As a real rookie to this DSLR system, and in danger of developing LLD, may I ask if there is a glossary explaining the different lens definitions and abbreviations? I know this is old hat to most, and your yearnings make interesting and compelling reading; but what's the point of me getting dewy eyed about a gizmo that has as much relevance at present as an off-road motorcycle? Phase two. I'm due to get new knees in the near future, lucky me. I live in an area where there are many photo opportunities, however I'm unlikely to be able to get close enough with a kit lens to shoot anything worthwhile (Cliff coastal paths etc). I'll be restricted in my movements due to the knee probs, and back surgery, so I reckon I'll need to get myself a lens capable of telephoto/zoom operation for widlife and sports. Plus something for scenic work. Any suggestions with the rationale behind them would be appreciated, also donations to my lens fund would pacify herself! :lol:
I would think a zoom lens would work best for you and the 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens is a great one. The range is really nice and the VR helps you hold it steady. It is also a very sharp lens.
Rob, The Nikonians Nikkor Lens Forum has a good compilation of sources for learning about Nikon lenses. http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dc...23&forum=DCForumID6&viewmode=threaded Gordon's recommendation of the 70-200vr is a good one. If you need more reach than 200mm, add a TC-14e or TC-17. The TC-20 seems to get some complaints about soft focus. Glenn
Hello Rob, If you are interested in a glossary of terms, head over to DPReview.com and click onto the left margin that says, "Glossary", that would be a good start. Gordon has some good advice referring to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, I have one and love it. You also might consider an 80-400mm VR, it isn't an f/2.8 which is optimal for shooting in low light situations, but the extra reach of the 400 over the 200 can be very beneficial if you are interested in birding or if your subject is just too far away. I had an 80-400 VR but sold it because it didn't suit my needs, but my friend that bought it absolutely loves it. Both lenses become available in the Cafe's "For Sale" forum now and then.
Thanks for all the useful information, very much appreciated. I have been watching conversations about the 70-200 VR, and I must admit to incipient Lens Lust. This is, at present, being countered by lens impotence; brought on by scowls, angry twitching of furniture fabrics and general disinterest from the female of the species. I have attempted to counter this unforeseen stumbling block with an attack of nonchalence and credit card euphoria. She has mounted a flanking move involving replacement of her business suits and various other fripperies. General Sun Tzu is often quoted as having said, "Know your enemy", well he never spent 34 years with his enemy! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Great story, Rob. The marital game of chess is a phenomenon all within it's own. :? Some days you are winning...while some days, you go down in defeat. The key thing to remember, you have to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and get back into the game. I'm not sure what logic you offer that would help her see things your way...have you mentioned to her that Nikon camera equipment holds it's value and it is a great investment? :shock: That photography is a fine art that you both can share? :roll: That photography is the "only" vice you have? When was the last time you bought her flowers????? :wink:
I have just let her use my mower to mow the lawn. She seems totally underwhelmed by my online purchase of his and hers secatuers for pruning. Unaccountably she casts meaningful glances in the direction of my erogenous zones whilst opening and closing her rusty old secateurs. Should I exercise caution, or just go for it? :shock: Dear Dr Ruth..................
Hmm, my other half has just the opposite reaction to my LLD. He becomes frustrated with me when I compromise on my obsessive hobby. Ergo, I am contemplating a D2H instead of the Beast. I have the 70-200VR, Canon 500D close up filter, and Nikon TC17EII teleconverter. Here are a few examples: http://www.pbase.com/cympearson/yellowjackets http://www.pbase.com/cympearson/butterfly This image was taken with the 70-200VR + TC17EII from the 41st floor of the Embassy Suites Hotel, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada: http://www.pbase.com/cympearson/image/46650809 BTW, my husband is a soon to be licensed pilot, tournament bowler, and clinical pharmacist. My LLD is evenly matched with his hobbies! :twisted:
Crystall : Hurm. Your spouse and mine must have quiet secret conversations about this stuff. My "significant other" has actually told me to go ahead and get the better lens when I've been deliberating over two or more comparable lenses. She's also been telling me to get a D2X for my shooting, which I've so far resisted (I'm still pretty happy with my D100, y'see). I wonder if it's still LLD when one's spouse actively encourages it ? John P.
Crystal, I went to the D2H from a D100. For me it was a smooth and gratifying transition. Recently I was in my favorite photo equipment store (Ace Photo, VA) where the owner was comparing the D70 and the D2H (the potential purchaser was moving from film and takes lots of telephoto shots of wildlife). Among the differences was an advantage to the D2H because a key part of the lens mount was metal, not plastic. He said using large lenses would eventually loosen the mounting on the D70. The 70-200VR and the "Beast" are not for sissies...they aren't light, especially when you add a TC to the 70-200VR! Seems like the D2H would be a better strategic choice....then you could easily transition up to the D2X...... :wink: Rich
Rich, Thank you for the info, I am currently trying to complete the sale with Nigel. His D2H has already had the meter repaired and only has 1600 actuations. Then I will need to get rid of the D70, can't afford to keep both. Ugh!
