retro wildlife and landscape setup

ampguy

ampguy

Veteran
Local time
12:22 PM
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
6,946
I'm going to spend some time in the islands off of Seattle and am thinking of bringing this retro SLR kit:

Nikon F3, addl. waist level finder, 28/2.8, 43-86, and 80-200 4.5 lenses all with Nikon hoods, tripod, shutter release, IR, 81A, B, polarizer filters. Kodak Max 800 film (is there anything better? ;))

Am I missing anything? I'll have a couple of P&S digitals, and the Hexar AF for 35mm focal range.

I want to do everything critical at the capture, thus the warming filters. No photoshop.
 
Yes, well 200mm is a little short for wildlife. The 300/4.5 is certainly a good choice -- they are not expensive. I use a Tokina 75-300 F4 when I need to go long on my Nikon F. The Vivitar 400/5.6 can be recommended too if you need a fast, budget priced, but good performing longer lens. I know it's available in T mount, maybe F mount too.
 
Thanks for the replies, I just looked up the 300, while that would be nice, it's a little big (am carrying on), and I like sticking with 52mm filters on all 3 lenses. If the 300 zoomed down to 80, now that would be nice. The 300 uses mongo sized 72mm filters, and it might be too sharp anyways. ;)
 
Long lens for widlife and wide for landscapes tucked in a small Tamrac backpack; ready for some trekking. Too much gear and you won't be going far from your car. enjoy.
 
Just the Hexar AF, your Nikon and a long, tripod mountable zoom should be plenty, Ted. Like a Tokina ATX 100-300mm/4 that I used (OM mount) in Africa on our last trip.

Maybe add a 50 or 90mm macro lens for insects and flowers, if you like those.

Converters are OK, if you get 6-7 element ones, but I wouldn't use them with a "classic" zoom lens.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Thanks 35mmdelux, I may travel with the gear in a J803, and convert it to backpack when going out. BTW, the weather on these islands is not much different than the coastal part of N. Calif. 1/2 the rain of Seattle for example. Lows in 40s, highs in 70s.

@rpsawin - Thanks!

@Roland - Yeah, the 80-200 will be mounted on the F3, but I will probably take the 28 for some casual shooting, it's very interesting with the waist level reversed finder. One digicam has zoom to ~ 420mm equiv., AF, f2.8, and OIS, so if something is moving fast, I'll probably grab that one :D

For close-ups of flowers and insects, I find the long lens work great, just step back a bit.
 
Last edited:
Question on SLR 28s and teleconverters:

The 28/2.8 non AI lens I have (the .3m focus, not the .2m one) has the "wide angle" effect, probably even a bit more than my old Zeiss Biogon 28/2.8 but otherwise seems like a nice lens.

How would distortion be with a 1.4 TC? would the "wide angle" effect still be present?
 
sorry to burst your bubble but the quality of teleconverters is very dependent on the main lens u use and the 1.4x and 2x will look horrid when used with your 80-200. The 2x esp only really produces acceptable results when used with the super tele primes, if at all. I'm not familiar with the wildlife available in Seattle and how close u can approach, but i suspect that on film, u'd need a minimum of 400mm if not more to get anything decent.
 
Thanks

Thanks

This 80-200 zoom is supposed to be pretty good, I think it is the 2nd to last MF tele zoom made by Nikon, later ones were made by Cosina.

80200mmf45nonAioptic.gif


szekiat said:
sorry to burst your bubble but the quality of teleconverters is very dependent on the main lens u use and the 1.4x and 2x will look horrid when used with your 80-200. The 2x esp only really produces acceptable results when used with the super tele primes, if at all. I'm not familiar with the wildlife available in Seattle and how close u can approach, but i suspect that on film, u'd need a minimum of 400mm if not more to get anything decent.
Click to expand...
 
review

review

over here:http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

gives the 80-200/4.5 a 4 out of 5 rating:

(mine is a 12/9 AI version)

This is the zoom that changed many people's attitude towards zoom lens quality. A beautifully crafted one-ring zoom, it was the dream lens of all Nikon users in the early 70's. Even with its 15-element design it delivered outstandingly sharp pictures. The only criticism was its propensity for ghosting when used for shooting into the sun. The final version presented in 1977 used only 12 elements to give still better optical quality. Flare and ghosting performance was improved as well, but high-contrast scenes still are tough to handle for multi-element zooms. The 80-200/4.5 performs great with close-up lenses, such as the 4T, and I have used it extensively this way for flower and insect photography.
 
Uh, just curious as to why you seem to imply that the Kodak Max 800 is the best for this purpose.

I would suggest bringing some Kodak Portra 400 VC or UC. Expired is ok, as long as it's stored in air-conditioned room. :D
 
better match

better match

I think the grain pattern of the 800 will be a better match for the older designed lenses.

They weren't designed with these newer films in mind so the results could be mixed.

shadowfox said:
Uh, just curious as to why you seem to imply that the Kodak Max 800 is the best for this purpose.

I would suggest bringing some Kodak Portra 400 VC or UC. Expired is ok, as long as it's stored in air-conditioned room. :D
Click to expand...
 
I would take John Shaw's advice of starting with 24mm and moving up as far as weight will allow in rough doubles. In Nikon, that might include 24/2.8, 55/3.5 micro Nikkor, 105/2.5 and 200/4 (do your homework on this one and get the good one. There are many bad ones.) The primes are faster and sharper than the zooms. Maybe skip the 200 and take the 300 mentioned elsewhere. The primes, being fast, will make focusing much easier. Tripod and spot meter and you're laughing!
Have fun! Vic
 
I'd go with slides, too; but if you're going retro here, how about kodachrome? I've had reasonably good results with wildlife and landscapes on kodachrome.
 
well

well

I don't want to duplicate what I have, which is a 28/2.8, and I cover the 50 range with the 43-86 at f3.5, though I'd like another 50/2 "H" someday, and I couldn't make good use of a prime 200+, I need to zoom in from wider like 80mm, especially with the WLF.


Vics said:
I would take John Shaw's advice of starting with 24mm and moving up as far as weight will allow in rough doubles. In Nikon, that might include 24/2.8, 55/3.5 micro Nikkor, 105/2.5 and 200/4 (do your homework on this one and get the good one. There are many bad ones.) The primes are faster and sharper than the zooms. Maybe skip the 200 and take the 300 mentioned elsewhere. The primes, being fast, will make focusing much easier. Tripod and spot meter and you're laughing!
Have fun! Vic
Click to expand...
 
too expensive

too expensive

and I don't think Velvia was around in the '70s.

mrb said:
I'd go with slides, too; but if you're going retro here, how about kodachrome? I've had reasonably good results with wildlife and landscapes on kodachrome.
Click to expand...
 
If you end up taking the 80-200 - another tip from John Shaw is to take the 3T & 4T diopters along. Toether with the 80-200 they are very useful for close-ups (seashore critters & wildlflowers)
The 300/4.5 ED IF is pretty light and small and much better optically than the non-ED (I had both). Should work well with the TC14B and TC300/301
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom