File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Nikkor 300/4.5 AIS for 80 bucks

Good lens for shooting shit like ships on the horizon or should I just get some cheapo 70-300mm sigma?
>> Anonymous
Go for it.
>> Anonymous
Just me personally, but >= 300mm focal length, I'd want to have in a prime. Stay with the nikkor - image quality will be much greater than a lens that covers 70-300

Good buy!
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>113884
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
see second row. I'm using some AI-s lenses on my D70, just use sunny 16 or my sekonic. AI-s will meter on my F5 with full control.
>> des
>>113884
$80? what's wrong with it? :P
>> Anonymous
>>113915
It's on an online auction. The catch is that there's a good chance no one else will bid on it, and the seller set no reserve price, lol.
>> des
>>113918
ah, good luck
>> Anonymous
>>113904
I've always looked at it the opposite: primes for shorter focal lengths, but once one leaves medium telephoto get a zoom. There's a big difference between the look and perspective of a 28mm lens, 35mm lens, and a 50mm lens, but the look of a 280mm lens, a 350mm lens, and a 500mm lens can all best be described as "compressed as all get out." So there's one prime advantage gone.

Usually if one is using a lens this long, he is so distant from the object that composing by moving around is difficult, if not impossible. While the forced mental and physical work of "zooming with one's feet" is an advantage of primes at shorter focal lengths, with lenses these long to do that is often impractical. And, also, because the perspective is so similar, it won't change the look of the photograph too much if one changes the focal length for looser framing.

Lastly, shorter primes are small and cheap, but these are large and expensive. Zooms to cover these focal lengths are usually not much larger and are cheaper than a single prime in these focal lengths.

But hey, the OP's got a chance to get a really nice lens for $80, so I'd so to go for it, no matter what focal length it was.
>> Anonymous
>>113932

You obviously don't do a lot of birds, sports and so on. Long primes are important there. Also the only way to get wide apertures at those focal lengths.

The image quality from the long prime will be better than the long zoom.

No one uses a 600mm prime for their portraits or street shots, it's for the reach on distant subjects with maximum sharpness, aperture and quality.
>> Anonymous
>>113932

wtf are you talking about? how is he going to walk around his subject when it is a boat miles away? hes not fuckin superman. you loony
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113932
the bigger the zoom range (percentage) the shitter the zoom, a 20-40 zoom is a lot better than a 40-400 zoom because it has a much smaller % change. For long zooms you cant have a small % change and have a decent ammount of zoom so primes are much much better.

tl;dr
NOU
>> Anonymous
>>113935

QFT.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113932
I agree with this guy.

>>113933
He's not saying that long primes don't have their niche. He's just saying that it's a smaller niche than short primes.

>>113935
I think that it's more relative than that. Like a superzoom like an 18-200 is going to have crappier quality because it goes all the way from wide to tele. The difference between 70mm and 300mm is less optically than the difference between, say, 40mm and 80mm, so there won't be as much distortion.

Granted, I'm not an optical engineer, so I could be talking out my ass here. But you're also not an optical engineer, so you might be too.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113951
well i was saying super zooms are shit (sorry ken) but then i think you agree. im not really sure how long zooms stack up against long primes, but no one even makes zooms past 200¬ so if you wanted a 400 you are going to have to get a prime (afaik)

yes i know sigma make some ridiculous zooms but thats SIGMA.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>113953

Canon make a 100-400L. The quality from it is nice, but compared to a 400L FFL lens it's struggling. Zooms are always a compromise, even at 70-200 you'll see the differences over the focal lengths and other non image issues.

