Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
I use a clean cloth made for lenses for all of my lenses. For my Polarizer, which has a special coating on the front and back, I need to apply lens cleaner and wipe it off with the cloth.
A special blower-brush made for lenses is nice for getting the dirt off of lenses, but I can not use it for the polarizer (it scratches the coating).
Very nice! The purple in the last picture is incredibly deep and vibrant.
How many 80-200 have there been and which particular model is the one that people rave on about? The model which is still available is the old version and Nikon discontinued the newer AF-S one right?
Very nice! The purple in the last picture is incredibly deep and vibrant.
How many 80-200 have there been and which particular model is the one that people rave on about? The model which is still available is the old version and Nikon discontinued the newer AF-S one right?
Apparently all AF versions of Nikon's 80-200 use the same basic optical design, and thus have the same optical quality - which is certainly a plus, considering the non-D version can be had for around $500 in decent condition. The AF-S model was discontinued to combat the price tag of the nearly $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8; a wise choice in my opinion, since the regular AF version leaves little to be desired in terms of focusing speed and accuracy, yet remains considerably cheaper than its silentwave counterpart.
If you're looking into purchasing any of the versions, I'd say go for it (just based on the crazy contrast levels straight out of camera) but beware of sample variations - resolution at 200mm, for example, is plain atrocious wide open in my copy, yet overall the lens is renowned for its consistent performance across the focal range.
__________________ Main Rig: Kenwood DP-1100II CDP -> Heath AP-2510 Preamplifier -> MAD EAR+ HD -> Grado RS-1's Photo-Fi: Nikon D200 - 35mm f/2D - 85mm f/1.8D - 80mm-200mm f/2.8D
I use 77mm Hoya filters and step-up rings on lenses that don't support 77mm.
That means that you essentially only have to buy filters once.
I have a circular polarizer, UV/Haze filter, and an orange filter (for black and white).
That makes sense. Does the polariser make the lens hood redundant? I'm wondering whether a 77mm filter would fit on my lens w/ lens hood (67mm).
Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY
Apparently all AF versions of Nikon's 80-200 use the same basic optical design, and thus have the same optical quality - which is certainly a plus, considering the non-D version can be had for around $500 in decent condition. The AF-S model was discontinued to combat the price tag of the nearly $2000 AF-S 70-200 f/2.8; a wise choice in my opinion, since the regular AF version leaves little to be desired in terms of focusing speed and accuracy, yet remains considerably cheaper than its silentwave counterpart.
If you're looking into purchasing any of the versions, I'd say go for it (just based on the crazy contrast levels straight out of camera) but beware of sample variations - resolution at 200mm, for example, is plain atrocious wide open in my copy, yet overall the lens is renowned for its consistent performance across the focal range.
I see. I'm thinking of the Sigma 100-300, which has had numerous positive reviews backed by rather impressive technical specs. It's a slower F4 though, but performs better in MTF charts than Sigma's own but much more expensive F2.8 120-300. It's less than $800 new in Hong Kong and also has a nicer looking MTF chart than the AF 80-200 2.8D.
That makes sense. Does the polariser make the lens hood redundant? I'm wondering whether a 77mm filter would fit on my lens w/ lens hood (67mm).
First things first, if you can pull any information off of those charts, you're a better man than I am. I've been told by a few people that the charts are often times pointless......... but who knows, I don't use them.
As to your other question.
It depends on how the lens and lens hood are made. Chances are though, if you use a step up ring, the lens hood won't work. And no, a polarizer with step up ring will not substitute for a lens hood. In fact, if you get a cheap polarizer, it may make lens flare even more pronounced sadly.
Also, when you use a polarizer, you will find yourself turning it a lot (that's the whole point of the polarizer). A lens hood would get in the way of you being able to turn the polarizer. So, sadly, when using a polarizer you are usually left with using your hand to shield the sun. But then again, a polarizer does very little good pointed into the sun. ^_^!!!
Headphoneus Supremus Landscape-Photo-Fi Organizer for Can Jam '09
[quote=Towert7;4273923Also, when you use a polarizer, you will find yourself turning it a lot (that's the whole point of the polarizer). A lens hood would get in the way of you being able to turn the polarizer. So, sadly, when using a polarizer you are usually left with using your hand to shield the sun. But then again, a polarizer does very little good pointed into the sun. ^_^!!![/QUOTE]
The only lens hoods I see being a major problem for polarizer use are the very deep, bayonet kind, that come with most super-telephoto lenses, and a few others (Nikkor 17-55 comes to mind). The shallower bayonet hoods found on most wide and normal lenses aren't so deep that you can't stick your finger in and turn the side of the filter with the hood fully installed (at least this is my experience with the 18-200, 17-50, 10-20, etc.) And screw-in type hoods can just be fitted to the outer threads of the filter, so that turning the hood turns the filter (I find this really handy).
