lee@ut-ngp.UUCP (03/13/84)
I'm in the process of replacing my camera but still haven't resolved a couple of items. I'm getting a Nikon FA with a Nikkor 24/2.8, and Nikor 35-105/3.5. The open questions are a light meter and a long zoom or long fixed length lens. Right now, I'm looking at the Minolta Flashmeter III and the Gossen Ultra Pro. Anybody have any other suggestions or experiences with either of these meters. I need something that will do flash (both sync and additive) and incident and reflected light. Besides the light meter, I can't quite decide what to do for a long lens. I used to have a Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. This was an ok lens but I was hoping to get something a little longer. I've almost decided to not buy Nikon because of their hefty prices on the longer lenses (especially the ED lenses). I've seen the Tokina 80-200/2.8 and looked at a few Tamron zooms (I've heard good things about how sharp Tamron zooms are). I peeked at the Nikkor 300/4.5 and 300/4.5 ED but it isn't obvious they are worth the extra money. Any experiences with long (and sharp) zooms. Any comparisons between long zooms and other alternatives?
fritz@hpfclk.UUCP (03/18/84)
You're asking almost exactly the same questions I was about to ask.
Let me add a few questions to the list...
------------
Warning! This is a LONG string of questions. You may want to skip it.
However, I'd really appreciate any suggestions. First, some background:
I've decided I've lived long enough without a decent camera. I've used
various 35mm cameras (Minolta, Nikon, Yashica mostly), but most of my
experience was back in high school shooting school newspaper & yearbook
pictures. I haven't followed the market very closely lately, but I know
the Nikon line fairly well because several friends own Nikons. I like
the Nikon's reputation for durability, and will probably get one.
I subscribe to the "buy quality" philosophy, within reason. I.e., if
deciding between two zooms, I would definitely go for a $200 model
over a $150 if the $200 had better picture quality, mechanical
construction, or convenience of use. However, I probably will not
spend $600 on a camera body, no matter how great it is. I can get
the features I want with good quality in the $200-300 range.
I plan on taking most pictures in manual mode, but definitely want some
competent automatic system in the camera for those quick-shot situations.
I had planned on getting a Nikon FG, but just finished reading a review on
the FA. It looks like a pretty nice camera, although I question paying $200
more for a camera that basically just has more gadgetry: the magic auto-
metering system of the FA in particular. (I forget what they call it, but
it looks to me like it very seldom earns its keep. It's cute, but not
worth $200.) Does anyone have any good reasons to recommend either the
FG or FA, or any others in the Nikon line? I have two friends who own
FG's, and are very happy with them. So far the biggest complaint seems
to be that there's no depth-of-field preview. I think I can live without
that, but it would be nice to have. Do you have any particular favorites
by other manufacturers, and if so, why? I realize selection of a camera
tends to be a rather religious issue. I'm tending to lean toward Nikon
because I'm somewhat familiar with it, and have several friends I can swap
lenses with. I'd like to keep the body in the $200-300 range, but would
consider more if the camera was worth it.
On to lenses. I'm pretty much not even considering Nikkor lenses because
they're so INCREDIBLY expensive. Are Nikon series E lenses any good?
I've heard real mixed reviews about them. Any recommendations on other
makers of fixed-length lenses? If I was to go with the FA, are most
Nikon-compatible mounts AI or AI-S? Apparently you need AI-S to take
advantage of all the bells&whistles you paid so much for.
I plan to get one fixed-length lens (a fast 35mm or 50mm), and will
probably also get two zooms, approx. 28-90 and 70-210. I realize that
most zooms don't have the ultimate quality of fixed-length lenses, but
my experience has been that I miss a lot of shots with fixed lenses
because 1) I didn't bring the right lens with me, or 2) I couldn't change
lenses in time to catch a shot. One of my FG-owning friends has a
28-90 that he leaves on his camera most of the time, in spite of
owning 24, 35, and 50mm Nikkors.
