Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,269   Posts: 1,534,412   Online: 956
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    It is much easier to give good advice when one knows what you are interested in photographing.

    So, what are you interested in photographing?
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  2. #12
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,370
    Images
    308
    As an owner of vintage Nikon gear (an early F and Nikkormat Ftn) I would definately suggest the 105 lens as part of the arsenal. I'm right now putting through its paces a a 60's vintage Nikkor-O35 f2 which is a really nice lens,nothing like vintage glass. As Claire said it all depends what you are shooting, that will determine your lens selection. The FM3 is a modern classic, enjoy in good health.

    Uncle Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    61
    Portraits. Sometimes full-length, often with severe cropping. All sorts of angles. 90% available light. 90% handheld. 50/50% indoor/outdoor. 90% B&W. Sometimes nudes. 98% without filters or strobes. Possibly looking intro reflectors. Is this still lens-relevant?

    Also, any insight into the 80-200mm commentary I posted 2 replies up?

    Thanks.

  4. #14
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by Colden
    Thank you so much for your messages and quick replies. I like the forum already!

    Speaking of the 80-200mm AF-S. This lens has undergone quite a number of changes in the recent years hasn't it?

    At some point it was a push-pull 80-200mm AF, then replaced by a two-touch 80-200mm AF and finally the 80-200mm AF-S that was discontinued just a year ago, correct? And now it's back to the two-touch 80-200mm AF. So, the loaded question: how have the optics changed from year to year through all these hardware/housing/motor changes? What model/generation would you recommend getting on the used market given the recent AF-S prices are above what the new/current AF version sells for?

    Thanks.
    You may also want to consider a manual focus 80-200mm.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Based on what you already have and your application I see no reason to buy any lens,
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    168
    I can't speak on the 80-200 other than what I purchased last week. I ordered the "AF 80-200mm f/2.8D" from B&H. It is the "two ring" version, with the short beefy (better) tripod mount. One ring for zoom control, one for focusing. There is a slim ring between these two with a small button on it, you press the button and rotate a few degrees to switch between manual and auto focus. Works quite nicely, although the AF-S with internal motor are easier to override manually. I believe this one is still the old optics, with the AF-S version using updated optics. You should be able to verify this with a web search. Ken Rockwell did a nice writeup on this lens, and he has quite a few Nikon lenses reviewed on his site ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm ).

    If you are doing any shooting outside, I suggest you pick up the lens hood (if I remember correctly it is the HB-7, but check first, or ask & I will look at mine when I get home). Nikon includes the honkin' lens case which I would rather not have had to pay for, but when it is included you don't have much of a choice. I wish they would sell the lens for a little less and include the hood instead.

    Nice lens, handles well, but I have yet to develop the film. As always, one doesn't know until you see the prints. But, I am hopeful.
    Those who don't think Photographers have the skills of REAL artists such as painters obviously have not had to spot my prints.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,976
    I agree that the 105 is a really nice portrait lens. Other lenses might include a 28mm and if you really want something wide, consider the 20mm.

    You can do quite a bit with a three- or four-lens kit.

  8. #18
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by elekm
    I agree that the 105 is a really nice portrait lens. Other lenses might include a 28mm and if you really want something wide, consider the 20mm.

    You can do quite a bit with a three- or four-lens kit.
    And its amazing how much of it you can do with a good fast 50mm - since so much of your shooting is hand held, available light, a longer lens may be quite limiting. I know that perspective-wise, a 50mm is not perfect for portraiture... but it may be better to have an image than not have one at all. And remember, its not just the apperture that will come into play here - the longer lens will get too long to be hand held a lot sooner than a 50mm or a 35mm. I know that for indoor, available light "shooting from the hip" I find almost everything above a 50mm to become too dark too soon.

  9. #19
    Ara Ghajanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Providence, RI
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    14
    I'll give another vote for the 105 f2.5 AIS. I've done a lot of portrait work with that lens and it never lets me down. It seems like the perfect focal length for closer portrait work.

    To comment on the above post by gnashings: I agree that you can do quite a lot with a good 50mm lens as far as portraits are concerned. It may distort the face a little bit, but in the case of low light situations, it is invaluable (especially since you have a 50mm f1.2).

    I think we have similar styles and I feel you're going in the right direction equipment-wise.
    Ara
    Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

  10. #20
    Marco Gilardetti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Torino, Italy
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Colden
    Are there many users of this system here? What do you like about yours in this age of [affordable] automatic SLRs? Do you ever wish it had a spot meter (or 100% VF, or mirror-lockup, or...) instead of the 60/40% meter?
    Well, not exactly: Nikkormat FTn, FE2 and FM2; all lenses in a 1.5 ratio from 16mm to 300mm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colden
    What do you like about yours in this age of [affordable] automatic SLRs?
    Of course the fact that it does not behave and look as an affordable automatic SLR.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colden
    or mirror-lockup
    Well, Nikkormats have it...

    About lenses: previous answers were very wise, considering what you already have. I can't hide that my favourite portrait lens in my setup is, however, the 85mm f/1.8 AI. Consider it in case you'll decide to switch to non-zoom lenses.
    I know a chap who does excellent portraits. The chap is a camera.
    (Tristan Tzara, 1922)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin