Bought Nikon F100 to Complement Leica M6

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

High noon on Friday found me at B&H with time to kill and money in my pockets. A troubling combination. I've been shooting M6TTL for over a year, and have four lenses to satisy my every need save one -- long range telephoto. Great as the Leica is, my photos come up short now and then when I'm unable to capture events unfolding at a distance or at speed. To make a long story short, I plunked down $2k for the Nikon F100 and the 80-200 2.8 (non-silent wave). I've spent the weekend shooting and while I've yet to get the film processed, I've successfully strained my neck carrying new gear. Yes, the camera is dazzling -- at least technically -- but are the results worth the effort? I invite comments and anecdotes from users.

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), January 13, 2002

Answers

I used to use exactly that combination and failed entirely to get on with it. (helpful, aren't I?) The F100 is a superb camera, with the sb-28 flash is point and shoot perfection but the long lenses are tricky things indeed. A. I couldn't hand hold them very well and B. It all just felt too much like shooting people (with a bazooka/grenade launcher). When I did weddings with this gear people would say "Oh, you've got a big one" - 'til after about the fourtieth time of hearing, the joke wore a bit thin. In short , there is nothing in the world that makes you look more like an evil paparazzo (in the minds of joe public - "you lot killed Diana!") than using a pro nikon/canon and a pro telezoom. Now, as for the lenses...Well, I won't start on all that because it's all a bit subjective: suffice to say that I reckon the (even more monstrously huge and heavy) afs lenses are much better performers. Don't worry, I'm fairly sure that everyone else will entirely disagree with me - they usually do when I disrespect Nikon...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 13, 2002.

I work with F5, I have many Nikon lenses. 80-200 2.8 is my favorable. Even when using a doubler I can get really large prints extremely sharp. I recently got the 80-400 VR. great lense, but I never take it. I use the 80-200 (very first version, optically the same). if you are looking for another grate zoom, try the 20-35 (don't be tempted for the 17-35). my policy is: Leica between 35 and 80, (35 asph lux, 75 lux, 2 M6ttl bodies) where most of life takes place. nikon zooms are grate for the rest. btw, don't hesitate to work on 2.8 when you need it. again, not a leica, but not disappointing at all.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), January 13, 2002.

about steve's comment, optically speaking, Nikon did not make any changes in the lense since it was introduced. the second version (the one you have) have less metal feel, and a tripode adapter on, the motorized one, same optics again. again, in nikon, when they 'improve' a lense, it is not always better. as I said above, the 17-35 which is ED, lots of aspherical... never succeeded to bit the 20-35. some say they are identical, many think (including myself) the 20 is better. I never heard of anybody saying the 17 is optically better.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), January 13, 2002.

I use the F100 and the 80-200, but only when I'm out to use heavy gear and a sturdy tripod. I also use the F100 with the 24-120 zoom for travel. That's about as portable as my Nikon gear gets. If I want something truely portable it's back to Leica again.

Ask yourself if you need the motorized autofocus features of the F100, and if you need the zoom and 2.8 speed features of the lens. If you just want an SLR with longer reach, any Leica R body (R4s is a good start) with any one of the old 3-cam 180mm lenses might suffice. Much more portable and all can be had for much less than $2k.

There are 3 old 180s to choose from: 180/4 (light and non-obtrusive) 180/3.4 APO (excellent imaging but not close focusing) and 180/2.8 (a good fast lens, but larger and heavier than the others). None of these come anywhere near the bulk of the Nikon 80-200.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 13, 2002.


