Lens lust

[birddog114]

what's your next lens purchased.
I'm begging Santa will bring me the new Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED this coming Xmas and he hide the bank statement from my wife. hehehe!!!!

[Onyx]

AF-D 80-200/2.8. At around $US800, it's not quite "affordable" but semi-within my reach. I had a play with one in B&H the other day and was really impressed with the performance wide open and lack of distortion at both zoom ends.

[Mj]

mmm... I've plenty of scope here... lol
Having just returned from hols in Hawaii I'd have to ask for more reach.
Thinking that a Bigma (50-500) might suffice.
Of course a speedy portrait lens is high up there as well... maybe the 85/1.8 ???

[Glen]

Birddog, I just lust after your cast off lenses

[birddog114]

AF-D 80-200/2.8. At around $US800, it's not quite "affordable" but semi-within my reach. I had a play with one in B&H the other day and was really impressed with the performance wide open and lack of distortion at both zoom ends.

Onyx,
Have you tried on the 70-200VR, B&H has a good price on the grey import as well and buy an extend warranty in Australia.
Ask Gary, he tried one yesterday

[gstark]

Birddog, I just lust after your cast off lenses

Glen,

I spent some time with Birddog yesterday afternoon, playing with some of his current lenses. the 80-400 VR is very nice ....

This, btw, is Birddog ...



A true gentleman, and an aviator. Seeing as how it was (again) such a gem of an afternoon, we decided it would be appropriate for me to take a few photos ...

What do y'all think of this one?

[birddog114]

Gary,
I think the first one is 85/ f.1.4
and the second is 70-200VR
Hope you enjoyed!!!!! and great pleasure to meet you.

P.S: All handheld under natural light (downlight)

[gstark]

Gary,
I think the first one is 85/ f.1.4
and the second is 70-200VR
Hope you enjoyed!!!!! and great pleasure to meet you

Yes, exactly., and I did.

But the 80-400 VR would still be a wonderful addition to my lens arsenal.

[Glen]

That 85mm looks fantastic and I can see the photo was taken wide open at 1:4. You two are bastards, I have had my 1:8 two days and now I feel the need to upgrade

The second shot has me. I can see it was taken on a D70 at 200mm yesterday, were you two up in a plane or is it a great shot of a model?

[birddog114]

That 85mm looks fantastic and I can see the photo was taken wide open at 1:4. You two are bastards, I have had my 1:8 two days and now I feel the need to upgrade

The second shot has me. I can see it was taken on a D70 at 200mm yesterday, were you two up in a plane or is it a great shot of a model?

Glen,
Guess!!!
Gary, please let me say:
It is the photo on the Aviation calendar, hiding in the dark corner of my office.

[Glen]

Well Birddog, you had me fooled I couldn't work it out, well done.

[gstark]

It is the photo on the Aviation calendar, hiding in the dark corner of my office.

Awwww ....


I wanted to string them out for a day or two.

[Glen]

Gary, you would have no trouble convincing me that photo was taken from a light plane. The weather was sunny in the photo, just like our weather yesterday. The only bit which confused me was the time, but I assumed your clock in the D70 was set wrong.

[gstark]

Glen,

Gary, you would have no trouble convincing me that photo was taken from a light plane. The weather was sunny in the photo, just like our weather yesterday. The only bit which confused me was the time, but I assumed your clock in the D70 was set wrong.

No, the clock is correctly set, but you might also notice (I expect) the the image was made using flash. Is the distance info shown? In any case, the EXIF certainly wouldn't stand scrutiny, but the image, over the net, could probably fool quite a few people.

[Onyx]

The jpeg compression of that plane is way too strong to suggest it came out of a D70. But the pic of Birddog - wow, what incredibly shallow depth of field!

As for the 70-200VR, it is well out of my reach! Even grey it's close to $US1.5k... I could always sell my D70 to finance it, but then again it would be no use to me without it.

