[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcarmoose /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Towert7 I am amazed at how clear you photographs are what equipment do you use? Telephoto zoom lens have come along way from my day!
 

Thank you Redcarmoose!  That's as nice of a compliment as I could ever hope for!
 
I use a Nikon D50.  It was the very first sub 1000$ DSLR, and I was thrilled to get one!
 
Since then I've pretty much invested everything in lenses and accessories.
My lenses are (all Nikon):
24mm F2.8
35mm F2.0
50mm F1.8
60mm F2.8 Micro
85mm F1.8
18-200mm VR
35-70mm F2.8
70-300mm F5.6G
80-200mm F4.5n (just for a fun natural vignette effect)
2x teleconverter
 
and a B+W Circular Polarizer
 
All those photos in my post above were specifically from the Nikon 18-200mm VR.
 
Thank you again.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Wow Blackbeard, I changed my photo I never had a f2.8.
 
I do want to get another faster tele than the 4.5. I see the 2.8s around and because they are mostly used by pros they have that pro/beat up look like you see. Was it heavy after awhile? What did yours cost? You must have great memories as wanting it again! 

 
I was a bit confused as you were obviously were talking about the f/4.5 versions but put the f/2.8 photo there!  It was beat up, with scratches on the front that scare people away but make no difference to the photos, but it still worked great.  I paid about $650 for it about three years ago and sold it for about the same last year.  It came with an excellent perfectly-fitting soft LowePro case for it, too.  It was heavy, and bulky - I really only brought it when I really knew I'd want it.  I had the f/4 AF lens first, which wasn't nearly as good but was a lot easier to carry around.  I think I'd get the 300mm f/4 AF-S if I got any one now - a better hit percentage than the manual focus one, and it's a lot easier to carry around.  Newer cameras help make up for the lost stop too.
 
Here it is, with my F3, MD-4, and rare MK-1 vertical release.  All that I have have left from that photo is the ball head (which admittedly isn't suitable for the 300).  Well, I think I still have the motor drive but it's falling apart (they tend to do so after all these years - I've had two fail on me).
 

 
 
 
And here's a few taken with it:
 

 

 

 
 
 
Nocturnal310, the reason I say to get a hood rather than a filter unless you're really worried about resale value or heavy salt spray (or other corrosives, or heavy dust [i.e. you live in the desert and it's always coating everything, or are photographing rally races up close]) is several-fold:
 
1. Filters only worsen flare, and cheap ones can be quite bad.  Better multicoated filters can have minimal impact.  I would recommend you get a used Nikon L1Bc filter from KEH if you absolutely want a filter.  A 52mm one should be $10 or less.
 
2. Hoods protect from flare rather than make it worse.  They also provide far better protection from drops and hitting things, where there is much more plastic or metal in a hood to absorb the energy of the impact.  Filters often provide little or no protection for impacts - I've learned this through experience.  Hoods keep fingers and everything else away from the surface of the lens as well.
 
3.  A good filter, unless you buy used, is going to cost a very significant proportion of the price of that lens.  Actually, if you look at the cost of kitting out a whole lens arsenal with new filters, it actually turns out that for anything except the most expensive lenses (or the most butterfingery of people) it actually isn't cost effective.
 
4.  Scratches and fingerprints on lenses are extremely overrated.  My 300mm lens that produced the images above had a 1" scratch on it, and several others.  Granted, that's out of a 6" diameter.  Read this and this:
 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
 
I once shattered (well, badly cracked) a filter on a wide angle lens, and didn't even notice until a few days later when I saw some funny flare when I was shooting into stage lights at a concert.
 
So unless you plan on selling your lens, don't worry about it.  Scratches hurt the resale value of lenses, not their images.
 
Oh, and get a LensPen for cleaning your lenses, when you do do that.  It's much better than any cloth.  For tough-to-remove things, Zeiss pre-moistened lens wipes are the best thing.  Microfiber cloths and "lens cleaning tissue" will scratch your lens coatings eventually (and the glass too if you have sand stuck in them), but the pre-moistened wipes are very soft and come with isopropyl alcohol already in them to clean off any gunk.
 
But I find all of that more important for looks than images.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Nocturnal310, the reason I say to get a hood rather than a filter

Maybe I am missing something here, but why does it have to be one or the other?  Why not use both for lens protection and flare reduction?
 
If your hood is a snap on, then a filter will have no impact.
If your hood is a screw in, it will still screw into the filter.

 

[bigshot]

I'm a street shooter and I keep my camera hidden in a side bag until I'm ready to shoot. I use a filter so I don't need a lens cap. A hood wouldn't protect against all the stuff bouncing around in the bag. Hoya HMC filters are great. No problem with flare unless I shoot into the sun.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Maybe I am missing something here, but why does it have to be one or the other?  Why not use both for lens protection and flare reduction?
 
If your hood is a snap on, then a filter will have no impact.
If your hood is a screw in, it will still screw into the filter.

Oh, you can use both, no question.  It's just that you'll still have the same flare problems from the filter any time you're outside the hood's coverage.  Admittedly, good filters usually have little impact until you shoot directly into the light - but it depends on the lens too.
 


Quote:

I'm a street shooter and I keep my camera hidden in a side bag until I'm ready to shoot. I use a filter so I don't need a lens cap. A hood wouldn't protect against all the stuff bouncing around in the bag. Hoya HMC filters are great. No problem with flare unless I shoot into the sun.

I do street stuff too and I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.
 
My 80-200 doesn't have a filter, lens cap or a hood... period... just a soft water bottle insulator thing it sits in within my camera bag.
 
I have other lenses that I use different ways...  A 35mm f/1.4 AI-S that has a beat-up highly scratched (from over-cleaning) filter and hood but no cap, a 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E that has a filter and a cap but no hood (to keep the size down), my DP1s goes with just an aftermarket Ricoh-copy cap, and so on...  Really, it's whatever works best for the situation.
 
But for just a basic kit with the 18-55mm...  It's small but not pocketable so I'd stick a hood on there.  A filter if you'd like, okay, just nothing less than a Hoya HMC or Nikon NIC filter.  If you find yourself collapsing/reversing/removing the hood for storage then I'd say a filter isn't really necessary except in bad conditions, but if you want to leave the hood extended/on all the time then a filter would come in handy as you'd really never need the lens cap.

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

 

I do street stuff too and I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.

I have this lens too, I like it a lot.
 
 
Quote:

 
My 80-200 doesn't have a filter, lens cap or a hood... period... just a soft water bottle insulator thing it sits in within my camera bag.

 
Would you mind taking a photo so I can see how this works?
 
I just paid for a Tamron 70-200 and am trying to think how to arrange my Kata Access-17.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
I have this lens too, I like it a lot.
 
Would you mind taking a photo so I can see how this works?
 
I just paid for a Tamron 70-200 and am trying to think how to arrange my Kata Access-17.

Yeah, I love the 17-50.  A near-perfect lens at a bargain price.  It goes wide enough for me 90% of the time, too, so I don't even have to bother spending the money, carrying, and switching yet another lens.  If I had unlimited funds...
 
I'm feeling a bit lazy right now but here's a photo from Flickr showing basically what I have:
 

 
I have a Domke F-3X, just in olive drab.  See the 70-200mm on the right?  That's exactly how my 80-200mm goes in, just without the lens collar and inside the large size one of these.  That Air Cooler thing has four pairs of belt loops on it, so I can also lash it to my belt or the outside of my pack for hiking.  The camera goes in the same way too - sideways, although I have it at the back since the 17-50 stays on and the front pocket is full of stuff.  Sometimes I carry another lens or two in the pocket (well, it's really just a collapsible divider) on the left, and finally my flash and sometimes other small lenses, my charger, or a small backup camera (my DP1s, which is becoming my main camera for everything except sports) go in the side pockets.  There's also a small pocket in the cover that holds flat stuff like my gels and business cards, and a flat pocket on the back that's perfect for a notepad.  Really, it's a photojournalists' bag.
 
It all fits nicely, especially with just the 17-50 on the D200 and the 80-200, although it gets cramped with five lenses and a whole bunch of accessories...  If the same bag came 25% bigger I'd have no complaints.  It's a soft bag made of thick canvas and the only padding is on the bottom - the only place you need it.
 
For trips when I expect to have the camera out most of the time, I just lash the big lens onto my backpack (which I'll have with me for a trip anyway) and stick my spare batteries, memory cards, and filters in the top pocket of my pack (or my pockets).  The flash goes in a similar strap-on water bottle holder as the 80-200.  It's way faster to get at than a photo backpack, and leaves the entire 32 L of my pack for non-photo related stuff.

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

Yeah, I love the 17-50.  A near-perfect lens at a bargain price.  It goes wide enough for me 90% of the time, too, so I don't even have to bother spending the money, carrying, and switching yet another lens.  If I had unlimited funds...  
I'm feeling a bit lazy right now but here's a photo from Flickr showing basically what I have:

Thanks. I hope that the 17-50 and 70-200 will be enough for all the city trips I do and maybe if I move back to working in a normal environment a 400-500mm lens would be nice for birds etc. Nice setup. Do you feel your gear is safe in an unpadded bag? I have to admit I am a bit clumsy because of my eyesight, but I would be afraid to carry my gear around in a bag like that.
 