Well, I recently sold my F100 (actually traded it for another M lens) because I also had an F5, which I preferred. The F100 is a lot lighter in weight, but lacks one important feature IMO, and that is 100% viewfinder coverage -- which the F5 has. All in all, the F100 was otherwise a very nice camera, and as mentioned a GREAT high-end P&S with hte SB28 on board, but I no longer needed two SLR bodies, so one had to go. As for the long lenses, I sold my 80-200 AFS when the 80-400 VR came out. I found the 80-400 more flexible for what I was shooting. IMO, it is not quite as good opticaly as the 80-200 2.8's, but the added flexibility of the 200-400 range and the VR technology overcame the slight optical advantage of the 80-200. On the shorter side, I agree with Rami that the 20-35 is a better lens than the 17- 35, but only from a build-quality standpoint. They are both excellent optics, but the 20-35 feels more substantial. Since I acquired my M6's and wide lenses, I have sold most of my Nikon glass due to non- use. I use my Nikon just like you do; for those times I need long lens. I have kept only the 80-400 VR, the 24-85 afd (another very good all-around lens, but seldom used) and the 50 1.4 afd because it isn't worth anything used, and just in case something goes wrong with all of my M's at he same time :) I may acquire the 105 macro, just to have that flexibility as well, but I am already leaning towards an R8 with a 100 macro and the 180 just so I can have Leica glass.

I also agree with Steve regarding the comments you get when you are out with the big SLR and a big lens... Aside from the normal, "You must be a professional photographer," I've actually heard (whispered from a chick), "Big lens, little d&*k!" (!!!) I'm 6'-7" and she was cute, so I responded by pointing to my feet and simply saying, "Size 14's..." ;-) I find it alternatively interesting that when I'm out with the M's nobody seems to notice I'm even taking pictures...

;-) Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 13, 2002.



about rami's comment, the afs 80-200 is completely different optically from it's predecessors and is a much better performer!!!

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 13, 2002.

I have an F100 in my Domke along with the M6.I keep a 50mm 1.4 all the time.These two cameras together are a great combo'.The metering is the best I have used and can honestly say I have never had a badly exposed neg' with it.I only use a 35mm 1.4 on the M6 and the 50mm on the Nikon,these are the only 2 lenses I use for my work,but I do have a 80-200 2.8 afs,however this lives in the back of my car 90% of the time. I payed Łuk 1300 for the body and lens and yes,they are worth the money.

-- Phil Kneen (Isle of Man UK) (philkneen@manx.net), January 13, 2002.

steve, please give reference. I believe your wrong, but since I love the 80- 200, I will be happy to have a reason to add it to my wish list, if it is better.

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), January 13, 2002.

Ever try and shoot B&W and color at the same time. I have never had any luck at it. They require a diferant way of seing and thinking.The same holds true for me when I try and use rangefinders and SLR combo. My biggest problem is I start rushing the shot. In the end I am never happy with the end results.Then again it may only be me anyone else have this problem.

-- Al Henry (J Hnery@provide.net), January 13, 2002.

Al:

Excellent point! I too have great dificulty shooting B&W and color at the same time. For some reason my brain just cannot shift its vision gears that well. Also, the more I use the RF, the less I bother with the SLR altogether. You've probably hit on a topic that would be great for a post -- actually two different posts!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 13, 2002.



Al and Jack - I couldn't agree more!

According to a post on another thread Nikon are rumoured to be making a "M" size rangefinder with F100 exposure/shutter "insides" with the M bayonet fitting. Now that should shake up a few people!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 13, 2002.


According to a post on another thread Nikon are rumoured to be making a "M" size rangefinder with F100 exposure/shutter "insides" with the M bayonet fitting. Now that should shake up a few people!

Giles, where did you hear this?

-- Richard Le (rvle@yahoo.com), January 13, 2002.


Rami (others please excuse me!) the 80-200 ed (your one) has 16 elements in 11 groups, the afs lens is internal focus and has 18 elements in 14 groups - it is a completely new optical configuration. I believe both lenses are tested by photodo.com. The new one weighs approx. 300g more than the previous version - I could go on but this really is getting OT...

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 13, 2002.

Al and Jack - these points interest me greatly - a lot of people claim to carry 2Ms - one for colour and one for b+w - I've never really tried it - I always seem to carry one m at a time (fear of it mugging I think). What about Salgado - isn't he supposed to mix rf and slr work? Finally, Nikon bodies and leica lenses is the holy grail of photography for me...(I think...) so you can put me down for 2.

