On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:20:36 +1200, you wrote: >Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 16:43:49 +0200 >From: Javier Saturno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: New 28-70 f/2.8: no users yet? [v04.n334/5] >Message: 5 > >Dear members, >some of you may remember few previous posts about the convenience of the new >AF-S 28-70 mm lens (which, on the light of the discussion about the poor >performance of the well-reputed 80-200, might be revisited). However, no one has >posted any impressions about it so far. Does any list member found worth it for >the money?. I am asking since is already tested in Photozone (3 samples, I >think), and maybe some has had the chance to play with it, at least in the shop. >Regarding the 80-200/2.8 zoom, this recent discussion about its poor performance >makes me question many reviews I have had the chance to read, both on-line and >in various magazines. This list is the first place where such a big light >fall-off has been mentioned, and, since it doesnt seem related to sample >quality, do you think that independent testers are biased? are their test >carried out without the required proficiency?. In conclussion: who can trust >those users who cannot rent lenses?. You dont need to tell me that the lens is >fine if it suits ones needs, because i think that when you buy, the question is >not so much what you need to shoot at that moment, but what you may need to >shoot and what your invested money can give you, in the middle term. >Thank you, and sorry if I am off the question. Javier. Jaiver, One reason for the quiet is that most of the 80-200 users areprbably rofl at that positng. Simple truth be said if you have used the lens and if it has such a horrendous light fallout pattern then it would be obvious in all your shots. It is a very good tool but it has some limitations which do not necessary rob it of any effectiveness. For a zoom, the current version is more than worthy to fill in the place cut it for it by the very first model of this lens. For a zoom, its performance approaches very close to that of Nikon prime lens- only in extreme enlargements will the sublte differences show. This is if the lens is used by some one who know what to do. I am sorry if this sounds harsh but too many people out there think that money or buying the most expensive will automatical generate quality results. I think that if the original poster had actually bought the lens and knew how to use it - he would not have made such fantastic claims. The true worth of a lens is in the images we can produce with it. The list has been informative but at times the dis-inofrmation that is circulated is staggering. ellery > >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:37:13 -0500 >From: "Curfman, Donald (GEIS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: TC for 300mm f/4 ED-IF AF [v04.n332/24] [v04.n334/11] >Message: 11 > > > Nikon used to make an AF converter called the > TC-16A. I've played around with one a 300mm/f4. > Optically the combination's OK, but the TC's > AF focusing accuracy isn't acceptable on long > lenses. OK I do not have the 300/f4 but I have used this on the 80-200/f2.8 and the Tokina 400mm. For both lens this TC will not AF the full distance scale- you must set the lens to manual focus & the body to S or C focus mode. Do a rough focus, touch the trigger to activate the AF to get the TC16A to fine focus. It sounds more complicated than doing it - as long as the subject does not wander all over the place, there should not be a need to refocus manually - the AF of the TC will take care of this. I think the David Ruther?? has done a test with this combination - look under his "I babble" section of his web page. >Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 14:48:40 -0500 >From: "Zalman Latzkovich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: One lens for weddings [v04.n334/17] >Message: 17 > > For those who shoot weddings,which ONE zoom would you use to shoot weddings >: Nikons 24-120, 28-200, 28-105, 80-200, 70-300,... ? >Or among Tamron/Sigma ? >I guess 80-200 is out of question - it's heavy and bulky, and a little too >costly. So what are the recommendations ? >I'm using right now 28-80, it's a sharp lens but I'd like to have a bit >wider range. The 24-120 should be the best choice,since it a wedding for close to 60% of the shot would be with flash. meaning that you would find f8 a very comfortable f stop for optical, flash distance etc. Film choice : it better to use faster than 100 asa negative film - I find that 200asa of Kodak or Fuji consumer grade gives good results of course if you were extremely particular or if you had to take pictures of dark skin or extremely fair skin people than the vericolour range of film from Kodak or the equalivalent from Fuji would be a better choice ( either 125asa or 400asa). Oh please try the SD8 with AA lithiums - you get close to Quantum Turbo action for a fraction of the price. For a 2 camera rig the 28-70 on one and the 80-200 on the otheramkes a very vesitile combination. But its a heavy load to hang around your neck.
