I own an AF-D 80-200 f2,8 two ring zoom but grab the Ai-S more often. At 135mm the Ai-S f4 lens behaves a lot like the 135 f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C that I liked so much. The AF 80-200 f2,8 is more like a T3,4 lens, so the biggest differences between the two are that the Ai-S appears sharper because the lens is more contrasty and suffers less from veiling flare. The AF lens has AF of course, but MFDon the AF lens is 1,5 meters and at 200mm and MFD the AF lens acts like a 185mm lens where the Ai-S lens remains 200mm even at MFD. As such, magnification ratio is better on the Ai-S.
A rubber lens hood would take less space in your bag then the HN-23. I find the HN-23 to be a perfect match in most shooting situations though, so that is what permanently resides on my 80-200 f4
bobbelbob wrote:
Buddy, you made me do it! There´s a Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/4.0 ais with my name on on it´s way from Japan to Sweden. According to the seller it is in "Excellent+" condition. It´s always interesting how thing goes, I was asking for a TC but ended up with a zoom. If it is anything as near as good as my 80-200mm f/2.8 AF then I´m good! But ofcourse it´s hard to make such a comparison. But I´ve always thought that the AF-version is too big and bulky, now finally I´ll be able to get som more telephoto shots.
I believe it could have been a typo for Purple., I can see what he was asking. When you retrieve shadows from such dark scene in post processing, there is a tendency for the noise elements to make the elements look dark purple.
This can also be because the ambient twilight sky reflecting on the pitch dark white making it appear blueish/ purple.
HCE HCE wrote:
Nice image!
How did you get that purse foreground? Too much shadow lifting?
Did you tried it too leave it more black?
Must be inept processing....
Chris,
What image are you refering to? I am not sure.
My english is failing me, can you re-phrase "purse foreground" ?
Thanks.
The backlighted leaf reminded me of my outing with 80-200 f4.5., where I shot this leaf with the tubes. I sold the lens a long time back as I replaced it with 75-150 f3.5.
the solitaire wrote:
Ok, then let's work on that last bit of convincing here.
I can do some example shots of how well this lens works with tubes. I tried it with anything from the PK-11 up to the PN-11 and even stacked tubes to get more extension. Due to the size this lens has with tubes, it becomes a bit tricky to handhold once you stack tubes, but a single PN-11 works just fine. (sample shots will follow)
When I bring the 80-200 f4 Ai-S, I usually only take a 35mm f2 Nikkor-O along to cover my wide angle needs. Adding a 16mm f3,5 Fish eye Nikkor would be no problem though, and would still fit either my Lowepro AW65 or AW75 bag (in the AW65 bag, I would need a lens case to carry the 80-200 as that doesn't fit in the main compartment along with the camera)
In a camera backpack things are a bit easier, but when you are out hiking, my guess is that you carry a regular backpack and stow camera and lenses somewhere in there instead.
2 more shots with the 80-200 f4 Ai-S. First at 80mm, 2nd at 200mm (no tubes for the 2nd image. Just MFD @ 200mm)
HCE HCE wrote:
Nice image!
How did you get that purse foreground? Too much shadow lifting?
Did you tried it too leave it more black?
Must be inept processing....
Chris,
What image are you refering to? I am not sure.
My english is failing me, can you re-phrase "purse foreground" ?
Thanks.
D810 24mm PC-E
I'm referring to "God of War and Rival", the night scene and I don't no what happened (autocorrection??).
The foreground is too purple, perhaps you lifted the shadows too munch? Or just deliberately.
I would like to see it a little more black, now my eye is drawn to the unnatural purple.
And .. ehhh.... pardon my English.
purse = purple.
raboof wrote:
So we just went through Austin, Houston, Beaumont, Lake Charles, Baton Rougue, and New Orleans.. but I got one image to post. I am such a good dad
raboof wrote:
I did but not much either. About 5 videos and that was it. Lot of crawfish eating deep in the Cajun country though.
I have seen this happen to me. Its not like I dont want to take but sometimes I have seen that the best framing happens when I dont seem to have a camera with me. When I have the camera, it is usually not the right focal length attached.
ramkumar999 wrote:
I was wondering why water was still and then saw it was shot at 1/500th second at ISO1000. Handheld shot?
Yes, it was. I also tried with longer exposure times but my hand was not steady enough. I will have to return with a tripod and ND filter...
Interesting point Buddy, with the MFD. It's also another parameter to be taken into account.
I don't use my push-pull 80-200 af much, have actually considered to sell it, but it's a good one for concerts, weddings, portraits and such. I've a few tasks upcoming so I think I need it a while more..
But, wow, cant wait til my new 80-200/4 ais lens comes. We have longer days, more light and a spring coming up. So, hopefully I'll be able to do a lot of photography this coming months.
Thanks for all the input!
the solitaire wrote:
I own an AF-D 80-200 f2,8 two ring zoom but grab the Ai-S more often. At 135mm the Ai-S f4 lens behaves a lot like the 135 f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C that I liked so much. The AF 80-200 f2,8 is more like a T3,4 lens, so the biggest differences between the two are that the Ai-S appears sharper because the lens is more contrasty and suffers less from veiling flare. The AF lens has AF of course, but MFDon the AF lens is 1,5 meters and at 200mm and MFD the AF lens acts like a 185mm lens where the Ai-S lens remains 200mm even at MFD. As such, magnification ratio is better on the Ai-S.
A rubber lens hood would take less space in your bag then the HN-23. I find the HN-23 to be a perfect match in most shooting situations though, so that is what permanently resides on my 80-200 f4
Beautiful shot Eike. Looks like a lovely waterfall. Wish we had a few of those down here in the south as well. But, as you may know Skåne is quite flat
//Kristian
ljuset wrote:
Yes, it was. I also tried with longer exposure times but my hand was not steady enough. I will have to return with a tripod and ND filter...
ljuset wrote:
Yes, it was. I also tried with longer exposure times but my hand was not steady enough. I will have to return with a tripod and ND filter...
The other option that you can do when you don't have a tripod, is to use a support like a rock, bag etc. If nothing else is possible, I would suggest you shoot like 1/30 or so where you know you can shoot without hand shake., then take 5-10 shots and then create a stack after auto-align (mean stacking of smart objects in Photoshop).
Have to wait more than half the year for this moment. Me and the tulip both. Not too many of them out yet at all, but this one was getting impatient. Sherwood Gardens in North Baltimore
But ofcourse it´s hard to make such a comparison. But I´ve always thought that the AF-version is too big and bulky, now finally I´ll be able to get som more telephoto shots.
!!!!
