hech54
enthusiast
Reged: 20/05/2006
Posts: 359
Loc: Germany and U.S.A.
|
|
Are the old push-pull versions "backwards"? Is 200mm closest to the camera? I've never used one. My older 70-210D is....well.....normal - 70mm is closest to the camera.
--------------------
Does the picture turn out differently than what you see in the viewfinder?
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4200
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Are the old push-pull versions "backwards"? Is 200mm closest to the camera? I've never used one.
Well I'm not going to argue with a Nikonite about what is "backwards" - but I have three examples of push-pull manual focus zoom lenses in the house (Tamron, Olympus and Bell & Howell) designed in the late 70s or early 80s which do not change in overall length when zoomed. All three have maximum focal length with the zoom ring pulled towards the camera.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9100
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
Are the old push-pull versions "backwards"? Is 200mm closest to the camera? I've never used one. My older 70-210D is....well.....normal - 70mm is closest to the camera.
It appears that 200mm is closest to the camera on the Mk I and II versions...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
hech54
enthusiast
Reged: 20/05/2006
Posts: 359
Loc: Germany and U.S.A.
|
|
Strange.
I'm very used to my old trusty 70-210D...not sure if I could get used to working "backwards" in comparison. Something tells me to try to skip the older push-pull 200mm 2.8 and go for the newer ones.
--------------------
Does the picture turn out differently than what you see in the viewfinder?
|
Learning
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2014
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
I'm confused. 70-210, 80-200, and all combinations of these numbers. If I want an f2.8 mid zoom for DX but might be tempted by an FX body or even to revert to real film. What do I buy or do I wait for a lens that ain't compromised in the corners of the full frame. This question is largely of rhetorical interset only since in spite of earlier prejudice I am now firmly convinced that DX is more than good enough for not only my needs but also my desires.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9100
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
IIRC unlike the older 70-210's (I have a series E f4) the 80-200mm has internal zooming which may account for the reversed direction...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Adesw
The phantom flasher
Reged: 07/02/2008
Posts: 674
|
|
Well the 80-200 zooms were made for film. So Id assume it would be good enough!
|
hech54
enthusiast
Reged: 20/05/2006
Posts: 359
Loc: Germany and U.S.A.
|
|
Quote:
I'm confused. 70-210, 80-200, and all combinations of these numbers. If I want an f2.8 mid zoom for DX but might be tempted by an FX body or even to revert to real film. What do I buy or do I wait for a lens that ain't compromised in the corners of the full frame. This question is largely of rhetorical interset only since in spite of earlier prejudice I am now firmly convinced that DX is more than good enough for not only my needs but also my desires.
My only concern is getting something f2.8, and an f2.8 that is not too ancient for my D70. Like you....I'm not the least bit concerned about full frame either. My 70-210D is NOT f2.8....you may be thinking of the new 70-200VR...I don't have one of those....I doubt I could ever justify the price.
My 70-210D f4-5.6 is awesome on a perfectly sunny day....but I'm looking for something in the same range....but faster for not-so-perfect lighting conditions.
--------------------
Does the picture turn out differently than what you see in the viewfinder?
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5161
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm confused. 70-210, 80-200, and all combinations of these numbers. If I want an f2.8 mid zoom for DX but might be tempted by an FX body or even to revert to real film. What do I buy or do I wait for a lens that ain't compromised in the corners of the full frame. This question is largely of rhetorical interset only since in spite of earlier prejudice I am now firmly convinced that DX is more than good enough for not only my needs but also my desires.
My only concern is getting something f2.8, and an f2.8 that is not too ancient for my D70. Like you....I'm not the least bit concerned about full frame either. My 70-210D is NOT f2.8....you may be thinking of the new 70-200VR...I don't have one of those....I doubt I could ever justify the price.
My 70-210D f4-5.6 is awesome on a perfectly sunny day....but I'm looking for something in the same range....but faster for not-so-perfect lighting conditions.
I had the old one touch push-pull 80-200mm 2.8 zoom bvut traded it when I got the D300 and misguidedly thought I'd soon have enough cash for the 70-200 AF-S VR. The 80-200 is a cracking lens, the only downsides being its weight and the fact that it doesn't have a tripod collar.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9100
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
70-200 Sigma version......
You know you want it...........
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
