«

I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

TIA---

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>
>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>
>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
>reasonable cost?
>
>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.

Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.

What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?

Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?

Thanks...




<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>
>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>at
>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>
>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>more
>>reasonable cost?
>>
>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>need
>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>
> Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
> time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:23:44 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
>teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.
>
>What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?
>
>Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
>widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
>200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?
>

For reference I've lived with the 70-2-200mm f/2.8 VR +TC2 for years.
Starting with a D70, moving to a D200 and next a D300. I added the
200-400f/4 a while back. I use it all the time with a TC-14. In good
conditions on the D300 you can use the TC2 with it.
http://edwardgruf/bluebird.html

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>
>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>
>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
>>reasonable cost?
>>
>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>
>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.

Thank you. Exactly my response...


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>
>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>>at
>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>more
>>>reasonable cost?
>>>
>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>need
>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
>
> He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>
>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>>at
>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>more
>>>reasonable cost?
>>>
>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>need
>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
>
> He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.

Too late he already did it would appear and this is why I have him
killfiled, what a goose.

No, he's right. A reply suggesting a P&S really is idiotic...



"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:50:27 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses
>>>>but at
>>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>>more
>>>>reasonable cost?
>>>>
>>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>>need
>>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>>>
>>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
>>
>>He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.
>
> The only thing idiotic there is your response.
>
> --
> Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
> John

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
But why don't you post the original images instead of down sizing them?

>Sample images:
> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
posted as 800x600


> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>
posted as 800x600
original:
# Image Width = 965 pixels
# Image Height = 724 pixels

You must be changing these as I post

On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital you wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.
>
>Sample images:
> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
# Image Width = 1913 pixels
# Image Height = 1421 pixels
But posted as 800x594

> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>
# Image Width = 1879 pixels
# Image Height = 1409 pixels
But posted as 800x600

> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>
# Image Width = 965 pixels
# Image Height = 724 pixels
But posted as 800x600


If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
Do you need to down sample and sharpen the images to make your point?