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

corners...

>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

>photography.

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.

>Fred

>The Good Gourmet

>http://www.thegoodgourmet.com

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!