Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,832   Posts: 1,582,325   Online: 970
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,646
    Images
    4
    Sandy, I have an FG and have no problem using my non-AI lenses from my older Nikon F. But still, I think you can find plenty of AI non-autofocus lenses for sale at rather low prices. Any of these should work and would avoid any question of damage to the camera. It's so light weight, I sometimes throw it in with my large format gear just to have a camera that's good for what 35mm does well.
    juan

  2. #12
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    Thanks for your suggestions for lenses for the FG. I am not looking to upgrade since I am not a big 35mm user. The camera was a yard sale present given to me by my wife, and I want to use it to make her feel that the gift is appreciated. The camera came with a Series E 36-72mm zoom that appears very large for such a limited range so I am hoping to pick up a couple of small, inexpensive fixed focus length lenses to go with the small body.

    Sandy
    Sandy,

    There are so many bargains available now for Nikon AI/AIS lenses that you should have a wide range of choices. I'm not sure which focal lengths you may be interested in or the subject matter you want to shoot, but I've always prefered to use a 35 mm as my normal lens. Or perhaps even a 28 mm lens which I also use as a 'normal' lens, giving a similar 'normal' view in the vein of French impressionist painter Gustave Caillebotte. Preferably in a f 2.8 copy for compactness. Vivitar once made an awesome 28 mm 3.5 which was extremely sharp, there may be some around but haven't been made since the '79 which probably means a non AI/AIs mount.

    The 55 Micro Nikkor and 85mm f1.8 or 1.4 or 105 mm f 2.8 can also be excellent sharp lenses with great bokeh for portraits. The 135 mm focal length always seemed to be too long.

    The FG was a favorite body of the late Galand Rowell when a compact and light body was needed. The meter works very well.

    My 2 cents,
    Don Bryant

  3. #13
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,422
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    156
    The FG was my first foray into decent cameras. I still have the receipt from 1982. I walked into Canoga Camera to buy a Canon AE-1 which was very popular at the same time, and the salesman sent me home with the little Nikon for the same $$. Bless that salesman. I had an AE-1 later that wasn't half the camera the little Nikon is. Aperture priority vs shutter priority. Too bad the 36-72 was Nikon's first attempt at a zoom and they are not loved by anyone. Steer clear of the 50 1.8E. Look for the most ordinary of 35-70 F3.3-4.5AF zooms that came with most packaged 6006 and 8008 cameras. I've got 20X30's on permanent display made with that lens. The 2.8 100 E series was nice, as was the 28mm series E. Any of these are cheap and good. The FG was the first body with electronic shutter speed control. Also, never advertised, the circuitry for the auto exposure will reach out way beyond the advertised when it calculates low light exposures. I had the camera sitting on the hood of the pickup one night making a night time exposure that had a moon. The shutter tripped and I never heard it close so I figured the battery must have died. Several MINUTES later the shutter clicked shut. Later I made that feature work very well for me. It was so good I would take the nikon body with an f1.8 lens into low light areas where a normal light meter would fail, trip the Nikon, add reciprocity to whatever it decided, and get good shots on Velvia every time.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  4. #14
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Peter, what limitations are you talking about? MLU, removable prism, and interchangeable screens aside it has the same functionality as an F. Anyone who can't take good pictures with an FG is incapable.

    So you'll know, I have an FM2n, FG, and N8008S. The N8008S is sort of a replacement for the FG; all it adds to the FG's capabilities that's worth much is a higher flash sync speed, and that's why I got it.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    Dan,