I believe Leica(?) had some lenses that were made to work in steps so that they were halfway between zooms and FFL.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113963
i totally forgot about that, ive seen so many as well...
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>113951
18-200's suck because theyre a retrofocal design that get stretched into a long telephoto.

there's Nikon and Canon. Canon's problem is they have a hard mount to make wideangles for, Nikon has the problem they don't make mid-end gear.

now. 28-90s are great, I own a vivitar 1series 2.8-3.5 for Nikon that was top notch in the 80s. modern Canon 28-105 f/4L is a tad slower but has better optics (no wonder, 20 years more modern). the zooms of Nikon in this range are great too

those zooms use a retrofocal design. primes use retrofocal designs because film/sensor to front element distances are too long for achieving 'short' focals. primes up to 50mm use a retrofocus design, and the virtual burning point of the lens iirc. a retrofocus design is less sharper because it adds elemnts.
85mm lenses use a normal refractional optics, and hence, are sharper.

making wideangles is hard, especially for Canon because the mount doesn't allow the rear element to protude as far into the mirror chamber as Nikon. this results in harder/more expensive retrofocus designs. wideangles have huge lens elements that do the retrofocus.

zoom range matters, the longer the zoom range, the crappier the lens, and often the smaller the aperture you get. 18-200s are shitty because they got a retrofocus system. when you stretch that retrofocus system, even very modern, its results are acceptable up to 135mm or so.

70-200 zooms are no retrofocus, and so, a lot sharper. the 80-400 is quite sharp too, for the same reason, but its more expensive.

also, size of the image circle counts. fullframe lenses are bigger. lenses for crop sensors are easier and cheaper to make.

to OP: $80 is an awesome deal :)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>113965

Yeah, it's a popular lens like the 70-200Ls.

Of course the other thing with the FFL lenses is that they are more consistent with their performance (natch, no FL change), can be a lighter if you only want the long end (especially when you get to wider apertures like 2.8) and have less distortion. Most people when they buy a long telephoto zoom are thinking of using it on the long end anyway. A common complaint about the longer zooms is when they perform poorly at that end. I wouldn't buy a 100-400L and only use it at 1-150mm, but chances are that many are right at the 400mm end a lot of the time and thinking of adding TC and wishing they had more reach.

It all depends on the person, their wallet and where they are willing to make compromises.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Seconding the fact that $80 for a proper Nikkor like that is a good deal. That's the kind of money people usually pay for crappy no-name mirror lenses.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113953
Maybe Sony doesn't make zooms past 200mm. Canon's got a bunch of 300mm zooms and the 100-400mm L

>>113963
Yeah, they're certainly not as good IQ-wise as a prime. I'm just saying that there's a much better argument to be made that the advantages to a zoom outweigh the disadvantages when you get to the telephoto end of things.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>113974

Sony sucks, LAWL. ;)
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
     File :-(, x)
Here's the zoom you are looking for. I find it great as my walkabout lens.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113974
sony make up to 400 iirc, tho only a 70-200 zoom, also a 500/8 reflex, minolta used to make a 500/4 so hopefully PMA might have that for us.

Ok so anyway i think we all agree that a tele zoom isnt as good IQ as a prime but ac thinks they are more useful even considering this. But zooms are generally more useful than primes (YOU CAN ZOOM OLOL) so its the same argument as the wide-normal end, do you want the extra IQ or do you want the zoom?
>> Anonymous
>>113963
Leica Tri-Elmars aren't "halfway between", they're conventional zooms that are locked to three preset positions because otherwise you won't be able to frame shots properly on a rangefinder camera.
>> Anonymous
>>113985

I can frame shots from the hip with an old Canonet or remember what I get at each setting when I look through. Lots of other people can too. Learn to drive your machines properly, people.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113985
That also means that Leica only has to optimize them for those three zoom positions, which means they can have closer to the same image quality as primes.

So for all intents and purposes, they're halfway between zooms and primes, like Blackadder said.
>> Anonymous
>>113933
No, I don't, but I don't see (other than the aperture thing) why a prime would, at least theoretically, be an advantage for either.

First of all, it'll likely be on a tripod. Good luck getting a creative composition going, and with sports, the players are moving around like crazy. With a prime, you have pretty much exactly one moment to get a particular framing (head and shoulders shot, full body shot, waist-up shot, etc.) and then they're after the ball. A zoom again gives some compositional flexibility.

If someone doesn't need the aperture but needs the reach, then a zoom is better for long focal lengths. Quality-wise, I'm a big lens quality freak, but I'll gladly trade off some quality for compositional flexibility. A great photograph is a great photograph; a good lens just makes it better. But do you know what makes great photographs? Composition. That can easily be controlled with a short prime, but not with a long one, and all the chief reasons to shoot primes (particular perspective, the stimulating advantage of foot zooming, and small size) vanish with the long focal length primes.

Wow, I never thought I'd have to argue for zooms in this day and age. (This is all coming from someone who thinks a normal prime ought to come as the kit lens like it used to.)
>> Anonymous
>>113989

>>113934
I think you misunderstood me. What you said is my point exactly- shooting very distant subjects, one looses a great deal of choice in where to shoot from, and hence a great deal of control over the composition. A zoom regains at least some of that.

>>113951
I agree with everything said here. Like someone else said, entirely different optical designs are required for wide angle, normal, and telephoto focal lengths, at least with an SLR that requires retrofocus designs at wide angle. (I don't know if that's the case for cameras without a mirror box; I do know they don't need a retrofocus design.) AFAIK, a telephoto zoom usually just changes the focal length, but the optical design stays pretty much the same.

>>113963
http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/r_system/lenses/516.html

Yep, sort of like the Tri-Elmars for the M system. Something like a 24-28-some MT length f/2.8 would be pretty much an ideal walkaround lens for an APS-C camera.
>> Anonymous
>>113987
This is the chief advantage of making a normal prime your main lens, by the way. Not that you should frame from the hip, but working with one for some time you gain the ability to compose pretty decently before you even bring the camera to your eye, and fine-tune it with the viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
>>113989No, I don't

Well there we go. Your opinion is irrelevant.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113989
weight,

average long zoom = 1.2kg
average long prime = 2.0kg

WTF?! Why are the primes HEAVIER than the zooms?

Oh also minota used to make a 100-400, wasnt fixed apreture tho.
>> Anonymous
>>113995

Depends which zoom and which prime. You've got to compare apples with apples.
>> Anonymous
>>113994
There's other uses for long telephotos, and I've shot with them.

>>113995
They're usually faster.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>113996
i said average, taken from a bunch of 100+ zooms and some 300 primes.

Yeah the primes are mostly 2.8-4 so thats the weight.

WHY ARE ZOOMS ALSO CHEAPER?
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
I bought a Tokina 400mm f5.6 AF Close Focus for $200 used. Its in great shape, Isn't the best of lenses wide open. BUT Its 400mm and AF, and $200!

Pic related, Taken with the lens

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:04 20:38:44Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating500Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1820Image Height1212RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>113997

You are waffling on about things that aren't to do with what the OP asked. He wants to shoot distant subjects, specifically boats on the horizon were mentioned. You are acting like a pompous retard who likes the sound of his own voice. Help the OP or STFU.

OP: Get the lens. Enjoy it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114004
we already finished the ops discussion and are now pointlessly arguing zoom vs prime as we are a good /p/ and LOVE arguing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113999
Because the primes usually are better optically and have wider apertures and such. With the zooms, they just sort of give up on those things, so it brings the costs down.

(This is also the answer to your weight question)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>114004
>Blah blah stay on topic i'm a tool blah blah
You must be new here.

("Here" meaning "The Internet", not specifically 4chan)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114006
so basically its:

good iq + cropping
vs
medium iq and no cropping

its like win win ohshi fullframe cropping won.
>> Anonymous
>>113987
There are other problems with zooms on Leicas, like complex focus coupling and a horde of perfectionists who will consider any kind of zoom a disgrace for the M system.

>>113988
I'm not really sure there was much to optimize, it's just 1.3x zoom from end to end... Oh, that brings another point: "lens with 3 focal lengths" sounds cool, while "16-21mm zoom" is just pathetic.
>> Anonymous
>>114014horde of perfectionists who will
>consider any kind of zoom a disgrace for the M system

CWEEKS <3
>> Anonymous
If you are not a perfectionist when it comes to photos then you are in the wrong game.
>> Anonymous
>>114004
Yes, and presumably he's not a surveillance officer trying to grab artless photographs showing those boats are carrying heroin or what-not. Presumably composition matters to him, and a zoom gives him more control over that.

But like I said in my original post, it's $80 for what is, nonetheless, a great lens, and he should indeed buy it. For $80 he's getting a top-quality lens, where (from B&H, I checked) a very-bottom-quality zoom reaching to 300mm would cost him ~$30 more.
>> Anonymous
>>114026

Only artless and zero composition photos from primes? LOL. You are full of shit. Half the world's pro shooters would like a word.
>> Anonymous
>>114026

maybe your prime-shot photos are artless and poor because YOU SUCK. not because of the lens. you are the bad workman blaming his tools.
>> Anonymous
>>114014
I'm more a fan of the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar. The 16-18-21 is just for superwide freaks.

And I regard the main advantages of primes as being a fixed (and therefore learnable) perspective and field of view. A Tri-Elmar type lens preserves that.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here, I see we've got to 100-400L and Minolta mirror lenses here, lol.

I bid on that Nikkor, figuring out that I won't lose money in any case.
The same guy is offering this 75-300/4-5.6 AF Nikkor for 100 bucks more; it's reportedly a good lens among zooms, but with slower aperture and AF that's useless on my camera, I'm not sure if I want that.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareACD Systems Digital ImagingMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern28390Focal Length (35mm Equiv)57 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:14 21:32:18Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/13.0Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length38.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1504Image Height1000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownISO Speed Used400Image QualityBASICWhite BalanceAUTOImage SharpeningMED.HFocus ModeAF-AFlash SettingNORMALAuto Flash ModeOptional,TTLFlash Compensation0.0 EVISO Speed Requested400Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EVAE Bracket Compensation0.0 EVTone CompensationAUTOLens TypeNikon D SeriesLens Range17.0 - 50.0 mm; f/2.8Auto FocusSingle Area, Center Selected, Top FocusedShooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/OffColor ModePortrait sRGBLighting TypeSPEEDLIGHTNoise ReductionOFFCamera Actuations12527Image OptimizationDIRECT PRINTSaturation 2NORMAL
>> Anonymous
>>114027
>>114028

It was hyperbole, but the point is that it's easier to recompose, especially at these long focal lengths, with a zoom.

Of course people can compose well with primes; no one would be so stupid as to claim that. Learn to recognize hyperbole.
>> Anonymous
>>114034It was a lie

Fixed.

Learn to stop talking shit.
>> Anonymous
>>114037
No, it wasn't a lie. I didn't say at all photographs taken with long primes are artless. Broken down, my post was this:

1. The OP probably is not a DEA agent, but an artist, and so cares about composition with his long telephoto photographs.
2. A zoom would make that easier than a prime.

Those were the only claims my post contained, and neither is false.

It was a hyperbolic illustration intended to be funny.
>> Anonymous
>>114040

It was a lie and you are not funny.
>> Anonymous
>The OP probably is not a DEA agent, but an artist

OP here.

Fuck you, I just want to take pictures of ships.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>114027
>>114028
ITT people lack reading comprehension.

(He wasn't saying you can't take artistic shots with primes. He was saying it's easier to compose, especially at telephoto distances, with zooms)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114048
ITT we troll each other, as usual.
>> Anonymous
>>114052

Truth.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
It's always fun to see just how far off a thread can wander by the time it gets to 50 posts or so.