It appears to me that Vivitar Series 1's are very nice zooms. They
seem to have very good quality for a very reasonable price. Any complaints
from owners of VivitarS1 28-90's or 70-210's? How about other manufacturers?
How do Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc. etc. etc. zooms compare to Vivitars?
Are any of them noticably sharper than the others? How do the various
manufacturers' zooms hold up mechanically -- that is, does the barrel
travel smoothly and hold firmly in position even after years of use?
Is there some convenient place (as opposed to searching through piles
of back issues of photo mags) that has comparative reviews of lenses,
giving center/edge resolution, chromatic aberration, mechanical quality, etc.?
Lastly, does anybody know anything about the new Nikon SB-16 flash? Is it
enough better than the 15 to warrant the extra $90? What about the other
Nikon flashes? Do any other flashes (Sunpak, Vivitar, ?) support the
TTL metering on the FG & FA?
That's about it. Thanks much for your patience and help. Please respond
here or, preferably, by mail.
Gary Fritz
Hewlett Packard
Ft. Collins, CO
{ihnp4, hplabs}!hpfcla!fritzmls@wxlvax.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (03/22/84)
In picking a camera body, you should not only look at what you need now, but
what you will need in the future. For example, I have a Canon Ftb and an A1.
When I got the A1, I also looked at the F, but could not justify the added
expense for similar features (note that the F1 has more features and is a more
rugged camera). I did not get the AE1p because the A1 offered, for me, better
options.
As to lenses. What is quality? If I am after large enlargements, I will
either use a medium format (Rolli TLR) or a 4x5 if I can carry it. When
I got zoom lenses for my 35s, I not only looked at the quality of the optics,
but the weight. In the end, the latter was as important for two reasons:
1. The weight of a heavy lens can distort the optical position of the
mount on the camera. It may not be parallel with the film plane. This
can reduce the quality of the photographs.
2. If you want to handhold the camera, you would want a light lens.
I have two zoom lenses, both using the same filters (another thing to look at).
One is the Vivitar 75-205 zoom. At the time I got it, it had the same optical
system as the Series 1, but was much lighter and had a smaller filter size.
The other lens is the Tokina 35-105 zoom. It is light and has, for me, a
much used range. Today, I would look at a lighter 70-210 type zoom. Both
lenses have produced good photographs, but I have only blown them up to 11x14.
M.L. Schneider
...!decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!mlsrcd@opus.UUCP (03/24/84)
<> > As to lenses. What is quality? If I am after large enlargements, I will > either use a medium format (Rolli TLR) or a 4x5 if I can carry it... In general, there's a good point here - the resolution limit of a mediocre lens, open wide, off axis, is in the same neighborhood as the resolution of typical film. Still, if you're working to 8x10, the difference between mediocre and good lenses will be noticeable, particularly with zooms. >...I not only looked at the quality of the optics, > but the weight. In the end, the latter was as important for two reasons: > > 1. The weight of a heavy lens can distort the optical position of the > mount on the camera. It may not be parallel with the film plane. This > can reduce the quality of the photographs. Most manufacturers are aware of this possibility, but it isn't a significant phenomenon until you get a really heavy lens. The error in lens position due to lens mount distortion will be less than the error due to incorrect focusing. When the lens gets really big, you will find that the lens body has (or should have) a tripod mount built into it - thus you mount the camera to the lens rather than the reverse. This also provides a guide to where the break-even point occurs for too much weight for the lens mount - the mount can easily support the weight of the camera without any appreciable flexing. (Try a Questar with a 35mm camera sometime.) > > 2. If you want to handhold the camera, you would want a light lens. No. The weight works both ways here: If the lens is so heavy that it makes your hands shake, then yes, you need a lighter one. Otherwise, the mass of the lens helps steady it - for a given force from your hand, the lens won't wiggle as far. If you use the lens on a tripod, the length of the lens can be a factor. Some lens designs give an overall length approximately the same as the focal length; some are much shorter. If there is a significant difference, the shorter lens will be more stable on a tripod. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd