On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:59:10 GMT, "Webmarketing" <blades@starband.net> wrote:


>> Are you aware that non-CPU lenses, like the 105 and 135

>> mentioned, are not metered properly by the F80? I think,

>> vast as Nikon's lens line is, it is missing some

>> "main-line" entries, like a good, inexpensive 105mm f2.5

>> and 135mm f2.8 (and top-class 35mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 - and

>> a 70-210mm f4 constant-aperture zoom). BTW, I'm still

>> not sold on the usefulness of the "D" feature...;-)

>>   David Ruether


>No argument there.  I assume the 135F2 and DC Nikkors took care of the

>requirements for a fast 135, to say nothing of the 105 f2.5 (which I think

>is inexpensive given it's optical attributes.) 


Yes - but these are too expensive and too big/heavy

to really replace the two excellent slower lenses in

the MF line. The 135mm f2.8 is useful since it is as

sharp as the 105, longer, and in a similarly small

and light package (which is FAR smaller/lighter than

the 135 f2, 180 f2.8, or 80-200 f2.8, so great for

travel or "extra lens in pack"), and it works well

enough on both the TC14A and TC200/201 to serve as the

center of a very compact tele system...


>On the longer side, the 180

>f2.8 is nothing short of spectacular.  I'm not sure the Nikon line ever

>really needed a good 135 f2.8.  I still have a 135 f3.5 that I rarely use.


(See above...;-)


>Alas no good 28 f2.8, but the PC Nikkor 28 is outstanding as long one is

>comfy with preset lens (and doesn't have an F80.)   The 24, while shorter to

>be sure, is a good lens and amazingly good up close.  My wife has the 70-210

>zoom and I generally recommend an off brand to those who ask.  It sure isn't

>much of a lens - in fact, it might be the single lowest contrast Nikkor I've

>ever used.


I don't like it either - but the original 75-300 or

70-210 f4 (in a good sample) is a good substitute, if

you can find one...


>If I could add a lens to the lineup I'd vote for a 24mm PC Nikkor with tilt

>and shift.  I had to buy a Canon some years ago just to get that capability.


I never saw the need for the tilt for this FL (except

for the close-up shot of a planar field of flowers,

with the distant flowers visible), but having a good

wider-than-28mm PC lens would be nice, if it could shift

10-12mm vertically and still be sharp in the upper



>By the way, my latest optical aquisition is the new 14mm f2.8 ED.  I got it

>to handle wide angle requirements on my Fuji S1 which needs all the wide

>angle it can get thanks to its diminutive CCD array.  I haven't tested it

>beyond doing some images for use on the internet.  Perhaps I'll mount it to

>my F100 this weekend and shoot some chromes.  It's winter wonderland around

>here.  I think it will probably be OK and it certainly is OK for web



Yes. The 16mm fisheye (and 8mm on TC14A) also are nice

on the digital bodies, and the 12-24mm f4 Nikkor should

be out in the spring...


>I agree with you about the D feature.  I can't tell you that it ever made

>any difference in the exposure of single frame of film for me.  Perhaps it

>did, but I can't think of a single instance.  Nice to see you posting again,

>David.  I've been off the NG for a while myself.


>The Good Gourmet



I've been back on for quite a while (in addition to the

three video NGs), good to see you back. BTW, I assembled

all my posts from 1995 to the end of 2002 on my web page,

with a search engine this time - at:

www.nikonlinks.com/ruether/posts. I may soon add more of

my "museum" photography to the "Aht" section of the web

page, if I can find the photographs (now, where did I put

them when I moved into this house 10 years ago.....? ;-).

  Have fun!