Nikon D40 with 300mm lens AND teleconverter (Nikkor AF-STeleconverter TC-20E II)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Guest, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Mr.T Guest

    Your speaking from personal experience obviously.

    Mr.T, Jan 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Like, say, spot metering with Canon?
    Well, how much is it to upgrade you to a version with brains?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
  4. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Ah, yes, us Canon shooters is all dege'nrat's who don' need to
    go to 'niverst'y --- we just buy Canon and EF lenses ... and ...
    everything ... just ... works.

    Clearly, the end of the world is near.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
  5. | 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
    | it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
    (Lewis Carol)
    Because dumb acceptance is not a mark of intelligence?
    It doesn't need to do anything, including taking pictures.
    What a nice circular argument: It doesn't need to because it
    doesn't need to.
    Or: "Buy a bridge camera instead, it's just as good for you".
    *READ* again.
    Do you see anything like "the D40 can mount (just) a half-dozen
    lenses" anywhere in what I have written?
    Unneeded and hence causing costs unnecessary.
    Just as, say, an AF motor in the D40 would.

    Unfounately, unlike a missing AF motor, a missing fixed lens
    has that ugly dust problem, too ...
    And most people don't use the brains they have, either.
    Your point?
    Just because you disagree doesn't mean you are right. Why else
    would people ask for using the monitor to frame and why else is
    LifeView a must this season?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
  6. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Sure do.
    I just don't have the time and patience with Nikon, I wanna do
    pictures, not study which body and lens combinations work to what
    extend ... and I already have a perfectly working fast 50mm lens.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
  8. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Just like restricting sensors to 24x36 or even APS sized ones,
    instead of 10x10" ...

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
  9. In my defense I was smart enough to recognize the gaping hole in Canon's
    lens quality that I shot my Mk III with Nikkors.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008
  10. Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure with
    this lens?

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008
  11. Lewis Carroll, yes. I didn't need the reminder; I'm the guy who coined the
    term "Humpty Dumptyism." But this is not Humpty Dumptyism. The phrase "on
    the market today" can reasonably be taken to imply currently catalogued
    products still being sold new, as opposed to older products that haven't
    been made for some time. And I did originally mention the difference between
    new and old to make sure there'd be no misunderstanding.
    A Lensbaby is something you associate with intelligence?
    On the contrary, taking pictures is its raison d'être.
    Bridge cameras are fine too. I have several and I love 'em. But they do not
    compare with DSLRs, and the D40 is a DSLR whether you recognize it as such
    or not.
    Certainly the implication was clear. Why else mention "a half-dozen lenses"
    as what the D40 "_might_ be able to mount"?

    If you now want to back away from that ill-considered remark, try to do so
    more gracefully.

    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
  12. Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could only be
    used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.

    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
  13. Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens. The 50/1 Wolfie is referring to
    was an overpriced piece of crap that met with many complaints, especially
    for the ridiculous price/performance ratio. It just sucked at any price.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008
  14. <Quote>
    The D40 is designed for those who want a camera which _might_ be
    able to mount a half-dozen lenses.

    Seems pretty obvious to me.

    Look, I couldn't care less if or why you prefer Canon over Nikon. It's your
    choice and I'm sure you had reasons to decide that way. I also readily
    accept that you may have some factual knowledge.

    However your ongoing crusade with half-truths and twisted accusations is
    becoming tiresome. You don't like Nikon. Ok, we got it. You accuse Nikon of
    making the wrong decision when not changing the mount for electronic control
    some 20 years ago. OK, we got it. You accuse Nikon of reducing functionality
    on its entry-level DSLR. OK, we got it. You are accusing Nikon to not
    providing 100% compatibility with 20+ year old lenses in all cases. Ok, we
    got it. WE GOT IT. Actually we got it the first time. No need to repeat it
    over and over and over again.

    Maybe, just maybe, you can accept that there are others who have a different
    view. People who actually welcome the fact that even almost all 20+ year old
    lenses can still be mounted and used on today's bodies. People who don't
    mind if an entry level camera doesn't have all the bells and whistles of a
    pro model that is 5 times as expensive. People who don't mind using only
    lenses of a new generation. People who do their research and read the
    information before deciding on a specific body.

    And quite frankly, people you don't care about your tirade except that it is
    cluttering this NG.

    Jürgen Exner, Jan 25, 2008
  15. Guest

    user Guest

    Yep. I have one. It remains in faithful service
    today, minus it's lens mount, in a scientific apparatus.

    This lens is basically only f/0.95 at the exact center of the
    field. It vignettes like crazy. It is soft as a marshmallow,
    even at f/4.

    Doug McDonald
    user, Jan 25, 2008
  16. Guest

    Annika1980 Guest

    The only gaping hole I see around here is you.
    Annika1980, Jan 25, 2008
  17. I think you're right. It wasn't the Pellix after all. I guess I'm thinking
    of some other lens for the Pellix.

    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
  18. <chuckle>

    That sure is an impressive aperture, though.

    I'm not familiar with the f/1.0 the others are talking about. I recall that
    Zunow made an f/1.1 lens and I think that was in the Canon mount. No idea
    whether it was any good, though.

    The fastest lens I ever owned was a Minolta f/1.2 back in the MD mount days.
    That was impressive just because it was f/1.2, but it had little if any
    real-world benefit over the f/1.4 -- not even the half stop advantage it was
    supposed to have, because of the fall-off.

    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
  19. ["Followup-To:" header set to]
    Sure, it _could_ not have anything to do with you owning your
    Nikkors and no Canon lenses, since you bought these Nikkors just
    for the MK III and sold them afterwards.

    Excuse me for a monthe or two while I laugh.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2008
  20. I though a certain L. Carol did that. I stand corrected.
    It's an interesting toy and tool and seems to work out as a
    business model, ad an adequate price. To me that shows no signs
    of dumb acceptance, but quite a few of intelligence, yes.

    Do you disagree?
    But not with Lensbabies and catadioptic lenses.
    Which of the words "designed for those" needs eludification?

    Or will you now tell me that the D40 was designed for people with
    a large lens collection?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.