Hi--

>Could you explain why the f4 is not a workable apeture?

It can be used (f2.8 on lens, f4 with the converter with the one-stop loss),
but it is relatively soft, compared with the exceptional sharpness just one stop down from wide-open - the combination is also hard to focus, probably because
of the softness wide-open.

>> AF, but are excellent mechanically and optically (The unusual TC14C is
>> an excellent match for the non-D 80-200, giving prime-lens performance
>> from f4 [f5.6 working aperture], and the TC14/14B is almost as good.
>
>You suggest that I not be concerned with the "D" feature. The Nikkor
>80-200 mm I was thinking of is a "D" lens. When looking for an
>Nikkor AF lens I was unable to find one. Does Nikon make such a
>beast?

They used to - it is different optically (I think), and available used.

>The Sigma is about 250 less than the Nikkor. Do you think the
>optical characteristics of the Nikkor are worth $250 more?

Yes, if you save the $250 and buy the non-D Nikkor used - also, people on the 'net have remarked about the lack of durability of the Sigma. The non-D Nikkor
is a truly excellent lens - why compromise, when it costs virtually nothing
to do it, and the resale value will be so much better?

>Thanks for sharing your experience,
>Shane Saddler
>pangea@cais.com

You're welcome.
David Ruether

Hi--

>> If you are on a short budget, are interested in best-quality images,
>> and care about resale value, I would not put the largest part of the
>> photo equipment purchase into the latest technology gear (and most
>> expensive, and most fleeting in its status as "latest technology" -

>I'm planning on spending about $3,500 on a functional system. Would
>that be classified as a short budget? I haven't talked with a lot of
>pros.

No - but the camera technology will become obsolete FAR faster than the lenses,
which will be useful for years after the camera is long gone, so it makes
sense to put the investment there, if a compromise is needed for price.

>I can understand your view on the latest technology but the cheapest
>currently made Nikon with DOF preview is the N90. Since the N90s is
>only 100 more I chose it. I'm also very inexperienced with using
>SLRs. I really require an autofocus system to supplement my lack of
>experience. I feel the Data Link with prove to be a very useful learning
>tool when reviewing photographs. It's a lot less mundane than
>writing down all the exposure info. Also the data link allows for
>shutter release, multiple exposures, freeeze frame (just frame and
>the cameras fires when the target is in focus). As for the flash I
>read that the 90s/D-lens/SB-26 is provides the most consitent
>exposures. I really don't want to be screwing up wedding shots.
>I've considered buying an 8008s. I would reduce my expenditure from
>around 3,500 to about 2,000.

All of the above makes sense, if you use it, though a basic camera, like an
FM-2, or an 8008 used manually (the flash ability is REALLY useful, and the
reason I use 8008's for commercial work, otherwise I would use my F3's and
FA's) will teach you through use what works well - otherwise, you will just
be observing the choices built into the camera by designers, which may not be
ideal (unless you switch to manual - the N90s is a nice camera).

>You mention that you use MF for you weddings and most of your lenss
>have extremely wide apetures. Do you think the 28-70 2.8 and 70-210
>2.8 combo does not provide enough range or is it just not bright enough?

The 35-70 is nearly useless, I think. When you are working close and fast,
your feet are more convenient for shifting composition, and a 1.4's two
stops extra (and a prime is easier to focus than a zoom, even at the same aperture) makes for much easier focus, and allows you to get away from having
to use a flash for everything. I am also not as enthusiastic about the optical quality of the 35-70 - it is good, but not great at wide apertures, unlike the 80-200. If I were commited to zooms, I might go for the 20-35mm Nikkor
(but probably not....), plus the 80-200 (um, I would sure miss the 35mm f1.4
[THE commercial money-maker lens] and maybe the 85mm f1.4 - but my style is different from most, since it is STILL [!!!] fashionable/acceptable to
shoot weddings with flash [heck, you can use a couple of K1000's with a few
old Pentax lenses and a couple of Vivitar 283's, if you just use flash...])
and maybe a 50mm f1.2 for a speed lens.
David Ruether

>Thanks,
>Shane Saddler
>pangea@cais.com