 
 
Quote:

I have a Domke F-3X, just in olive drab.  See the 70-200mm on the right?  That's exactly how my 80-200mm goes in, just without the lens collar and inside the large size one of these.  That Air Cooler thing has four pairs of belt loops on it, so I can also lash it to my belt or the outside of my pack for hiking.  The camera goes in the same way too - sideways, although I have it at the back since the 17-50 stays on and the front pocket is full of stuff.  Sometimes I carry another lens or two in the pocket (well, it's really just a collapsible divider) on the left, and finally my flash and sometimes other small lenses, my charger, or a small backup camera (my DP1s, which is becoming my main camera for everything except sports) go in the side pockets.  There's also a small pocket in the cover that holds flat stuff like my gels and business cards, and a flat pocket on the back that's perfect for a notepad.  Really, it's a photojournalists' bag.

 
Yes, looks like a journalist's bag indeed. Thanks for the tips about those bottle isulators, might be good alternative to lens pouches.
 
 
 
Quote:

It all fits nicely, especially with just the 17-50 on the D200 and the 80-200, although it gets cramped with five lenses and a whole bunch of accessories...  If the same bag came 25% bigger I'd have no complaints.  It's a soft bag made of thick canvas and the only padding is on the bottom - the only place you need it.
 
For trips when I expect to have the camera out most of the time, I just lash the big lens onto my backpack (which I'll have with me for a trip anyway) and stick my spare batteries, memory cards, and filters in the top pocket of my pack (or my pockets).  The flash goes in a similar strap-on water bottle holder as the 80-200.  It's way faster to get at than a photo backpack, and leaves the entire 32 L of my pack for non-photo related stuff.

 
I hope the Kata Access-17 will be enough for me for trips. D90 with 70-200 lens on and 17-50 in the pocket or D90 with 17-50 and 70-200 in side pocket. There is a spare small pocket for batteries and memory cards. Everything just under 6lbs/ 3kgs.

 

[Towert7]

I'm not very familiar with the new Nikon's and their video use.  Are there any of the current nikons that capture video without the 'rolling shutter' effect?
 
I have a nice consumer camcorder, but if I could get a DSLR that takes as good video, I would have so much more flexibility with my lenses.

 

[Szadzik]

Quote:

I'm not very familiar with the new Nikon's and their video use.  Are there any of the current nikons that capture video without the 'rolling shutter' effect?
 
I have a nice consumer camcorder, but if I could get a DSLR that takes as good video, I would have so much more flexibility with my lenses.

 
The new D7000 seems to get great reviews regarding its video capabilities.
 
Here is a test someone posted on youtube for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-E66joBG5Y and another one: http://vimeo.com/16026172
 
Some say it is as good as 60D and basically one of the best in its class.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
Thanks. I hope that the 17-50 and 70-200 will be enough for all the city trips I do and maybe if I move back to working in a normal environment a 400-500mm lens would be nice for birds etc. Nice setup. Do you feel your gear is safe in an unpadded bag? I have to admit I am a bit clumsy because of my eyesight, but I would be afraid to carry my gear around in a bag like that.
 

Yeah, the only thing I ever add to those two are macro lenses.  For trips when that's not expected, I can go with just the two lenses (sometimes I'll swap the 80-200 for a lightweight 75-150/3.5).  If I don't need the telephoto, I can leave everything at home and take my little Sigma (the DP1s).  If I were to do safaris or get serious about outdoor sports I'd want something in the 300-400mm range too, but as you know glass is expensive.
 
 
Quote:

 
Yes, looks like a journalist's bag indeed. Thanks for the tips about those bottle isulators, might be good alternative to lens pouches.
 

 
For me it was intended as a dual-use thing - actually, the first trip I bought it for it was a holder for my thermos, and it serves that duty sometimes still.  A smaller nylon pouch served as a lens holder then, but for the 80-200 the big one fits perfectly.  Now, if I used it mostly strapped to other bags I'd get a padded lens pouch - the insulation it has is so thin that it only protects against minor bumps on its own.  That's not a problem in a bag, but strapped on the outside of my backpack there's the potential for a whole lot more damage.
 
 
Quote:

 
I hope the Kata Access-17 will be enough for me for trips. D90 with 70-200 lens on and 17-50 in the pocket or D90 with 17-50 and 70-200 in side pocket. There is a spare small pocket for batteries and memory cards. Everything just under 6lbs/ 3kgs.
 

 
It looks like a nice bag - I do like holster bags, and I was considering the larger ones like that before I ended up getting the Domke for its greater versatility.  Don't get me wrong - holster bags are definitely lighter and nicer to access and carry if you always have gear that fits.  If I had unlimited funds I'd probably get one.  It's just that their not as versatile.
 
