MichaelBarkley wrote:
There is no cure for NAS! Don't kid yourself!
But there is .... you just have to want so much you become ill, and it shocks you into reason. It's my theory and I'm sticking to it ... NAS will either consume me or I will be cured... I will sacrifice myself to help you all with a cure!
Nice outfit! I still think you are missing a couple of things though! What Nikon collection can be complete without an old F series Nikon? Also, I don't think I see a 400mm 2.8...
Andre Labonte wrote:
Guy, you have to lable all those lenses for us... or send a list at least! What is the big sigma on the left?
from short to long:
10.5mm
14-24
12-24 (Tokina)
17-50 (Tamron)
18-35 (FF)
18-200VR
24f2AIS
28-80G
28-105
28-75(Tamron)
35 1.4 AIS
35 2.0 AIS
35 3.5 PC
35-70 2.8
50 1.4
50 1.2 AIS
50 1.8 E (pancake)
50 2.0 AI
55 3.5 Micro
70-200VR
80-200 2.8 (Tokina)
80-400OS (Sigma)
85 1.4 AIS
85 1.8
105VR
105 2.5 AIS
105 1.8 AIS
105 2.8 (Sigma)
TC1.7
TC2.0
TC1.4 (Sigma)
Kenko tubes
I sold the following (D70, 50 1.8 AFD, 18-70, 70-300G, 70-200 Sigma)
Talking about NAS, I'm about to pay for the 85/1.4 lens that I bought from Nikonians forum today so my conclusion there's no cure to NAS unless you sell all your Nikon gear!!!
I love having you guys around, makes me feel MUCH better about my own purchases
I'm currently at:
D70
quantaray/sigma 28-90
Nikon 70-300
and a FM2n
I intend to replace the 28-90 with a 18-70 eventually, also to buy a flash sooner than later.
Might pick up a 50mm 1.4 if I find myself with specific use for one.
Maybe eventually swap the 70-300 with a bigma 50-500.
Of course, then I'd need a better body also!
Still, that's a 2-3 lens, 1 flash, 2-3 body kit, which I really think would leave me quite happy!
I cured my NAS with a Hassy 500c/m and a couple of lenses, Ilford b&w film, and some D76......... I still can't believe it has been 12 years since I delevoped my own film! Talk about having goose bumps seeing the large negatives!
On my list was a 300 2.8 VR and I rented it over the weekend. That thing is a bit too long for my weddings but the 200 2.0 will be just right. Just wish it was lighter.
plnelson wrote:
BTW, speaking of carrying, my new 70-200 VR arrived Saturday and yesterday I took it for a walk around the neighborhood. [...] Man, that lens is HEAVY. I had to keep switching arms to give them a rest.
The 70-200 weighs 3 lbs. Wait until you try the beautiful 7-lb 200-400, which is also longer so your arm is extended further. And I won't give you nightmares about the 11-lb 600...
You'd be well-advised to start doing some minor weight-lifting (I just started recently.) Spending a lot of time holding 9 or 10 lbs of camera+lens up to eye level without significant shaking and trembling does not necessarily require more muscle, but it does require far better muscle conditioning.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
If you can afford it, the 200-400/4 is a gorgeous, flexible choice. I've been away from home for a week, and what I miss is that lens.
You're not helping!!!! We are trying to cure NAS, not make it worse!
There is no cure for NAS.
You will only need Nikon's soon to be released "Big Dog" to carry even more gear.
Here is a preview to get you to start saving up your money!
What is the big sigma on the left?
