Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Boughts me a new camera;

4203091535_e44dcf9ae9.jpg


I think I'm in love, 1960's Soviet rangefinder based on the Leica, I present to you the FED 3 Type B :)

Very nice! Keep an eye out for a 1950's Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5, it'll work great on that camera.
 
Have been keeping my eyes out for a few things including a lightmeter. Really enjoying the challenge of using it and the age old waiting game for film to be developed to see if anything even came out !
 
That camera is a thing of beauty.

The Soviet Union knew how to make pretty cameras, pretty planes and pretty uniforms.
 
I've developed two rolls of B&W film at the lab down the street and thought nothing of it. Finding the film in the first place, however, was more or less a stroke of luck.
 
So long old camera!*

https://pic.armedcats.net/l/lu/lurkerpatrol/2009/12/23/IMG_0005_copy.png


Wait if that was my only camera, and that's my old one, then what took the shot?



Aww yeaa... diggity diggity

https://pic.armedcats.net/l/lu/lurkerpatrol/2009/12/23/IMG_0003_copy.png

Yes I know it's in automatic mode
Yes I know I was shooting in JPG
Yes the flash went off and looks weird
Yes I'm balding (thank you for noticing)
Yes I'm probably holding the camera slightly incorrectly.

But I don't care! I've got the biggest smile on my face right now. In fact the only person that has a bigger one is Giada de Laurentiis:

giadaheadshot.jpg


But that's because even light takes a few seconds to go from one side of her mouth to the other.



I will still be using the old camera for comparison shots and for convenience when lugging the DSLR would be a bit much.
 
HEY, JERK! :x I watch the food network all the time. *hrumph*
 
Okay, so I'm pretty much set in terms of lenses for my D700 regarding wide-angle (Sigma 12-24 or Nikkor 14-24 to come), standard zoom (Tamron 28-75 now, Nikkor 24-70 to come) and primes (Nikkor 35mm now, 90 and/or 105 mm macro to come). But I just don't know about the tele.

I don't really need that much of a long range since I seldomly miss such a lens when I walk around with my cam. On the other hand, I probably don't miss it because I never put myself into a situation where I knew I'd have to have a rele lens. But that situation is going to arrive sooner or later.

So anyway, I guess I'd rather need an action-zoom rather than a superlong animal-peeper, because it would probably be sports photography I'd be doing. I was planning to get one of the 70-200 f2.8 that are on the market, but I'm not so sure. After all, 200 is still pretty short on FX. A tele-converter (TC) might help, but I don't know whether it won't spoil an otherwise good lens. And there might be alternatives:

  • Nikkor 70-300 VR: a rather cheaply-built lens, but works on full frame, has optical stabilization (OS), is known to produce quite good images and is very cheap
  • Sigma 100-300 f4.0: known to be a very good lens, constant and quick aperture throughout the zoom range, but no OS
  • Sigma 120-400 OS: also has OS, nicely long, but not very quick and probably of questionable focusing speed and optical quality
So I'm thinking about the 1st gen Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 and a TC when I need it, but I'm not sure whether the few shots I'd need it for would justify the purchase. On the other hand, I didn't buy the D700 to make crappy snapshots with a lousy piece of glass. As they say: who buys cheaply buys twice.

Thoughts?
 
For your wideangle choice have you considered the Nikkor 17-35? It should be cheaper than the 14-24 and unlike the 14-24 will accept filters. I also think it's a more usable focal length (but then I probably would, since I own one). As for macro, I can see where you're going with your choices but I'd advise that you get something longer, did you consider the Sigma 150mm? It's supposed to be an absolute gem and if you want to take photos of smaller things such as insects and the like, you need the length (I have 60mm on DX and it isn't really enough...).

I also have the first version of the 70-200 and I absolutely love it to pieces, as the new one is out you may be able to find a bargain too. I'm sure it could take a 1.4* TC with ease and on brighter days a 1.7* too, I wouldn't bother with a 2* though. I use my 70-200 throughout the zoom range and find 200mm to usually be enough on DX, on FX I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you want the reach you could look into 300mm primes (Nikon 300mm f/4 or equivalent). If you wanted to choose between the 70-300, the 100-300 and the 120-400 I'd go with the 70-300 for sure. I've heard the 120-400 is so bad some lens rental places don't even rent them out any more!
 
For your wideangle choice have you considered the Nikkor 17-35? It should be cheaper than the 14-24 and unlike the 14-24 will accept filters. I also think it's a more usable focal length (but then I probably would, since I own one).
They virtually cost the same (new that is), and I'm aiming for the 14-24 because even some Canon guys say it is one hell of a lens. And I want the superwide factor of the lens. On the other hand, walking around in like a church or something, the 17-35 might be of more practical use. Maybe a used one... :hmm:

As for macro, I can see where you're going with your choices but I'd advise that you get something longer, did you consider the Sigma 150mm? It's supposed to be an absolute gem and if you want to take photos of smaller things such as insects and the like, you need the length (I have 60mm on DX and it isn't really enough...).
Let's leave that for another day & time. :)

I also have the first version of the 70-200 and I absolutely love it to pieces, as the new one is out you may be able to find a bargain too. I'm sure it could take a 1.4* TC with ease and on brighter days a 1.7* too, I wouldn't bother with a 2* though. I use my 70-200 throughout the zoom range and find 200mm to usually be enough on DX, on FX I'm not so sure. Perhaps if you want the reach you could look into 300mm primes (Nikon 300mm f/4 or equivalent). If you wanted to choose between the 70-300, the 100-300 and the 120-400 I'd go with the 70-300 for sure. I've heard the 120-400 is so bad some lens rental places don't even rent them out any more!
Yeah, I'm not at all sure about that. I wouldn't even mind missing a bit of focal length between my standard zoom and the tele, since I rather want a piece of glass that will work in the intended situations, as compared to a lens that fits nicely into my lineup, but isn't of actual use to me.
 
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Don't buy the 17-35 new, as you saw there is little difference between it and the 14-24 in terms of pricing. Second hand you may be able to get a bargain if you're lucky, I believe the only difference between the 14-24 and the 17-35 is the 14-24 does much better for corner sharpness wide open. As I don't tend to use this lens wide open this isn't a problem for me and I'm confident that when stopped down there isn't much in it. There's no doubt whatsoever that the 14-24 is an optical gem, I just need more than 10mm of zoom range to work with amongst other things.
 
^Yeah, I've done some reading. There are loads of "17-35 vs 14-24" discussions out there. And the verdict is pretty much clear. The 14-24mm is an optical gem (as you nicely put), but probably too short for landscape photography. The 17-35mm is more versatile due to the longer zoom range, almost as wide and, stopped down a bit, also good in terms of picture quality.

I'm still torn though... I mean some people say that they've had both, and they say that the 17-35 is nice, but the 14-24 on a D700 is pure pornography.
 
Last edited:
Well, if it's any help I know someone that has the 14-24 and a D700 but is now wanting the 17-35 purely because it can take filters. If you plan to do a lot of landscape work filters play an incredibly important role and although it's possible to "pimp" your own filter holder to fit the 14-24 you still wouldn't be able to use a circular polarizer.

I guess the best test would be to hire out the 14-24 to see if you find it at all limiting, that way you can avoid any very expensive mistakes.
 
I must say I never really put up with filters. Is there a "filter for dummies" guide? I mean I know how they work and what they do, but I wouldn't know which filter to use for what situation (other than protecting the front element of my lens).
 
Top