Tom Wilson & Stfcatfish (question)

[Steve Foss]

Buzz:

Well, if you're getting taken to the woodshed, be sure to get pictures of the experience!

I can't help you on the specific lens question, because I don't really know much about Nikkor lenses, so you should rely on Hobby and Tom for that. I will say, however, that your images will benefit tremendously from prime glass. It's not just that the glass gives sharper pics, but the image stabilization (vibration reduction for Nikon), is a huge feature, and prime glass simply focuses and tracks subjects like lightning compared with the consumer grade lenses.

[hobbydog]

Drop me an e-mail and we will set something up. Might even let you try the 70-200 so you can have something to compare....fair warning though, you will want one

[email protected]

[Dbl]

buzz that 70-300 is made by Sigma. I happen to own the same lense, also bought on the cheap at Ritz. I bought my body at National Camera, but I did not have the cash to upgrade to a better lense at the time. I will be upgrading when I can.

The lense does a good job for what it is worth. Most of the shots I have posted here have been from it. I have shot well over 3000 pictures with it in the last 9 months, mostly sports (baseball). It is not the fastest lense in the world, but used outside it is more than capable. Enjoy the shooting, can't wait to see some photos.

[buzzsaw]

Is this a worthy lens??? NIKON AF VR-NIKKOR 80-400MM ED ZOOM LENS

What is this worth?? $$$

[Steve Foss]

buzz:

That's prime glass, lists for $1,429 new from the supplier I do business with, and you get another $200 off with factory rebate, for a $1,229 purchase price before tax and shipping.

It's almost the exact equivalent of the Canon 100-400 mm IS f4.5-5.6 that I shoot, and for about the same money. I haven't shot that 80-400, but if it's prime Nikon glass, you know it's good.

[hobbydog]

Read the reviews. I think the story on it is .....good glass but very slow focus. Would be nice to have if you could get it for a really good price.

We warned you....buy the camera and the $glass$ bug will bite

[buzzsaw]

You did warn me and I'm gonna start spending the jing jang now. I'm sitting at my desk in Burnsville... looking outside seeing the blue skies and hoping these clouds and snowy weather hold out until after lunch because I brought in my Camera and plan on heading down to the Valley at lunch for an hour. This may be a dumb question, but since this is semi new to me... here goes... What would a teleconverter do to improve my pictures?? I assume it just gives me more "reach"??

[hobbydog]

More reach at the expense of f stop. A 1.4X you will lose 1 stop and a 2X will drop you down 2. ie......my 70-200 2.8 becomes a 4.0 with a 1.4 and 5.6 with a 2X. There is always a loss in sharpness with more glass however with a good TX the loss can be negligible.

Here is an excellent lesson on f stop, shutter speed, ISO and how they all inter relate.

http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

[buzzsaw]

Good info Hobby! Thanks for taking the time to post that!

I went down to the MN River Valley and took some pics today of a immature (2 yr old) ?? Eagle and was lucky enough to find out what all the stir was about from the other day... A juvenile Black Legged Kittiwake (Gull) has been spotted in the area and I was lucky enough to get some pics... I guess it's range is usually from the Antarctic as far south as Hudson Bay.... I guess this guy decided to visit Minnesota!! I can't post them from the office so I'll do it this evening when I get home. I also ran into a "birder" that has knows of you Steve... I don't know that he'd want me posting his full name online... but his first name was Denny... A nice informative gentleman.

Heres a link for more on this bird. http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=209

[Steve Foss]

Bummer on the slow focus issue. Still, it is prime glass, and it's gotta focus faster than the cheap consumer grade zooms, I figure.

A note on teleconverters. With Canon, the 1.4 and the 2 only will autofocus on Canon lenses that open to f2.8. I did buy a 1.4 with my 100-400 IS, but since, like the Nikon you're looking at, it only opens to f4.5, the converter wouldn't work on autofocus. So I sold it after I found that I couldn't trust my focusing eye as well as I trust the autofocus. Not sure if that's the way it is with Nikon, but if it is that way, it's another consideration.

Also, the Canon teleconverters don't work on any of the knock-off lenses for Canon cameras that I've tried them with, the Tamrons, Quantarays and Sigmas. By won't work, I mean they won't mount on the teleconverter.

So those are two issues to explore before you plop down a few hundred bucks more.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Is this a worthy lens??? NIKON AF VR-NIKKOR 80-400MM ED ZOOM LENS

What is this worth?? $$$

---

Here is Ken Rockwell's review on the lens. Like all photogs he has his opinions which a lot of others like to disagree with but I think for the most part he gives good info. He happens to really like this lens but he clearly states its limitations and what it can not do and why. I think his thoughts on VR are right on ....it is not needed a lot of the time (action photog), it is not perfect, do not use it with a tripod or braced, etc. Read his other reviews on Nikon lens and you will start to see that each lens has it place. You need to ask yourself "what do I really want to use this lens for" then get the lens to match the need. That takes some research. If you are not independantly wealthy then you run into the tradeoffs or trying to get a lens to do more than what it was really intended for.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm