Edited Message (Was:Re: 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D)

This message, 4709, replaces message 4707. In this message, I edited
"AF" to "MF" in the paragraph dealing with teleconverters.

--- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, "Chris Stanford"
<stanford4110...> wrote:
&gt;
> --- In NikonLenses%40yahoogroups.com">NikonLensesyahoogroups.com, "Chris Stanford&quot;
> <stanford4110> wrote:
&gt; >
>; > Dee,
>; > > I'm pretty sure that "Our Leader&quot;, Chris, either has or had
> one,
> > > I've never heard him complain about any aspect of it, I'd expect
&gt; he'll
> > > be commenting shortly.......Bill C.
> >
> > [Pretty hard to ignore an introduction like that! ;->]
> >
> > Hi, Dee.
>; > As Bill has just said, I do indeed have and quite love this lens. The
> > two lenses I do over 90% of my photography with are, my 17-55mm DX
> > lens and my 80-400mm VR lens.
&gt; >
> > This lens is not perfect, few are, but it is excellent for what it was
> > designed to do - and for your declared intention for use at
> > Yellowstone. This lens is ideal for landscape. I use mine extensively
> > for construction engineering photography, landscape and architecture.
> >
> > I have found this lens to be quite sharp for a tele'-zoom, light and
> > small (I removed the tripod collar when I removed the lens from the
> > box! I never use it; it is not a solid mount), and easy to pack
>; > around. I have experienced very little distortion of any type, flare
&gt; > or ghosting with this lens. I am very happy I have it and can rely on
> > getting quality results.
> >
> > I have managed some great landscape shots with this lens from Canada's
> > West Coast to the beautiful 800 year old temple ruins of Southeast
Asia.
&gt; >
> > There are limitations with this lens that need to be kept in mind.
&gt; > This lens has comparatively slow AF and f-stop and is not suitable for
> > indoor sports nor fast moving animals. (In Canada, where I come from,
&gt; > the moose move very slowly!) I have, however, managed some great
&gt; > distance shots of nesting/roosting birds.
&gt; >
> > Also, my lens has the early version of VR which works very well up to
> > 300mm but produces variable results above 300mm and with speeds slower
&gt; > than 1/200 sec. This is not a problem in most day-light situations.
> > With digital, you just delete the 'file' and shoot again. I have done
>; > some excellent 'slow pans' with this lens. Here, angle of shot is
> > critical.
> >
> > Another piece of information you might want to be aware of is that no
> > Nikon *AF* teleconverter will work with this lens. MF teleconverters
> > will work, but you end up with no VR or matrix meetering. If you plan
>; > to do tripod mount photography with this lens (turn the VR OFF!), this
>; > lens is great.
&gt; >
> > Another feature with this lens I love is its 77mm filter thread; same
>; > as on my 17-55mm. I have and use Canon's 500D macro glass with this
>; > lens for amazing closeup results.
> >
> > As an aside, "terrible" is a very emotionally ladened word and wide
>; > open to personal interpretation of the term. I am a little surprised
> > that your (professional?) photography instructor would not have a more
>; > constructive comment to offer.
> >
> > As with all things in life, individual responses will vary, but for me
> > and my needs, this lens is great for the specific reasons I have
>; > detailed above.
&gt; >
> > I hope this information helps with your decision, Dee. Let us know if
> > you have any other questions.
> >
> > -Chris Stanford
> >
>;

Messages in this topic (6) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.