[gstark]

But the pic of Birddog - wow, what incredibly shallow depth of field!

You should see the full frame NEF; You can see that the whiskers above is lips need a minor shave!

But shouldn't you be out in the Big Apple, taking photos on Broadway or something?

[Onyx]

Yeah, I did all the usual NYC tourist locations earlier. The Republican convention is getting under way and I expect to get hassled if I am around busy places, so I'm laying low for a while. Centra Park is a great hang out. Squirrels are a novelty wildlife I can't help continuously photographing.

[gstark]

yes, on your first few trips the squirrels are a bit of a novelty.

But when we lived in California, and particularly in Dallas, they were everywhere. Right outside our apartment, just 3 miles north o downtown Dallas.

[Onyx]

Dude, you're a Yank?

[gstark]

Dude, you're a Yank?

No, but I lived and worked there for several years.

Still have a few contacts over there, and miss (1) good Mexican food (in all of its varieties) and (2) seeing as you're in NY, half sours.

[Onyx]

RE: mexican food, I heard Taco Bell pulled out of Aust because they weren't making a profit. Sad, as I enjoyed their food.
I miss beef jerky and grape soda - I haven't found it so far in this state! Must head south soon...

Back on topic, I played with an even cheaper alternative to gain 200mm of reach, a Nikkor 28-200 f/3.5-4.5 G. It looks compact, much like the 18-70 kit lens but it lacks SWM. The AF feels faster and quieter than the 70-300 (which I never really liked in any flavour). And non-rotating front element zooming or focusing.

Has anyone had experience with this lens? I know mega-zooms don't exactly have a reputation for their optical quality, but I try not to judge a book by its cover... It handles fairly decently, built quality is much like the kit lens. There's an overlap in focal range but I'll be using it mainly to compliment the kit lens, so the 28mm "wide" end isn't a worry to me. It's 1/3 the cost of the 80-200/2.8 and an even smaller fraction of the legendary 70-200VR, but I'm afraid I might have a hard time selling it cos of the megazoom reputation, whereas if I settled for the 70-300 now I might get more when I upgrade to the larger lenses.

[Glen]

Onyx, you probably saw that the 70-300 is being sold for A$248 here on another post, which I assume means you can buy it there for a little less than a big mac. If resale is important, if you buy something for close to nothing and lose 60% its still 60% of nothing. No seriously that lens sells for $248 and they are getting $177 used on aus ebay right now, go look
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... 65892&rd=1

I think $80 is a snip to lose, your purchase will probably lose less. Cheap lens rental!

[gstark]

Onyx,

One other suggestion is that you take you camera and FC card into a couple of stores, and play with a couple of each example of the lenses in question.

Don't buy just yet, but shoot a few images with each lens at varying focal lengths and aperture settings. Go back to your hotel and look at the images on your PC.

It's only going to be a subjective determination, but you can get a fair idea of how the various units actually perform on your system.

Then, when (if) you've found the best, go back and make your purchase.

Also ... many stores in the USA have a very usable returns policy. You might find that you can buy the lens, play, and if you're not satisfied, return it with no penalty.

[Onyx]

Thx for the advice guys.

Gary: Hotel?? pffft, sif I can afford a hotel for the duration of my stay! I'm freeloading off my sister and free cable connection!

I'll give it a go - try out the lenses back to back. However, I'm afraid my previous experience trying out the 70-300 would taint my opinion, no matter how much I try to be objective and unbiased...

[gstark]

Thx for the advice guys.

Gary: Hotel?? pffft, sif I can afford a hotel for the duration of my stay! I'm freeloading off my sister and free cable connection!

Say Hi to Verizon for me.

I'll give it a go - try out the lenses back to back. However, I'm afraid my previous experience trying out the 70-300 would taint my opinion, no matter how much I try to be objective and unbiased...

I understand. While you're being prejudiced, you may as well load (and play with) a couple of the Tamrons in that category as well.