From: Paul Furman on
David Ruether wrote:
> Michael Benveniste wrote in message
>
>> Let's just look at
>> this year's gaffes. Nikon Belgium lists the 17-35mm and 80-200mm f/2.8
>> lenses as discontinued despite current manufacture. Nikon's produced an
>> astounding array of variable aperture "normal" zooms over the years,
>> including new 18-55mm and 16-85mm DX VR's, yet got stuck pairing the
>> D700 with the outdated 24-120mm VR.
>
> I made the mistake of selling my rather good 24-120 in anticipation
> of buying the new lens, but three of the VRs later, all had been returned
> or sold. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 was better than all - but it is now
> discontinued (after a short run) in favor of the slightly faster but larger,
> heavier, more expensive, and inferior 24-85mm f2.8-4. It makes no
> sense. In fact, such things are stupid. And, others have noted the blanks
> in the Nikkor line of lenses, like a 70-200mm f4 (Canon has an excellent
> one), fast AF-G moderate wides and normals (like a 35mm f2 and a
> 50mm f1.4) if we are going to get stuck with that "G" mount, another weird
> thing (it first appeared on "el-cheapo" Nikkors, then on the most expensive,
> limiting for the first time, backward-forward body-lens compatibility
> and now the line is in a bit of a shambles, and, "No, this lens will not
> meter
> on that body, or AF on the other" nonsense exists. Am I ranting, yet? 8^)

70-200 f/4 is a missing link I agree, and other f/4 & VR versions.

No metering in the newer low end models is a pure scam.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: David Ruether on

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:u6p684pklfgj3lkbv5u66gee8nng4qj5s2(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:26:55 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>>I didn't bother with lenses of such speed/FLs as 70/80mm f5.6 and
>>200/210mmf5.6 lenses (too slow for non-tripod use, unlike similar
>>speed super wides), and I require that a tele be fine FF wide open
>>(for hand holdability) which most older Nikkors (including tele zooms)
>>were. If you mostly use tripods, the "game" changes (the 70-300mm
>>wasn't very good at the edges wide open compared with earlier
>>versions - and I was disappointed with it).

> The 70-300mm ED is not particular sharp at 300mm, and the light weight,
> slow speed, and lack of a tripod mount makes it difficult to get
> whatever there is out of the lens.
>
> Yet that same light weight enabled Galen Rowell to get to shooting
> positions and create images that no one else did. I suppose a cliche
> image shot from the side of the road with a tripod and heavyweight gear
> is more "professional," but I know which image I'd rather have hanging
> on my wall.

I agree. ;-) But, while many don't seem to agree, I preferred the original
AF 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 (good sample) - it was better at 300mm (sharp
everywhere in the frame "wide"-open) than the 70-300mm, and it had
a tripod mount.

>>> The 12-24mm DX is a stop slower and casts a smaller image circle,
>>> yet still sells (and sells well) at $900.

>>I think it is WAY overpriced for its specs. and performance, but even
>>so, it appears to be the best of a poor bunch.

> For what it's worth the Tokina seems to be a non-AFS clone at about
> half the price.

The Sigma 10-20mm is also a decent second best to the Nikkor, and
wider, but I still wouldn't want to own one... I do expect that a good lens
will cover well the format it is designed for, and these don't.

> OTOH, the last price I saw for a 15mm f/3.5 was over
> $1300.

Not one I would want, anyway...

>>Ah....;-) BTW, the last 35mm PC was a different breed (quite excellent,
>>though the early f2.8 wasn't bad), and the large format lenses were
>>excellent. I owned the 90mm f8 (great even with considerable shifts on
>>5x7 - it almost covered 8x10 stopped well down), the 135mm f5.6
>>(it covered as well as most other's 150mms), and the 200mm and 300mm
>>Ms (what can one say...? ;-). I like sharpness!

> The three I own are the 120mm f/5.6 Nikkor-AM, 180mm f/5.6 Nikkor-W and
> the 270mm f/6.3 Nikkor-T. I can only hope I ever become as good a
> photographer as these lenses.

8^)
I have a few tiny images on my web page shot with a couple of these, at --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/aht4.html

>>... Am I ranting, yet? 8^)

> If it's a rant, it's one I've seen over on Nikonians many times. Canon
> has two excellent 70-200mm f/4L's, but at over $1000, the IS version is
> a bit dear. I couldn't resist an 80-200mm f/4 AI-s at $125, but the
> 75-150mm f/3.5E and the 80-200mm f/2.8D see far more time on my cameras.

Those are excellent. I later regretted keeping the now too heavy for me
80-200mm f2.8 and selling the wonderful and light AF 180mm f2.8.
But I shoot few stills these days, anyway. I've moved back to video,
with HD (amazing stuff! ;-).

> You're dead on about Nikon's neglect of shorter primes, and the Nikon
> body/lens compatibility matrix runs about 3 pages long (and with the new
> tilt/shift lenses, just got longer).
>
> My own rant is the lack of a fast portrait lens for the DX format. 50mm
> is too short, 85mm a bit long, and the 60mm's only open to f/2.8...
> --
> Michael Benveniste

Have you tried placing the fine AF 85mm f1.8 upright on the floor and
stepping on its top end just long enough to shorten it to the desired FL?
8^)
--DR


From: Michael Benveniste on
"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

> Those are excellent. I later regretted keeping the now too heavy for me
> 80-200mm f2.8 and selling the wonderful and light AF 180mm f2.8.

I avoided making the same mistake since my 180mm f/2.8D has a
cleaning mark on the glass. While the images seem fine, the
resale value is effectively cut in half.

> Have you tried placing the fine AF 85mm f1.8 upright on the floor and
> stepping on its top end just long enough to shorten it to the desired
> FL? 8^)

*grin* I think I'll keep my 85mm f/1.8 as is, thanks. So far, my
solution has been to stick to film for most posed portraiture. I have
gotten some good results on DX from a Tokina 60-120mm f/2.8, though.

(Hello! My name is Mike and I'm a portrait lens addict...)

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb(a)murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.

From: David Ruether on

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb(a)murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:6ejp2aF79035U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>> Those are excellent. I later regretted keeping the now too heavy for me
>> 80-200mm f2.8 and selling the wonderful and light AF 180mm f2.8.

> I avoided making the same mistake since my 180mm f/2.8D has a
> cleaning mark on the glass. While the images seem fine, the
> resale value is effectively cut in half.

Ah, too bad - but unless "serious", the cleaning marks shouldn't
matter in photos. It may be worth pricing having Nikon replace
the front element - such work is sometimes unexpectedly
(relatively...) cheap (Nikon almost completely rebuilt a TC14C
for a friend, both glass and barrel, for an amazing price).

>> Have you tried placing the fine AF 85mm f1.8 upright on the floor and
>> stepping on its top end just long enough to shorten it to the desired
>> FL? 8^)

> *grin* I think I'll keep my 85mm f/1.8 as is, thanks. So far, my
> solution has been to stick to film for most posed portraiture. I have
> gotten some good results on DX from a Tokina 60-120mm f/2.8, though.

Another idea. Cut off the rear end of the 85mm f1.8 and remount
the bayonette on the shorter barrel (glue should do for this ;-), and
put the stronger of the two 62mm "T" achromats on the front. This
would not only give you a shorter FL lens that could still focus to
infinity, but the lens would be even faster than it was before! 8^)

> (Hello! My name is Mike and I'm a portrait lens addict...) --
> Michael Benveniste

(Ah..., my name is David and I'm a wide-angle lens addict...... ;-)
--DR