For a while I had a Contax G1 and two lenses - that's tiny, but it still fit in the F-3X just fine, with extra room for all my film, a water bottle, and other stuff.  Since it's soft sided it's a lot smaller when it's not so full either.  On the other hand, I've crammed it full with my normal D200 kit plus a small Nikon FG and four small manual focus lenses, all at the same time.  I haven't found another bag that works nearly as well with a wide variety of stuff, yet isn't huge and hard to carry around.
 
As for the lack of padding... Well, the padding on the bottom is there to protect lenses when you set it down or drop it - and of course you set the bag down all the time.  Between lenses and on the outside though - well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around swinging my bag trying to hit stuff on its side, and any impacts it takes to the side are just brushing against something, etc. where the flexibility of the bag allows items to shift while the canvas mostly protects everything from contact damage.  The same about the inside - unless you're banging stuff together impossibly hard, the canvas prevents the lenses from scratching and dinging each other, and further damage is not ever a problem unless you spend your time running full bags over with a truck.
 
 

 

[bigshot]

I rarely cap my filterless walkaround lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8), even in the bag.  It sits sideways though, which keeps it out of the grit in the bottom of my bag, and the hood is always on.

I have two problems with hoods. Security guards seem to associate hoods with "professional" photographers and harrass me more, and it's hard to be inconspicuous in a crowd with one. I use the Sigma 30 on the street so my rig looks small and I can get right up nest to them to shoot without my camera screaming say cheese at everyone. I'm actually seriously considering that sweet little Fuji. It may work better for me.

 

[nikongod]

I have wanted a Nikon FM2 for a very long time. 
 
I found an FM on craigslist at a price that I could not say no to so I got an FM instead. Ooh, it came with the lens which is good because my current 50F1.4 is kind of beat.
 
Anyways, here's a picture of my camera that I took with my camera. I have always wanted to write that.
 

 

 
Now I get to take REALLLLLLY wide pix with my 14mm lens

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

Yeah, the only thing I ever add to those two are macro lenses.  For trips when that's not expected, I can go with just the two lenses (sometimes I'll swap the 80-200 for a lightweight 75-150/3.5).  If I don't need the telephoto, I can leave everything at home and take my little Sigma (the DP1s).  If I were to do safaris or get serious about outdoor sports I'd want something in the 300-400mm range too, but as you know glass is expensive.  
For me it was intended as a dual-use thing - actually, the first trip I bought it for it was a holder for my thermos, and it serves that duty sometimes still.  A smaller nylon pouch served as a lens holder then, but for the 80-200 the big one fits perfectly.  Now, if I used it mostly strapped to other bags I'd get a padded lens pouch - the insulation it has is so thin that it only protects against minor bumps on its own.  That's not a problem in a bag, but strapped on the outside of my backpack there's the potential for a whole lot more damage.

Looks like you have a lot of gear and use it on a daily basis as your work tools. Me, I am just a guy who like city trips and taking photos
 
 
 
Quote:

It looks like a nice bag - I do like holster bags, and I was considering the larger ones like that before I ended up getting the Domke for its greater versatility.  Don't get me wrong - holster bags are definitely lighter and nicer to access and carry if you always have gear that fits.  If I had unlimited funds I'd probably get one.  It's just that their not as versatile.
 
For a while I had a Contax G1 and two lenses - that's tiny, but it still fit in the F-3X just fine, with extra room for all my film, a water bottle, and other stuff.  Since it's soft sided it's a lot smaller when it's not so full either.  On the other hand, I've crammed it full with my normal D200 kit plus a small Nikon FG and four small manual focus lenses, all at the same time.  I haven't found another bag that works nearly as well with a wide variety of stuff, yet isn't huge and hard to carry around.

 
I got the Kata as it is the same size or smaller than most 70-200 holsters and still has the extra space for a lens a accessories.
 
What I do is pack a medium-sized backpack and put the camera bag inside and only travel with the backpack. When I reach my destination, I leave the backpack at the hotel and just take my camera bag. 
 
 
 
Quote:

As for the lack of padding... Well, the padding on the bottom is there to protect lenses when you set it down or drop it - and of course you set the bag down all the time.  Between lenses and on the outside though - well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around swinging my bag trying to hit stuff on its side, and any impacts it takes to the side are just brushing against something, etc. where the flexibility of the bag allows items to shift while the canvas mostly protects everything from contact damage.  The same about the inside - unless you're banging stuff together impossibly hard, the canvas prevents the lenses from scratching and dinging each other, and further damage is not ever a problem unless you spend your time running full bags over with a truck.

 
Haha, I did not mean that I do treat my gear with no care. Photography gear is expensive and I work hard to earn the money to buy it so I am carefl with it.

 

[xxhaxx]

Omg Nikon thread :] Subscribed