Wide Angle and Short Telephoto

16 Feb 00

My lenses start with a Nikon 24 2.8 AF-D. It's not a very expensive lens but it's probably created more than 50% of my favorite images. The sharpness is excellent and any distortion is controllable for my purposes. Also, when used with a Cokin filter system, this lens starts singing. There isn't any vingetting with a Cokin P holder and the affects of a polarizer are fairly consistent. The price is unbeatable and it meets all my needs. I love it. I think it's wide enough to satisfy 99% of my landscape needs but not so wide that it becomes difficult to manage when shooting architecture. I like it. As you review my images, you'll find a lot of them taken with this lens. I can't recommend it enough.

Next in line is a 35-70 AF-D zoom. This was my first Nikon lens and compared to other high tech lenses in the category such as the 28-70 AF-S, it's fairly dated. Still, it's great where it counts and I use it as one of my workhorse lenses. It's sharp and versatile. What more has to be said? Until I bought my dedicated micro, this lens provided the most magnification I had and I used it extensively to learn those special techniques required for close-up photography. In the normal zoom range, this lens is excellent. Sure there are more technically advanced lenses out there. But, for the price and capability it's difficult to beat. The only drawback I think it really has is the front element and therefore the filter ring rotates as the lens focuses. It's a problem when you're using most filters. Even then it's merely an inconvenience.

Nikon Telephotos and Zooms

16 Feb 00

I bought the Nikon 70-180 Micro Zoom. It's touted by Nikon as the first true Micro Zoom. The importance of this statement was lost on me until well after I had purchased this lens. I got it for two reasons after much consideration, research, and review.

1) I needed a micro lens that wasn't going to kill my budget by not being versatile enough to be used for general photography.

2) I needed a lens to fill the 80-200mm range.

Moose Peterson had reportedly loved this lens so much that he replaced his then 80-200 with it. Since, I understand he's move back to using the 80-200 AF-S, which I consider a really great lens, but out of my budget, size constraints, and therefore my style of photography. The Micro Zoom is a compromise. No, it's not the fastest thing on the market. There are lenses with larger apertures, faster auto-focus, and more precise optics under micro conditions. But, no other lens brings acceptable qualities in each of these areas together into one package. Not only that, the lens is fairly small and it fits well over my shoulder when I'm shooting the 500 AF-S on the tripod. The coolest part of a Micro Zoom is you don't have to change your whole tripod/camera location to precisely compose your image. You fine-tune your composition with the versatile zoom feature without moving so much as an inch. I can't understate the importance of this kind of capability. If you don't have a micro and you're in the market for one, I highly recommend this lens.

Before I bought my Micro Zoom, I got a 180 F2.8 AF-N to complement my 35-70 F2.8. All rumors about its legend are true. I almost believe it's the sharpest, most spectacular lens in my inventory. All of the images I've taken with it are compelling and attractive. No, it's not the most flexible lens but, along with my 24 mm AF-D, it's way up there in producing highly successful images. In many ways, this lens makes up for boring subject matter with outstanding imaging and contrast. I can't stay enough about it. If I was left on a deserted island and given a choice of two lenses to use exclusively, I'd pick my 180 F2.8 AF-N as one.

My first long telephoto was the 300 F4 AF. Never did I realize the hazards of camera vibration and subtle image degradation due to technique prior to getting this lens. Without realizing it, I could compensate for poor technique by using my other lenses but my first rolls with this 300 F4 showcased several poor techniques I was using. More than once after I bought the lens I thought some of the soft images I had were related to a sub-quality 300 F4. After taking over 1000 pictures with this lens, I can say it's excellent and any problems previously experience were totally attributed to my poor technique. There's a steep learning curve required to effectively use a long telephoto lens. My 300 F4 is no exception. This experience has definitely paid dividends with using other long lenses. I've never used the industry standard for handheld bird photography, 400 F5.6, but my 300 F4 has been entirely satisfactory in this capacity. It's quick and light weight. Combined with an F5, fast flying birds are easy to get hand held shots of. I love this lens and will use it until it's replaced by an AF-S version. Unfortunately, it's not compatible with any Nikon auto-focus tele-converters. I expect that could be remedied at sometime in the future but for now, I'm restricted to not using any tele's.

Cheers

Tom