I've recently moved into the wonderful world of dSLR photography having
used a trusty fully manual Pentax MX since the early '80s, and I'm
having a bit of lens confusion...

I have a Nikon D300s with the new AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm G II lens, and I
want to fit a macro extension for the odd time I want to focus closer
than its minimum of 500mm. Nikon don't do any extensions as far as I
can tell that carry the CPU contacts through to the lens, and with it
being a G model, without aperture ring, I need to carry the electronics
through to the lens in order to use it.

The Kenko DG Nikon AF seems to do that, or at least some of it, but I
can't seem to find anything definitive about what exactly it does do.
The Jessops site was clearest and it said that AF wouldn't work with a
Nikon AF-S series lens (silent wave motor), which is fair enough, for
the odd occasion I want macro I can do the focus manually (been doing it
for 25 years after all!).

However, can anyone confirm that apart from the AF the lens should work
with the Kenko AF tubes? Not too fussed if the VR doesn't work, either,
it's the aperture that's most important!

Yeah, I should buy a Nikon macro lens but I just don't want to use it
enough to justify the expense!

Terry Brown wrote:

> Yeah, I should buy a Nikon macro lens but I just don't want to use it
> enough to justify the expense!

How about a Tamron one then?
Unless I'm mistaken, this one's only 50 quid more than the tubes.
http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/SHdetails.asp?Item=15090
(better check it works with the D300s first though)

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:37:44 +0000, Terry Brown
<terry> wrote:

[..]
>Nikon AF-S series lens (silent wave motor), which is fair enough, for
>the odd occasion I want macro I can do the focus manually (been doing it
>for 25 years after all!).
>
>However, can anyone confirm that apart from the AF the lens should work
>with the Kenko AF tubes? Not too fussed if the VR doesn't work, either,
>it's the aperture that's most important!
>
>Yeah, I should buy a Nikon macro lens but I just don't want to use it
>enough to justify the expense!


I think you will find that the results from your consumer-grade zoom
used with extension tubes will be extremely poor. You would be better
buying a used macro lens, or even a cheap standard (50mm) lens and
extension tubes.

These will work well on your D300 and you appear happy to use manual
focus, so job done!

For macro lenses I would recommend a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 or f/2.8
AI or AIS, or any independent brand macro lens in the 90mm to 105mm
range. The standard 50mm f/1.8 AIS or Series E is also a very good
choice. It can also be reversed on the extension tubes (using a
reversing ring) for magnifications greater than 1:1.

You can find all of these on eBay at surprisingly low prices. The
alternative is a lot of unrewarding heartache trying to get a
consumer-grade zoom lens to do macro - something it was never designed
for, and is spectacularly bad at.

In message <7sqc23F6hgU1>, Willy Eckerslyke
<oss108no_spam> writes
>Terry Brown wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I should buy a Nikon macro lens but I just don't want to use it
>>enough to justify the expense!
>
>How about a Tamron one then?
>Unless I'm mistaken, this one's only 50 quid more than the tubes.
>[..]
>(better check it works with the D300s first though)


It does. I have one.

That lens was also (in all the tests I looked at) rated equal or better
than the nearest equivalent Nikon lens!

Chris H wrote:
> In message <7sqc23F6hgU1>, Willy Eckerslyke
> <oss108no_spam> writes
>> It does. I have one.
>
> That lens was also (in all the tests I looked at) rated equal or better
> than the nearest equivalent Nikon lens!

Yup, I have an old manual version which is excellent, hence my
suggestion. Nice to hear it's still thought of as highly.

On 03/02/2010 11:04, Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
> Chris H wrote:
>
> Yup, I have an old manual version which is excellent, hence my
> suggestion. Nice to hear it's still thought of as highly.

Thanks for the info, I'll give it some thought. I'm a little surprised
with the cost of the rings anyway - I've used my old Pentax for so long
with lenses and accessories I bought in the '80s and not really kept
abreast of costs, and lenses in particular seem to have spiralled since
then, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering and of course there was no AF or
even AE on my trusty MX so that undoubtedly made for cheaper lenses.

Cheers,
Terry

Terry Brown wrote:

> Thanks for the info, I'll give it some thought. I'm a little surprised
> with the cost of the rings anyway - I've used my old Pentax for so long
> with lenses and accessories I bought in the '80s and not really kept
> abreast of costs, and lenses in particular seem to have spiralled since
> then, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering and of course there was no AF or
> even AE on my trusty MX so that undoubtedly made for cheaper lenses.

