 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007how well does manual focus work with D200
I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. I just can't afford to replace all my lenses >I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of >manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. > >I just can't afford to replace all my lenses You are aware that the focusing screen on the D200 is not a split prism, so you have to go by how sharp it looks to your eye. There are 3rd party focus screen replacements such as the Katz-eye available however. http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Katz-Eye-Focusing-Screen-for-the-Nikon-D200-- prod_D200.html  SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of >> manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > screen replacements such as the Katz-eye available however. > http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Katz-Eye-Focusing-Screen-for-the-Nikon-D200-- prod_D200.html The focus indicator light still blinks. I'm a bit suspect of the third party screens. While they overcome some of the limitations of the original AF screens for MF work, how do you know that the focus screen plane is equidistant to the film plane - I know some of the screens come with shims to try to adjust for this, but usually just one shim. Pull an old lens apart and you'll likely see that many different shims are used in layers in order to correctly align lens elements. Production-line tolerances aren't good enough to dispense with calibrating the AF sensors, so to assume that they are good enough for using a MF screen seems odd. >The focus indicator light still blinks. Most times yes. What about situations when there isn't enough light/contrast or one is trying to use a lens/tc combo where the combined min f# doesn't allow AF to function properly? I just ordered mine to try to address this case. >I'm a bit suspect of the third party screens. While they overcome some >of the limitations of the original AF screens for MF work, how do you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >with calibrating the AF sensors, so to assume that they are good enough >for using a MF screen seems odd. Seems to me Nikon sells many focusing screens for their film and high end dslrs. How are these produced? In fact then how are the original screens in the consumer level dslrs produced, especially down at the D40/D50 price point? SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> The focus indicator light still blinks. > > Most times yes. What about situations when there isn't enough > light/contrast or one is trying to use a lens/tc combo where the combined > min f# doesn't allow AF to function properly? I just ordered mine to try to > address this case. heh - yes - but I wonder if my tired old eyes would do better anyway in such circumstances. >> I'm a bit suspect of the third party screens. While they overcome some >> of the limitations of the original AF screens for MF work, how do you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the consumer level dslrs produced, especially down at the D40/D50 price > point? I don't think it's so much a matter of how the screens are produced, as how exactly they are positioned under the prism. It's the "high-end" bit that may be the devil in the detail. The high end dslrs also tend to have 100% coverage screens that require really precise placement, as opposed to "near enough" placement with lower end dslrs with 95% coverage finders like the D200 and below. Perhaps the third party screen will be good? I don't know because I haven't tried one - only read reports (mainly good) but wonder if there is perhaps some placebo effect going on. Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. Then again, Nikon makes lots of $$$ from very (over?) highly priced "add-ons" for their cameras (remote cords etc etc), so if the idea of interchangeable screens was a good idea in their opinion, then I'm pretty certain that they would be the first to sell them - just like they already do for high end cameras and some film slrs. "Hobbling" camera features with no reason hasn't been a Nikon characteristic. >Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would >work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. Your concerns are completely misplaced. The Katz Eye screens are of excellent quality. I use one on my Canon 5D, and it makes a huge difference to manual focusing. Most of my lenses for the 5D are manual focus, and I could not manage without an aftermarket screen. Highly recommended. Don't hesitate to get one. They will transform your enjoyment of focusing manually. >> Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would >> work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Don't hesitate to get one. They will transform your enjoyment of > focusing manually. The 5d has OEM screens, including a matte screen. My concern isn't about the quality of the Katz Eye screens themselves, but about whether they are going to be a reliable solution on a system where the manufacturer doesn't offer interchangeable screens. >>> Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would >>> work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >The 5d has OEM screens, including a matte screen. I know. I bought the special screen for manual focusing and it was atrocious. It was dark and horribly grainy, and it did not help with manual focusing one iota. It is probably the worst accessory that I ever bought for a camera. >My concern isn't >about the quality of the Katz Eye screens themselves, but about whether >they are going to be a reliable solution on a system where the >manufacturer doesn't offer interchangeable screens. Rest assured, they are beautifully made and they work. They are worth every single penny ... ... probably the *best* accessory that I ever bought for a camera. >>Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would >>work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. >Your concerns are completely misplaced. The Katz Eye screens are of >excellent quality. I use one on my Canon 5D, and it makes a huge >difference to manual focusing. >Most of my lenses for the 5D are manual focus, and I could not manage >without an aftermarket screen. Highly recommended. >Don't hesitate to get one. They will transform your enjoyment of >focusing manually. Thanks for the post. It does reraise my old question of why the manufacturers don't include a proper manual focus screen in the first place? I doubt it would interfere with anything. Signature--- Paul J. Gans >>>Let us know how your one works. If I was confident that they would >>>work, then perhaps I'd get one myself. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I doubt it would interfere with anything. Manufacturers of AF SLRs have long competed to provide the brightest, clearest view through the lens, without paying more than scant attention to the needs of users who use manual focus. The clearer the screen, the brighter the image. Bright, clear screens are great for people who trust AF but useless for manual focusing because there is not enough of a surface to focus an image on. The surface we need cuts doen the light, and manufacturers don't want reviewers saying that the viewfinder image is dark. So brightness wins, while manual focus ability suffers. And let's be honest, the vast majority of users will never use manual focus. Hence the need for aftermarket screens. > Manufacturers of AF SLRs have long competed to provide the brightest, > clearest view through the lens, without paying more than scant [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hence the need for aftermarket screens. Quite right Tony. Although in defense of Minolta, they did supply alternate screens, esp. for fast lenses used for Portraits. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >Thanks for the post. It does reraise my old question of >why the manufacturers don't include a proper manual focus >screen in the first place? > >I doubt it would interfere with anything. I only use manual focus and I replace the K screens in my MF cameras with E screens for two reasons: one is the grid lines of the E screen, but the other is that a focus assist in the middle of the screen does have an effect on composition. With just ground glass, you can first get the composition right and them study the scene for focus / DoF. What is silly, is that Nikon does not make any screens with manual focus assists for their digital cameras. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency According to Philip Homburg <philip@ue.aioy.eu>: [ ... ] > What is silly, is that Nikon does not make any screens with manual focus > assists for their digital cameras. I think that this is because the technique for replacing the screens was not really *built* for user replacement. It requires tools (tweezers) and rather good manual dexterity, unlike the older ones like the Nikon F, or the more recent ones such as the N90s. All of the screens have frames which define the installation position to great precision. I would not be afraid to do this (as appears to also be true of the majority of purchasers of the Katz Eye screens, but consider the people who take the camera to the dealer just to get the sensor cleaned. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > I think that this is because the technique for replacing the >screens was not really *built* for user replacement. It requires tools >(tweezers) and rather good manual dexterity, unlike the older ones like >the Nikon F, or the more recent ones such as the N90s. All of the >screens have frames which define the installation position to great >precision. The D1 series has replacable screens. I replaced the B screen with an E screen. It is just that Nikon decided that AF cameras need no manual focus assists. For example, the screens of the FE2 and the F100/D1 are almost the same, as is the mechanism holding the screens. But while there is a K screen for the FE2, there is no K screen for the F100/D1. (Nikon did offer screens with manual focus assists for the F4 and the F5, but that may be more to continue a tradition) SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >The focus indicator light still blinks. >I'm a bit suspect of the third party screens. While they overcome some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >with calibrating the AF sensors, so to assume that they are good enough >for using a MF screen seems odd. You could apply exactly the same criticisms to manufacturers' OEM focusing screens, and those criticisms would be equally undeserved. >I'm a bit suspect of the third party screens. While they overcome some >of the limitations of the original AF screens for MF work, how do you >know that the focus screen plane is equidistant to the film plane - I >know some of the screens come with shims to try to adjust for this, but >usually just one shim. Historically, even relatively cheap Nikon cameras, such as the FE came with replacable screens. I'm not aware of any complaints in this area. Nikon uses very simple mechanisms to keep the screens in place. In theory AF cameras may have bigger problems with using the screen for manual focussing because during normal AF operation the screen doesn't have to be aligned as well as a screen in a MF camera. But Nikon cameras seem to be build well enough that this is not an issue. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency on my old F3's I replaced all the split screens with others because with long lenses and macro work they proved next to useless Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >> I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of >> manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > screen replacements such as the Katz-eye available however. > http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Katz-Eye-Focusing-Screen-for-the-Nikon-D200-- prod_D200.html > on my old F3's I replaced all the split screens with others because with > long lenses and macro work they proved next to useless Exactly what I did with my Canon F1, if you are used to a matte screen the D200 shouldn't be a problem. Tom > on my old F3's I replaced all the split screens with others because with long lenses and macro work they proved next to useless I did too, on my F, F2, F3, 8008, FE-2, and FA bodies since the Nikon plain matte screens without the nonsense in the middle to get in the way of easy and quick manual focus with these cameras with very sharp viewfinders (***assuming good eye correction for one meter***) which gave a superior view and feel for the final image "look" along with the easier focus. Beginning with the N90 and cheaper cameras, the VFs unfortunatel began to be less satisfactory, and now things are a mess (the VFs are neither sharp nor bright - GEE!!!). And, no, those silly "AF confirmation" blinking lights do not help since there is too much "play" in them to be accurate, they are too slow to use, and they are too distracting. With the older VFs I could easly focus any FL lens (down to 8mm) of any speed (down to f16 or slower for some tele and macro combinations) and see what I was shooting. Try that with the small digital cameras! Newer is all too often not necessarily better...;-( -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) >Beginning with the N90 and cheaper >cameras, the VFs unfortunatel began to be less satisfactory, and >now things are a mess (the VFs are neither sharp nor bright - GEE!!!). It is a particular problem with APS sized sensors because the total amount of light entering the viewfinder is about half what it would be with a full frame sensor, or with film. That's because the illumination per unit area of sensor/film is the same, but there is slightly less than half the sensor area. This affects all DSLR brands about equally, except for the case of the Canon full frame DSLRs. > I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of > manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. > > I just can't afford to replace all my lenses I have had a little problem with my 24 f2, but using the electronic rangefinder focus with this lens is not too difficult, just took a little practice. Nice thing about wide angles, stop them down and you have a large depth of field. I have no problem with my 100 mm f2.8 or the 105 f2.8 micro at work, focus snaps right in, even at 1:1 mag on the 105. I have an old manual 400 Kilar that I haven't used that often, but it didn't seem hard to focus at all. I shoot a lot of macro and I'm used to a matte screen, may be a little harder switch if you're used to microprisms or split image. Tom >>I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of >>manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and I'm used to a matte screen, may be a little harder switch if > you're used to microprisms or split image. I have no problem at all with a 105/2.8 macro or the 70-200/2.8 but anything wider I find extremely challenging to focus manually. That's a 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 45mm f/2.8 & 50mm f/1.2. At close distances it's a snap but at 15-30 feet it's just 1/16" of focus twist or something ridiculous like that and the AF indicator light just defaults to infinity for anything beyond say 30 feet. I will say the D200 is light years brighter & easier to focus than a D70, that was the first & most important difference I noticed. The D80 has the same viewfinder but can't meter with old AI lenses. It's been so long since I used my Canon AE1 with split prism, I couldn't say how it compares though. One other bonus with the D200/80 versus the D70 is the large LCD review screen and the ability to quickly zoom in to check for critical focus. Really, it's better than 100% I think, you can see the grain in an ISO 400 shot and at full zoom on the LCD nothing really looks sharp it's so damn close. What you can do is bracket the focus for a few shots, zoom in to the preview and spin the command dial to compare the shots in sequence while maintaining full zoom. I really should get a Katz eye screen. Another thing with multiple AI lenses it's a bit of manu clicking to set the FL & max aperture... not too bad jumping into the recent settings menu but more hassle than I thought it would be. > I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of > manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. > > I just can't afford to replace all my lenses As others have mentioned the Katz eye screens are available. I had one in my D50 and loved it. I ordered my screen for my D200 weeks before I ordered the D200 (they are heavily back ordered) so I could put it in immediately upon receiving the D200. I'm completely sold on them as I use my old manual focus lenses a lot. As regards the shim(s). You do not change the shims. If your old screen had one shim you leave that in. If it had 2 shims you leave both in. My only regret with the D200 was delaying the purchase as long as I did. Remember that the MF lenses must be AI, AI-S or have been AI'd. Most of my MF lenses were AI'd with factory kits and all of them work fine. Thanks for the input. My budget might permit a new lens with the D200. I have a couple lenses that I got when I purchased my D70 a couple years ago. These cover the moderate wide to tel (18-70) and to tel range (70-300) and work fairly well but the 70-300 is too slow (really need a 300 2.8) Is there a lens to replace my 300 2.8 manual focus LD glass lens that I could afford? How are the non Nikon 300 2.8s like the Tameron? Or should I just stay with my manual focus 300 2.8 which has served me well for many years. > Thanks for the input. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How are the non Nikon 300 2.8s like the Tameron? Or should I just stay > with my manual focus 300 2.8 which has served me well for many years. Your old lens should continue to serve you as well as it ever did. The difficulty of focusing with the D200's viewfinder is overblown, especially with a lens like the 300 f/2.8. The regular matte screen that comes with the camera works very well. thanks what I was wondering is maybe a VR lens. I was looking at the BH site to see what they offered and the prices >> Thanks for the input. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > especially with a lens like the 300 f/2.8. The regular matte screen > that comes with the camera works very well. > Thanks for the input. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How are the non Nikon 300 2.8s like the Tameron? Or should I just stay > with my manual focus 300 2.8 which has served me well for many years. I think manual focusing will be no problem with that lens. The new AF-S VR lenses are spectacular for fast tracking wildlife & panning but the only MF problems I have are wide open with fast lenses at focal lengths like 28-50mm. I often override my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR with manual focus when I don't need fast response, it's easy to see the precise point of focus. The 300mm VR is crazy expensive though. > I often override my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR with manual focus when I > don't need fast response, it's easy to see the precise point of > focus. I've been debating between the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and the (half-the- price) 80-200 f2.8 non-VR. In your opinion, is it worth the extra price? What kind of pictures are you taking? SignatureJoe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe >> I often override my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR with manual focus when I >> don't need fast response, it's easy to see the precise point of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > price) 80-200 f2.8 non-VR. In your opinion, is it worth the extra price? > What kind of pictures are you taking? If you're intending on handholding it, the VR will certainly make a difference, particularly in interiors sans flash. I need one for my wedding work, but still can't bring myself to spend that much on a lens. I have the AF-D version, and it's a very fine lens, perfectly handholdable in good light. -- www.mattclara.com with wildlife I typically use a tripod but I'm curious about the VR lenses and how they would perform. However, Id really need a 300 2.8 for effective shooting. I also need to upgrade my Fresnel lens to work with my SB800. I've been using Project-A-Flash but it does not fit on the new flash. >>> I often override my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR with manual focus when I >>> don't need fast response, it's easy to see the precise point of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > -- > www.mattclara.com >with wildlife I typically use a tripod but I'm curious about the VR >lenses and how they would perform. However, Id really need a 300 2.8 >for effective shooting. While not quite as fast, I find the 200-400mm f/4 VR quite sweet. Mostly used handheld. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>with wildlife I typically use a tripod but I'm curious about the VR >>lenses and how they would perform. However, Id really need a 300 2.8 >>for effective shooting. > > While not quite as fast, I find the 200-400mm f/4 VR quite sweet. Mostly > used handheld. After shelling out 5k for it, you'd better. -- www.mattclara.com >>>with wildlife I typically use a tripod but I'm curious about the VR >>>lenses and how they would perform. However, Id really need a 300 2.8 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >After shelling out 5k for it, you'd better. The OP is all ready talking about a 300mm f/2.8 VR, which is essentially the same price as the 200-400mm f/4 VR. Unless one really needs the f/2.8 the zoom may be more of an advantageous feature. I think it is in my case. YMMV. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html I have a 300 f/2.8 manual focus lens. I continually look at the AF lenses but they are way outside of my price range Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: >>>> with wildlife I typically use a tripod but I'm curious about the VR >>>> lenses and how they would perform. However, Id really need a 300 2.8 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the zoom may be more of an advantageous feature. I think it is in my case. > YMMV. I talked to someone trying to sell a tokina 300 f2.8 af lens what are the opinions of this lens? > I have a 300 f/2.8 manual focus lens. I continually look at the AF > lenses but they are way outside of my price range [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> case. >> YMMV. > I have a 300 f/2.8 manual focus lens. I continually look at the AF > lenses but they are way outside of my price range That's probably what I'll end up with for anything above my 70-200 VR. Fantasizing about a 1.4xTC with VR in it... ha they could even add a fine tuning AF feature... yes I realize Nikon or Canon wouldn't make that. It would be neat if you could Frankenstein a broken VR AF-S lens into a teleconverter though.. those old MF primes can handle a TC added. > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > <snippage> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> case. >> YMMV. >> I have a 300 f/2.8 manual focus lens. I continually look at the AF >> lenses but they are way outside of my price range [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that. It would be neat if you could Frankenstein a broken VR AF-S lens >into a teleconverter though.. those old MF primes can handle a TC added. There were/are old Nikon TCs that had somewhat of this function, but I believe they may have had a manual focus ability in them. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > There were/are old Nikon TCs that had somewhat of this function, but I > believe they may have had a manual focus ability in them. there was the tc-16 1.6x teleconverter that turned a manual focus lens into an autofocus one. <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/tel econverter/tc16a/index.htm> >>There were/are old Nikon TCs that had somewhat of this function, but I >>believe they may have had a manual focus ability in them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/tel > econverter/tc16a/index.htm> I'll be damned, I wonder if the quality is OK. That's bizare that they recommend it for all kinds of wide angles & fisheyes. Seems to go for well under $100 on ebay. I found a MF Tokina 300mm f/2.8 for $600 in perfect condition which is about what a beater Nikkor goes for. >I'll be damned, I wonder if the quality is OK. That's bizare that they >recommend it for all kinds of wide angles & fisheyes. Seems to go for >well under $100 on ebay. I found a MF Tokina 300mm f/2.8 for $600 in >perfect condition which is about what a beater Nikkor goes for. Read the section on TCs at <http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html> I really like the Nikkor 300/2.8 Ais plus TC-14. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >>I'll be damned, I wonder if the quality is OK. That's bizare that they >>recommend it for all kinds of wide angles & fisheyes. Seems to go for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I really like the Nikkor 300/2.8 Ais plus TC-14. I tried an old MF Tokina 300/2.8 today <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/tokina-300-2.8&PG=1&PIC=3> It would not mount on my AF-S compatible teleconverters. > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/tokina-300-2.8&PG=1 > &PIC=3> > It would not mount on my AF-S compatible teleconverters. which teleconverters? and what was causing it to not mount? >><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/tokina-300-2.8&PG=1 >>&PIC=3> >>It would not mount on my AF-S compatible teleconverters. > > which teleconverters? and what was causing it to not mount? TC-20E II (new) and TC-14E (first type to be compatible with AF-S focus in the lens). They just didn't match up, I guess I'd need an old AI-S style converter. I don't think anything was bumping, just extra metal they put on certain mounts to prevent mounting, not sure though really. > >>>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/tokina-300-2.8& > >>PG=1 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > style converter. I don't think anything was bumping, just extra metal > they put on certain mounts to prevent mounting, not sure though really. this should help: http://blog.nikonians.org/archives/Nikonians%20Teleconverter%20Table.pdf >>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/tokina-300-2.8&PG=1 >>>&PIC=3> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > converter. I don't think anything was bumping, just extra metal they put > on certain mounts to prevent mounting, not sure though really. Paul: The TC-20E/20EII, TC-14E/14EII and the TC-17EII have a "tab" in the lens mount side to match the fact that one of the 3 lens mount "tabs" on the AF-S lens is smaller than the other 2. On the "ordinary" AF-D or AI-S lenses the 3 tabs are the same size. If you grind off the offending "extra" tab from the TC (after first removing the TC lens mount from the front of the TC) ALL AF-D and AI-S lenses should now mount. Of course no AF-D lenses will autofocus because no "drive shaft" focus connection to the body exists on the AF-S TC's As an aside, this will also allow you to stack the TC's but you must be aware of possible "glass crash" if mounted to the lenses in the wrong order. Bob >I've been debating between the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and the (half-the- >price) 80-200 f2.8 non-VR. In your opinion, is it worth the extra price? >What kind of pictures are you taking? The question is best put back to your what pictures are you taking and how? I also own the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and do a lot of hand held wildlife and other shots with it. Many times also using 2x TC and in relative dim early morning/late evening of under tree canopy light challenged situations, so I find the VR a very useful feature. I also find the VR to help with panning shots of racing autos and at air shows. You can see examples on my site. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html >>I often override my 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR with manual focus when I >>don't need fast response, it's easy to see the precise point of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > price) 80-200 f2.8 non-VR. In your opinion, is it worth the extra price? > What kind of pictures are you taking? I mostly do nature shots; for flowers or stationary bugs, that's when I go MF, for butterflies & birds the AF-S nails the focus super fast or tracks focus while panning a bird in flight and the VR works for all of that. If you can do wildlife on a tripod I guess you don't need either feature. > I'm debating taking the leap to a D200. One concern is the number of > manual focus lenses I have and how well the D200 will work with them. > > I just can't afford to replace all my lenses Since purchasing the D200, I almost always have old AI-S lenses mounted, and there's no problem focusing them. And I never use the electronic rangefinder, either. -- www.mattclara.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.