    Yes, those are exactly the limitations I am talking about. And they are limitations IF those things are what you need. The DOF preview being another one, probably the biggest one. I think I was pretty clear about that... I also don't see where you got the suggestion that one can't take good photos with an FG, as a matter of fact, my entire post pretty much a big vote of confidence for the camera. The FG is often criticized or dismissed by people who hold against it things that it was never designed or meant to do, and I think that's silly. I don't think that interchangeable screens and prisms, MLU, DOF preview, pro-level durability, etc. are necessary for taking a good photo. I think its clear from what I wrote that they are features that have their uses and are needed by certain people for certain things - BUT that is no knock on a camera that was designed with different parameters in mind, and yes, a different end user in mind. Or do you suggest that Nikon had the same consumer in mind for its FG as it did for its more advanced cameras like the F3 or FM/FE series? Or are the people buying those cameras just hacks who couldn't take a decent photo with an FG and therefore should just not bother in the first place?
    I have to say, I am a little dismayed and confused by your indignation in response to my post which was really a defence of a great little over-achieving and underappreciated camera which I myself own and enjoy, for what it is, rather than knocking it for what it was never meant to be.


    Peter.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Go with the 50mm F1.8 E series lens. It's compact.

  6. #16
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    The FG was my first foray into decent cameras. I still have the receipt from 1982. I walked into Canoga Camera to buy a Canon AE-1 which was very popular at the same time, and the salesman sent me home with the little Nikon for the same $$. Bless that salesman. I had an AE-1 later that wasn't half the camera the little Nikon is.
    The camera system I chose as my main 35mm slr outfit is the Canon FD line up, and for the most part, I am very happy with my choice.

    BUT,

    After owning an AE1 AND and a Nikon FG, I have to say that I mostly agree with you. I think saying the AE1 is not "half the camera" is a bit of an exaggeration, but my time with both has proven one thing to me beyond doubt: the FG is a better camera. First and foremost, it has been far more reliable - and any camera that lets you take the photo is better than one that fails in that regard. Shutter priority vs apperture priority is a matter of taste and application (and one could argue that there was the Canon AV1 if that is your concern), but the FG in, my humble opinion is a better overall package and for a camera of that class AP is probably more useful than SP for most users most of the time. And that, along with a capable (for its time) Program mode is really what was needed and called for. With the small addition of a DOF preview, I would say that the FG had its Canon equivalent beaten hands down in all respects - as it stands, I still think the FG is the superior choice, but perhaps by a smaller margin. Another thing I usually overlook with my big hands but my wife raves about, is the ergonomics - the FG is just more handy. Best $5 I ever spend!

    Peter.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by jimgalli
    Too bad the 36-72 was Nikon's first attempt at a zoom and they are not loved by anyone.
    This is the zoom that came with my Nikon FG. I am not terribly impressed with it.

    So what are the really good Nikor zoon lenses of this type (28-80, 35-70, etc.) And small size is more important than range to me.

    Sandy
    Last edited by sanking; 04-20-2006 at 06:20 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18
    jimgalli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tonopah Nevada
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,422
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    This is the zoom that camer with my Nikon FG. I am not terribly impressed with it.

    So what are the really good Nikor zoon lenses of this type (28-80, 35-70, etc.) And small size is more important than range to me.

    Sandy
    The later 35-70 f3.3-4.5AF is ubiquitous and cheap. It is also excellent. 52mm filter thread.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949

    http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com

  9. #19
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    The earlier AF 35-80/4-5.6D (with the metal mount and the rubber focusing ring) is a really good lens, too. Longer range than the 35-70, slightly larger (but not large), slower aperture obviously. They sell for a pittance these days, but I'm keeping mine - it's just too good optically to not keep it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    264
    My standard response, because I own them and have kept them for 20 years after use, would be the 35 f2, and the 24/2.8 for a normal to wide. They're reasonably compact (the 24 especially), both take 52mm filters, and are sharp. For longer than 50, I don't know. I like my 105/2.5, but sometimes the doubling of focal length from 50 seems too much, and I think of the 85/1.8 instead. Zooms I don't know about, because the slow maximum apertures (of the ones I can afford) scare me off.
    <br>
    <br>
    On the FG, you might want to consider the 45 2.8 'pancake' lens, as that would be the most compact system possible. You'd have the direct-viewing of the SLR, in a package not much less compact than many rangefinders.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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