-- steve (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), January 13, 2002.

steve (sorry all,again) yea, thanks, I've found that myself already (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200afs.htm). what I didn't find, is a categorical claim that it is a better performer. If you are experienced with both, you know better than me. but again, with nikon, it is not always the case. (17-35, compared to the discontinued 20-35, again. on this two I have my own experience and prefare the 20 much better)

-- rami (rg272@columbia.edu), January 13, 2002.


Hi Nikon users, I want to buy the AFS 28-70, does anyone knows how good is this lens? I used a 28-70 Canon L lens before, it is good, anyone knows if the Nikon AFS 28-70 compares to the Canon counterpart? Thanks!!

-- Mitchell Li (mitchli@pacbell.net), January 13, 2002.

Right here: "I have heard from a good source that Nikon are about to release a rangefinder the size of the M6 with all the good bits of the F100 (matrix,spot,AE,etc),but it will take Leica M lenses.This is why they re-released the S2(?)rangefinder from the 60's,they were drumming up interest.He(my good source...)says it has a rubberised body over titanium body and thumb wheel control. If it is true,I want one. OK,you will ask-the good source works for Fuji UK.Nikon collaborate with them over film issues(dx,etc)

-- Phil Kneen(Isle of Man,UK) (philkneen@manx.net), January 12, 2002.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 13, 2002.


Must be nice, and that B&H was open on a Friday afternoon surprises me (I thought they closed at 1pm on Fridays).

Honestly none of the concerns I read are more than personal acedotes or preferences. If you're in the business of earning your keep with these tools you will adapt, and that's one thing we humans excel at, usually. But if you're not and have bookudles of extra jack burnin' a hole to get out of your pant's pockets, what the hell go for it who's to care but your bookkeeper and or wife/significant other.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), January 13, 2002.


I have an F100, also an n80, used to have F5's, also had all 3 versions of the 80-200 Af-D in succession. Nice cameras, nice lenses. If I was buying today, I'd get an EOS the 70-200/2.8IS. Nikon's just being plain ol' stubborn about IS just like they've been with in-lens focus motors. Seems they have no problem with patents (the VR exists as does AF-S), they just don't want to look like they're admitting Canon's trumped them again. To-wit, the 80-400VR doesn't have the silent-wave motor, it's back to the old screwdriver- driveshaft! Another bonus is, with a simple adaptor you can use any Leica R lens (even 1 and 2 cam) on any EOS body--*including the D30 and 1D*, albeit in stop-down mode. Since the main attraction of Leica lenses is their performance wide open, that's not much of a sacrifice.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 13, 2002.

Thanks Giles. As for this Nikon rangefinder with an M mount... like the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, or the M7, I'll believe it when I see it...

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), January 13, 2002.

Yeh,I nearly wet myself laughing when he told me Konica were bringing out a RF with Leica mount,but 18 months later........

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 13, 2002.

Let's hope so...competition is always a good thing.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 13, 2002.

I use the EOS Elan 7 with their 100-300 when I want something longer than my M range of 21 to 90 because it is reasonably light and sharp. I have a 180 4.0 on my R cameras that also goes along with the M sometimes because it is light and sharp from 4.0 up. When money is better, who knows, I may get the R 80-200 4.0 which I hear is a great lens. I can see that the Nikon F100 with the 80-200 2.8 might make a nice addition to an M series to extend your range. Whatever works for you and gets the picture. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), January 13, 2002.

The F100 is a nice SLR, Gulley. You should be pleased with it. I also use Nikon when I need an SLR, but personally prefer the heavier bodies of the F4, F5 and D1.

As to long telephoto lenses, remember that an 8" Celestron makes a nice 2032mm f-10 lens for the F100, and will fill the frame with our friend in the night sky. ;-)

A little extra space was added here for compositional purposes:



-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), January 13, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