates me no end.

<p>Shun, an eminently sensible response, thank you, and I'm pleased your 80-400 is fine.<br>

I've just acquired my 200-500 and am about to head up to South Africa's Hluhluwe-iMfolozi reserve, in Kwa Zulu Natal province, which is in the middle of a very tough drought. We'll be in a place called St. Lucia, a World Heritage Site wetland, on Friday and in Hluhluwe sometime shortly thereafter, depending on weather.<br>

My son's partner is there at the moment, working on her PhD on tuberculosis in the Cape Buffalo - but her off-time seems to be spent with a pair of baby rhino orphans. (Like quite large, scared, grey puppies in a way! She's sent us some very short videos but, sadly, you can sense their isolation and bewilderment. Don't fret too much, though - they're being well cared-for and will be reared to the point of reintroduction into the wild. After all, this is the reserve that brought the white rhino back from near-extinction.)<br>

All the cellphone pics she's sending back indicate huge amounts of dust as a result of the drought - so let's see what happens. We're going to be up there for about a fortnight - I don't know if that's really going to be long enough to give the lens a full test, but I'd suggest it's also fairly typical of how most of us use these tools. We will be in our own vehicle, with the camera/lens in a camera bag, unless it's in use, and that's slightly different, perhaps, from being on the back of a game drive vehicle. For example, when we drive, it's windows closed and aircon on, to maintain a positive interior air pressure and prevent dust from getting into the car, let alone the lens. Of course, when we stop to take a picture - engine off, aircon off, windows down and dust can sometimes flood up from the road. I suspect an old pillow-case might well find its way into the mix - thanks for the tip.<br>

I'll report in due course - and hopefully provide some decent pictures, which is, after all, what this hobby/profession/obsession is all about. My personal passion is birds but I'll certainly try for the baby rhinos if we're allowed to sneak in to where the professionals work. I somehow don't think the 200-500 will be on the camera at that point!<br>

Best Wishes<br /> Chris</p>

<p>Didier - apologies if I am too late with this comment, but I have only just picked up the thread.<br>

As someone who lives in South Africa and travels to, and photographs in, game reserves frequently and has also been to Botswana, may I suggest that the key thing is not so much this-lens or that-lens, but to have two bodies fired up and ready to roll?<br>

You now have an 80-400 and a 16-80, if I have read your post correctly? I'll guarantee that your guide will swing you round a corner in Botswana (you didn't say where you are going - Moremi? Savuti? Chobe?) and whatever you have on your camera body will be wrong. Too short or too long. You have to have the ability to put one camera down and pick up the other to shoot immediately. <br>

I think Shun has alluded to this in his comparison between his 200-500 and 80-400.<br>

Be careful with the the latter - it has picked up some very poor reviews in this part of the world as a dust 'vacuum-cleaner' and on the local second-hand market there are several for sale. (The new one, not the old one.)<br>

If you're not able/willing to stump up for a second body, then definitely set your Leica up as that second body - but just make sure it has a lens on it that can capture a beast quite close to your vehicle. I can't tell you the number of times small, very cute and, of course, very photogenic pups,cubs, etc., completely unafraid babies, have abled up to vehicles I've been in - and usually with something like a 300 f4 on the camera!!! Shot missed! I don't know Leica, sadly, but 20mm sounds too short.<br>

Anyway - Botswana is truly terrific and whatever you decide to take, have a great trip.<br>

Best Wishes<br>

Chris</p>

<p>A most expert, interesting and detailed list of great ("classic", "cult", "historic", etc...) lenses from Peter Shawhan, but with deep respect, I don't think Clive M-W's original question has been answered: which of these lenses, once leaders in their field but now perhaps obscured by the mists of time, have been, or are capable of being, restored to greatness by modern software? And the second part: which modern lenses do we sniffily disregard as being "cheap" or "kit", when, with the assistance of Lightroom or Photoshop or similar, turn out to be well worth the money?<br>

A fascinating discussion nonetheless, and I remain humbled by the depth of this forum's collective knowledge. Thanks to all.</p>

<p>First, thanks to all for such informed input - much appreciated!<br>

To sum up - bar one or two dissenters - the consensus view seems to be that the 16-85 would be the way to go, were it not for the price, but if price is a consideration (and it is), the 18-105 or 18-140 would probably be better bets - newer technology, VR, etc.<br>

As it happens, one of our local dealers appears to have a special on the 18-105 (just ahead of Photokina? Hmmm...what could that mean?) so I'll probably go that route and hope the Minister of Finance is looking the other way - again!<br>

Best wishes to all from Knysna, South Africa<br>

Chris</p>

<p>I'd value an opinion or two please from anyone who has used or is using the above lens. <br>

I'm looking at it as an inexpensive, used supplement to my kit (on offer around UK150 or so), to go with a D7100, as a general purpose holiday/walkaround lens. Into the same bag might go my 35mm 1.8 and maybe - depending on weight - a Sigma 10-20mm.<br>

Having just bought the D7100 I'm trying to limit the additional expenses - also fair to say that working out of home base, I use a 70-200 f2.8 VRII or a 300 f4 - but those are very unlikely to come on holiday because of the weight. By the same token, whatever I buy - if I buy - will probably not see too much use apart from holiday time and similar - so again, expense needs to be kept low.<br>

Thoughts and suggestions gratefully received.<br>

Chris</p>

<p>I have to say that I agree with Kent about this one. Shooting spiders late one evening, I managed to trip over my own tripod and send a D7000 + 70-200 VRII to the floor. The Nikon clear filter shattered and put a tiny ding onto the lens' front element. It makes absolutely no difference to the IQ that I can see, but will clearly affect the resale value. I also have the AF-S 300 f4 - the lens hood is not as robust as I would like, but I'd take it over a clear glass filter for protection any day.<br>

Of course, conditions dictate - shooting in surf, mud, etc., might cause me to attach a clear filter, but I'd be just as worried about the rest of the system as the lens front element.<br>

With regard to which tripod/ball head, I have a different view. I own a couple of Manfrotto tripods, including a 190 CXPRO3 (carbon fibre) and a 468MGRC2 ball head. The tripod is excellent, but with a long lens on my D7100, I'm less than convinced about the ball head, which always seems to dip as I try and set it. It wasn't cheap by local standards - about ZAR3,500 (appx. US$350) if memory serves.<br>

Then, late last year, I went to a wildlife photography symposium in Cape Town (Wild Shots) where I heard Albert Froneman speak. Google him and you'll see that he is probably South Africa's leading bird photographer. (His wife might disagree - Marietjie is also a superb taker of bird pictures!) He told us that he thinks he still owns some camera supports somewhere but never uses them. Modern technology, he said, allows him to shoot at 1/2000th and also under high ISO. If he doesn't get the shot first time, he comes back and does it again. That also applied, he said, to PP - birds, in his view, are quite predictable.<br>

Albert has been shooting birds all his life and he's professional. He has, of course, massive knowledge about his subject, which is probably the real key to success. I'm an amateur but have applied the high shutter speed lesson and now almost never carry a tripod. Maybe a monopod...but even that feels like hard work these days.<br>

Hope that helps!<br>

Best wishes from Knysna, South Africa.<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Following on from the OP, I'm seeking some clarification regarding fine-tuning of zoom lenses.<br>

Having established that there is a genuine back- or front-focus problem with the lens/camera combo (and not the monkey behind the camera), I'm very clear about the procedure for primes.<br>

But what about zooms, with so many variables with which to contend?<br>

Do you just test at - say - short, middle and long and then pick an average fine-tune value?<br>

Tks<br>

Chris Gibbons</p>

 

<p>A peripheral, but I hope related, query - and I know Shun will "gong" me if it's thought I'm off-thread.<br>

I, too, have the 300mm F4 AF-S - and recommend it very highly, although the recommendation would come with the words 'monopod' or 'tripod' attached. (Use - hobbyist birds, including BIF, and other wildlife with D7000 + 1.4 extender. I simply don't spend enough time in the gym with weights to handhold this for long.)<br>

However, many of the other respondents recommend ditching the Nikkor lens collar and switching to the Kirk.<br>

But - and here's the question - if I'm happily hooked up to the Manfrotto system, would not switching to Kirk mean a whole different set of plates, etc? (Arca Swiss, etc.?) <br>

Again - apologies if I have hijacked the thread in any way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Professionally, I'm a writer and broadcaster - not a photographer. But occasionally I find myself with a client in a situation where a camera would be handy. Last night, for example, a client invited me to cover an event featuring a Corporate Very Big Cheese and they had forgotten to book a professional photographer. Had I had a camera of sufficient quality with me, I could have helped.<br>

I am also a hobbyist with a D7000, a bag of lenses, and just enough knowledge to get myself into trouble at the kind of event I've just described. But I'm not going to carry around a big bag of DSLR gear on the off-chance that a client needs a favour. Rule No. 1 - hire a professional.<br>

But something smaller for an emergency? Perhaps. And if that something smaller also took the bigger camera off my back when walking or on holiday...hmmm, interesting. And if that something smaller could, on occasion, even take something like my 300mm f4...well, that could be a real proposition.<br>

So after a long preamble, has anyone had any experience using a V1 under press or semi-press conditions? In-house PR or magazine work, maybe? Is the quality acceptable for the kind of emergency I've described?<br>

(And yes, I know that most quality issues derive from the monkey behind the lens!)<br>

And if it's a yes, it'll do fine, which lens?<br>

Comments, thoughts, alternative suggestions - all gratefully received.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A quick update for those of you who were kind and interested enough to offer advice: it looks like the lens is the problem, and not the TC.<br>

I have now tried the lens courtesy of my supplier in Johannesburg and a local camera shop closer to home with two new TCs and a new D7000 - same result. No AF.<br>

Ergo, either the lens is faulty in some way - or it is the problem I mentioned in my OP, which was a suggestion I saw somewhere on the web that the very early versions of this lens did not AF with a TC and needed some or other form of upgrade. The serial number is 202785, which is quite early in the series (200001-212026). I have asked Nikon South Africa for comment - I'll keep you posted. </p>

<p>Thanks again for all the input - sitting at the far end of Africa, I can't tell you how much it's valued!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sarah: one variation from the 'pod department. Have a look at something called a Gorillapod. I've used one all over Europe in museums which are deeply camera unfriendly, and would vaporize you if you even thought of unhitching a tripod. The Gorillapod is much smaller, therefore far more discrete, but can also be bent around things that you might not ordinarily think of for camera support - like the back of a pew in one of those Oxford churches, or a lampost, etc. With legs closed, you can balance and hold it on a ledge, like a miniature monopod. I use mine with a small Manfrotto ballhead - it takes my D7000 and Nikon 70-300mm (just). With the same camera and a 35mm attached, indoors, it's as stable as you could wish for. There are different sizes to suit different cameras/lenses. A final key benefit - it has three wonderfully bendy legs: perfect for entertaining a two-year old en route to the next photo shoot!</p>

<p>Hi Raymond - no question too stupid, I promise you, when it comes to my inability to master technical details! But, no, in this instance, I've tried it near, middle distance and far - no joy.<br>

Hi Shun - the shop which sold it to me is swapping it out for a new unit. Let's see if that solves the problem. At least that way we'll know. I should receive it middle of next week and I'll report the outcome. Whatever happens - the input is appreciated.<br>

Chris</p>

<p>Mark, Wouter - appreciate the quick replies, thanks.<br>

@mark - I've tried various combinations from full Auto all the way to M, via P and A. AF-S, AF-C. No joy.<br>

@Wouter. The exif data is correct but with one anomaly: inadvertently, I had left the camera set to CH and so fired off two shots back-to-back of the same object. They ought to have been identical - give or take some camera shake. (It's a bright sunny afternoon here.) The first fired at ISO 400 - as set - the second at ISO 800. A much darker exposure, obviously. Most odd, I thought, and tried to make it repeat - of course, it wouldn't. Something peculiar there.<br>

(All contacts cleaned, b.t.w. - even on the new TC.)<br>

I suspect that this one may well require the whole kit - camera, TC, lens - to be sent to Johannesburg for Nikon to have a look at. Boring, as it means I'll not have the camera for a couple of weeks....but thanks again for trying.<br>

Chris</p>

 

<p>Help, please: I have just bought a new TC-14E II, to go with my 300mm AF-S f4. Mounted on my D7000, the 300mm works superbly. But with the TC, there is no AF.<br>

According to several posts on this website, as well as Nikon's, and the package insert that comes with the TC-14E II, it should work fine. It doesn't.<br>

Nikon's agents here in South Africa have yet to respond and the camera shop from which I bought the TC is also scratching its head.<br>

A lone post on a site elsewhere suggests that very early versions of the AF-S 300mm f4 did have a problem with TCs and need 'a motherboard upgrade'. (Do lenses have motherboards?)<br>

Any input/advice would be - as always - gratefully received.<br>

(And yes - I have checked that the aperture ring is locked at f32.)<br>

Chris Gibbons</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm a longtime Lightroom user and have been helped immeasurably by Scott Kelby's books on the subject. But lately, I have started experimenting with Capture NX 2, which, coupled with my Nikon D7000's Picture Control settings, seems to produce better pictures. Not in all cases by any means, but sufficiently often for me to want to take it further. <br>

So does Scott Kelby have an equivalent "guru" writing about these programmes, perhaps? Better pictures or not, I find the workflow clunky, although I'm sure this is lack of knowledge on my part, hence my need for Kelby-esque assistance.<br>

Your recommendations/suggestions would be gratefully received.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks very much to all for the informed and thoughtful responses.<br>

Eric Arnold, the Tokina 17/3.5 is the one that I'd never heard of - it's just moved up to the top of the Search List.<br>

Joris H., Carl Becker, the Zeiss also look the part, but their prices makes me blanche.<br>

Shun, Kent and others, I know you're absolutely right about the zooms, but I'm stubborn and determined to "do this in primes". When I've bashed my head on the problem a little longer, I realise I'll probably take your advice! (For some or other reason, I seem to take better pictures using a prime, rather than a zoom, but that's a subject for a different post.)</p>

 

<p>My copy of this lens is about 20 years old and still does the job, but as many on this forum have noted (Ilka N. et al) not as well as it should. Good colours, but very soft in the corners, etc.<br>

I use it on a D7000 mainly for landscapes/cityscapes/travel and am wondering if there are other, better alternative primes - AF or manual? <br>

Thanks to many already on this forum, I know that there are excellent alternatives in the zoom sector but I am looking specifically for a prime to complement an existing line-up of same. Weight is a major factor.<br>

The Voigtlander 20mm 3.5 SL springs to mind - but what else am I missing, please?<br>

Your thoughts and input gratefully received.</p>

<p> </p>