This is where full frame digital SLRs seem to have a real advantage. The
Nikon D700, for example, can use any Nikon lens from the early seventies
onwards, many of which are real bargains. If full frame sensors ever
become the norm, anyone who's spent a lot on DX lenses could be left out
on a limb.

"Terry Brown" <terry> wrote in message
news:nz2d
> On 03/02/2010 11:04, Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info, I'll give it some thought. I'm a little surprised
> with the cost of the rings anyway - I've used my old Pentax for so long
> with lenses and accessories I bought in the '80s and not really kept
> abreast of costs, and lenses in particular seem to have spiralled since
> then, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering and of course there was no AF or
> even AE on my trusty MX so that undoubtedly made for cheaper lenses.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

M42 set of rings was £5.95

On 3 Feb, 13:47, Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_s> wrote:
> Terry Brown wrote:
> > Thanks for the info, I'll give it some thought.  I'm a little surprised
> > with the cost of the rings anyway - I've used my old Pentax for so long
> > with lenses and accessories I bought in the '80s and not really kept
> > abreast of costs, and lenses in particular seem to have spiralled since
> > then, but perhaps I'm mis-remembering and of course there was no AF or
> > even AE on my trusty MX so that undoubtedly made for cheaper lenses.
>
> This is where full frame digital SLRs seem to have a real advantage. The
> Nikon D700, for example, can use any Nikon lens from the early seventies
> onwards, many of which are real bargains. If full frame sensors ever
> become the norm, anyone who's spent a lot on DX lenses could be left out
> on a limb.

So too, Willy, can the now cheap Fuji S2 Pro , all for cameras of that
Fuji DSLR series , based as it is on Nikon F80 body, and unless you're
a sports or news photographer , they are, with their Fuji Super
Sensors, the very best you can buy. The S2, beloved of studio and
wedding photographers, beat the Nikon D100 hands down in its day for
quality, it slogged it out with the D200, and is only beaten by the
D300 because of the its sports/reportage limitations .

Otherwise it's the best " Nikon " until it goes up against the D700
where there is no contest, naturally, with the full frame . But in a
wedding situation the Fuji S2 Pro can possibly even get the edge on
the D700 in some situations where you have the groom etc in black
formals and the bride in white ! Because that contrasty situation
'triggers' off the S2 Pro Fuji internals to its very best colour film
emulation performance , it truly is like shooting Reala, the nearest
to it you can get ! ( The succeeding S3 and S5 are not really any
advance on the S2 , which the impecunious, and that means all of us in
this recession right now, can get over eBay for about 250 quid, how
can you beat that ! ) . I judge that the S Pro range Fuji Super Sensor
does not in reality achieve 12 megapixel performance, as the Fuji
promotional literature stated at the time ( 2002 ) - Fuji are the best
at telling whoppers that I've ever come across - but it does operate
in or around 8 to 9 megapixels, which is sufficient unless you're
producing poster-size prints ( for which I go to medium format film,
anyway ) .

I'm saying this because I know so many amateurs rush out and buy the
latest Nikon or Canon
' wonder ' that they may not need at all - unless they're paparazzi
chasing Vanessa Peronnsel or her latest celeb victim, the hapless John
Terry who ( sadly ) thinks he's Elvis ( who again showed yesterday
against Arsenal that he's the best all-round English footballer - and
I'm a Poor Unfortunate, a miserable lifelong wretch of an Everton
supporter ) . That Kodak , again built on the F80 body, that Bruce
has, is a fabulous 14 megapixel machine capable of anything ! ( I'd
like to hear from him his appraisal of it up against his D700 ) . That
F80 body was, together with the F100 , the best Nikon they ever built,
alongside the F5 for photojournalists and the F6 built specifically
for wealthy playboys . My own F90X ( N90S) is a mean machine too ,
though I'm getting an F100 as the best all-round Nikon ever made ( no
hurry ) .

And even better, these nikon digital clones work beautifully with your
older flash units , like the Metz series, that you can use off-camera
to the best creative effect on location !!!

Bad things about the S2 is that it has an awkward RAW format that
requires, and comes with, its own post processing programme, but it is
still fine out of the camera and operable in photoshop. It emulates
the size of a huge book in all its complicated instructions , it
requires two different sets of batteries, you can accidentally miss
out on a whole shoot if you forget to set the menu options. Preview
or Postview correctly , it has a small screen but a decent viewfinder
( not near the huge porthole of the F90X though - pity Nikon didn't
carry that into the F80, , you have to manually clean the sensor, but
it does operate VR lenses , that I didn't realise when I bought
it !!!

It handles beautifully,it's heavy and steady, it's solid camera with
titanium covering the important parts under its rigid tough plastic
body ( a manufacturing technology lecturer at Trinity College Dublin
swears to me that such plastic is more durable thasn any steel ! ) .

It grips absolutely perfectly in the hand- and it looks every inch the
top Pro job it is . But it will take you weeks, even a couple of
months to get to know it, no matter how expert you have been on your
former cameras, And. of course, it has flash input exterior socket
for studio lights, provision for computer-tethered operation, and it
did after all cost over two grand when it first came out.

Unlike most of the the best Nikon and Canons, every one of them
looking like smooth black plastic toys ( the Sonys are terrible for
this ! ) the S2 actually looks the part as well and really impresses
clients , so even if you use a D700 or a 5D mark 11, make sure to
shoulder an S2 bearing half a ton of Nikon glass when you're talking
money with a layman client , wear the Hassie around the other
shoulder :-) . And always, always, the Weston lightmeter on silver
cord around the neck, even if you don't know how to use one . Then you
can start by demanding something like half of what John Terry gets,
with that offish disinterested air .....

And, anyway, we're changing cameras too fast, much faster than we did
in the 35 mm film age, that Canon 30D or Nikon D40 could still be
perfectly adequate for all that you want it to do, perhaps with a
better lens, and preferably prime lenses too . Safer to carry too
without being stolen, preferably in a ragged old canvas or leather bag
that looks like it belongs to a denizen of cardboard city - all these
thieves are schooled in the most expensive camera model numbers these
days , how else do you think they spend their time together in
jail !!!

Ah , I must go out and manual focus again, to think I never trusted
autofocus for years, until they finally got to me too, and I caved in
at last to all the brainwashing :-) . The autofocus hasn't been made
yet that can match up to the power of our own eyes !

Maybe back to complete manual operation too -

but, wait, sure don't I do that all the time on the Bronica :-)

Shows how much they've succeeded in brainwashing us all !

Michael .

On 9 Feb, 01:26, "Michael McGrath, Portraitist ."
<photographerofkilke> wrote:
[..]
> at last to all the brainwashing :-) . The autofocus hasn't been made
> yet that can match up to the power of our own eyes !
>
> Maybe back to complete manual operation too -
>
> but, wait, sure don't I do that all the time on the Bronica :-)
>
> Shows how much they've succeeded in brainwashing us all !
>
> Michael .

Oh, and before I go to bed I just remembered, they convinced me that I
needed autowind too, with the result that I nearly ended up without a
35mm that can operate under any conditions . Lucky I still have a few
pieces left like my old Fujica ST 605 n that I never bother to get a
battery for ( I use the Weston Master meter all the time , and that
doesn't need a battery either !) .

It's just like they say that the old Lee Enfield .303 is still the
best snipers' rifle , it can kill at a mile - and it's been around
since the Boer War and 17 millions of them were made that battled
through and won two world wars -

gadgets are for beginners !

( thanks for listening, anybody who did )

Michael .

PS : Anybody know of a DSLR that can operate without a battery ? Now
there's an idea for Pentax to revive their fortunes :-)

On 9 Feb, 01:44, "Michael McGrath, Portraitist ."
<photographerofkilke> wrote:
[..]
> gadgets are for beginners !
>
> ( thanks for listening, anybody who did )
>
> Michael .
>
> PS : Anybody know of a DSLR that can operate without a battery ?  Now
> there's an idea for Pentax to revive their fortunes :-)- Hide quoted text-
>
> - Show quoted text -

A Master . ( Bedtime Story ) .

" Gadgetitis ! " as one of my old mentors, Liam Davitt, declared forty
years ago, as he went out to photograph yet another wedding with two
rangefinders , one tucked in each coat pocket, a small metz flash in
his trousers pocket - a packet of bulbs in the other " for the Big
Group ", he'd smile . .

He resembled Sergeant Bilko and turned up with an equally beaming
smile at the church , apparently cameraless to the worried frown of
many an anxious bride & groom. Even worse, he'd crack countless jokes
to the Worried Couple who thought they had hired a mad photographer
who had forgotten to bring his camera !

Today, many a Happy Couple , entering their twilight years, share
their wedding album together by the fire, and look fondly back in
memory of their master photographer, Liam, now dead but never
forgotten, for leaving them their fond memories to cherish in the most
fabulous Black and White you could ever behold .

" DUST !, Liam would roar at me in the darkroom, don't move, you're
causing DUST !!! "

G'night All,

Michael .

On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:26:57 -0800 (PST), "Michael McGrath, Portraitist
.." <photographerofkilkenny> wrote:
>
>That Kodak , again built on the F80 body, that Bruce
>has, is a fabulous 14 megapixel machine capable of anything ! ( I'd
>like to hear from him his appraisal of it up against his D700 ) .


OK, here goes.

The Kodak gives much sharper images, partly because the sensor has
more pixels (14 MP against 12 MP) but mainly because the Kodak sensor
does not have an anti-aliasing filter. So the images need very little
unsharp mask to give them "bite".

The Kodak images have a more natural "look" because the sensor renders
colour in a more natural (almost film-like) way. Skin tones are
outstanding.

The Kodak images have about the same dynamic range as those from the
D700 but the shadows are noisy, often very noisy. The highlights are
much better and the skies are more natural because the highlights
retain more detail than with the D700's sensor.

In most other respects the Nikon D700 beats the Kodak:

The D700 has much less light fall-off (vignetting) towards the corners
because of its more modern sensor. The D700 performs well up to ISO
12800 whereas the Kodak struggles with noise at only ISO 800 (I only
use the Kodak at ISO 100 except in an emergency). The D700 has TTL
flash that works. I use a Metz CL-45 in Auto (non-TTL) mode on the
Kodak.

The Kodak's battery life is very poor, despite the battery being huge.
The Kodak takes an age to write to CF and SD cards and has a very slow
continuous shooting rate. Basically, it's a single shot camera. The
Kodak won't meter with AI and AI-S lenses. You need to use AF
Nikkors. The Kodak digital back gets in the way of getting your eye
close to the viewfinder eyepiece.

It's a pity that Kodak pulled out of the DSLR market because the Pro
14n and SLR/n had all the makings of an outstanding full frame DSLR.
They just needed more development. But I really like mine, and I am
looking to buy another.

On 9 Feb, 20:45, Bruce <docnews2> wrote:
[..]
> The Kodak takes an age to write to CF and SD cards and has a very slow
> continuous shooting rate.  Basically, it's a single shot camera.  The
> Kodak won't meter with AI and AI-S lenses.  You need to use AF
> Nikkors.  The Kodak digital back gets in the way of getting your eye
> close to the viewfinder eyepiece.
>
> It's a pity that Kodak pulled out of the DSLR market because the Pro
> 14n and SLR/n had all the makings of an outstanding full frame DSLR.
> They just needed more development.  But I really like mine, and I am
> looking to buy another.

The Kodak strikes me, from your account , to be very like the Fuji Pro
S2 I have - ideal for portraiture in digital colour , the .303 rifles
of the Digital World, and the .303 Lee Enfield ( bolt action, single-
shot) is still the sniper's choice !

Like you, I would not let my S2 go either .

( Both could be great for industrial work too ) . Michael .

On 10 Feb, 09:29, "Michael McGrath, Portraitist ."
<photographerofkilke> wrote:
[..]
> The Kodak strikes me, from your account , to be very like the Fuji Pro
> S2 I have - ideal for portraiture in digital colour , the .303 rifles
> of the Digital World, and the .303  Lee Enfield ( bolt action, single-
> shot) is still the sniper's choice  !
>
> Like you, I would not let my S2 go either .
>
> ( Both could be great for industrial work too ) .   Michael .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And it strikes me that the Kodak you have would be just the job to
create portraits of politicians for their election campaigns . So,
Bruce, you had better get around to Gordon Brown fast and make him
attractive-looking before he hits the ground in May .

In fact there's a tip for UK-based photographers here for a bit of
extra business, phone your General Election candidates today !!!

Michael .