<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Three Five Photography &#187; nikon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://threefivephotography.com/tag/nikon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://threefivephotography.com</link>
	<description>Photography for the new Pro, BY a new Pro</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:05:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Lens Review: Nikon 80-200 f/2.8</title>
		<link>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/04/lens-review-nikon-80-200-f2-8/</link>
		<comments>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/04/lens-review-nikon-80-200-f2-8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:38:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Walt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Product Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[12-24]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[80-200]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AF-D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D80]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[f/2.8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nikon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro lens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telephoto zoom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tokina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wide angle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threefivephotography.com/?p=233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the world of Nikon telephoto zooms there is a juggernaut that looms above all else &#8230; the coveted 70-200 f/2.8 VR. With a retail price of over $2000.00 USD, it is often out of reach for a majority of advanced amateurs. Even with that being true, I know of several advanced amateurs who are [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the world of Nikon telephoto zooms there is a juggernaut that looms above all else &#8230; the coveted 70-200 f/2.8 VR. With a retail price of over $2000.00 USD, it is often out of reach for a majority of advanced amateurs. Even with that being true, I know of several advanced amateurs who are saving (and have been for awhile) specifically for this lens. However, there is a second option that many people overlook simply because the Nikon world has moved on to the 70-200 f/2.8 &#8230; that option is the tried and true 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. After the jump I&#8217;ll review this under-the-radar option. <span id="more-233"></span></p>
<p>Before I get into the good stuff, I just want you mention that I won&#8217;t be going into significant technical details about this lens. That information is readily available from Nikon USA&#8217;s website, and unlike other blogs, I don&#8217;t feel the need to continue to beat the dead horse. The point of this review to is to let you know how this lens feels in the field during use. That being said, lets get started.</p>
<p><center><A href="http://www.adorama.com/?kbid=65523"><br />
<img src="http://www.adorama.com/artworks2/banners/affil/Adorama_2010_468_60.jpg" border=0></a></center></p>
<p>Having recently acquired some funding to upgrade my photography I entered into full on research mode. As a photographer, I find that I swing one of two ways &#8230; 1.) I try my best to maximize each dollar. I consider the amount of possible use, the number of times per month I can use it, longevity, upgradability, image quality, etc, etc, etc. and 2.) I blow a wad of cash on something that I&#8217;ll probably use once a month (maybe).</p>
<p>For me, the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D was a case of #1. After a month of research, I felt that the 80-200 would be the best option for my style of photography. Good range for wildlife, nice low-mid range for portraiture, fast for low light usage in wedding situations, awesome bokeh, and great crisp focus. At 1100.00 new, in comparison to the 2000.00+ 70-200, the 80-200 f/2.8 is a STEAL &#8230; period. Occasionally, you can find it Refurbed by Nikon in the 800.00 range, Used ones tend to go in the 500-900 dollar range. Something to note when shopping for a Used 80-200, there are actually two versions of this lens. Originally, the lens was a push/pull style but was later switched to the current two ring version. Having used both, I can personally say that I prefer the two ring version that I own.</p>
<p><strong>Build Quality</strong></p>
<p>You cannot talk about this lens without discussing the build quality. Weighing in a roughly 3.5 pounds the 80-200 f/2.8 is largely constructed of metal. I don&#8217;t recommend dropping it on concrete. Internally, the lens contains 16 elements in 11 groups including 3 ED elements. The aperture is formed with 9 rounded blades for buttery smooth bokeh when shooting wide open.</p>
<p><strong>Focus Speed</strong></p>
<p>One complaint that people have with this lens is that it is slow to focus. Personally, I don&#8217;t agree with those people. From my own tests with a Nikon D80 I can focus the entire range in less than 2 seconds. Two seconds might seem like a long period of time, but for the range the lens gives you I find it to be quite acceptable. There is occasionally some back focus, but I have determined that this isn&#8217;t a problem with newer/better spec&#8217;d bodies (D90 and up).</p>
<p><strong>Image Quality</strong></p>
<p>Well, it&#8217;s just perfection &#8230; Im not sure if there is anything I can really say more than that. It is tack sharp with little evidence of distortion. It has great contrast and with the f/2.8 you can get great shots in natural light. The below images was taken at 200mm, roughly 25ft away, handheld in natural light.</p>
<p><center><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2767/4486288171_154654e75c.jpg" alt="Karen Natural Light" /></center></p>
<p><strong>Hood</strong></p>
<p>The optional hood, the HB-7, is &#8230; well, pathetic in my opinion. It is functional, but no where near as good as it could be. However, the HB-29, that is made for the 70-200 is an excellent replacement. The mounting grips are different though and you will need either a 3rd party adapter (via eBay) or you can choose to modify the HB-29 petal hood to fit the 80-200. In my opinion, the adapter is well worth the 30.00 (including shipping) even though it can be a little difficult to use sometimes.</p>
<p>A third option is a 77mm screw on rubber hood. They are made by several different companies, but I recommend the one manufactured by Mamiya. This hood sells for about 30.00 and can be purchased via any number of camera stores.</p>
<p><strong>Overall</strong></p>
<p>Overall, this is a spectacular lens for the money. Some might not think that 1100.00 is a small amount, but when compared to the 70-200&#8217;s price, 1100.00 is a great value. Don&#8217;t think about it, just buy it! I got mine <a href="http://www.adorama.com/Als/ProductPage/NK80200AFNU.html?kbid=65523">here.</a>  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/04/lens-review-nikon-80-200-f2-8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The apex &#8230; jackpot.</title>
		<link>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/02/the-apex-jackpot/</link>
		<comments>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/02/the-apex-jackpot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Walt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FlashPost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weekend Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[70-200 f/2.8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enlightened]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[horse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nikon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wild horse]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://threefivephotography.com/?p=221</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Usually, blogs about Photography are all about gear, glass, upgrades, critiques, and the endless Canon/Nikon/Other debates. I, like yourself, strive from day to day to enhance my craft. To hone the ability to draw with light wherever that light might be. You give it your heart, your soul, your eyes, and time. Forever with the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Usually, blogs about Photography are all about gear, glass, upgrades, critiques, and the endless Canon/Nikon/Other debates. I, like yourself, strive from day to day to enhance my craft. To hone the ability to draw with light wherever that light might be. You give it your heart, your soul, your eyes, and time. Forever with the time. Tweaking the light and exposure for minutes just to make those small snaps of time, when the shutter is open less than a second, pay off.</p>
<p>Occasionally, however, photography can land you in a spot where you have reached an apex. A point in time and space where the cosmos/nature are prepared to give you a rare Jackpot payout. To send a message, as if to say, &#8220;We&#8217;re watching you, keep up the good work.&#8221; For me, this happened yesterday. <span id="more-221"></span></p>
<p><center><A href="http://www.adorama.com/?kbid=65523"><br />
<img src="http://www.adorama.com/artworks2/banners/affil/Adorama_2010_468_60.jpg" border=0></a></center></p>
<p>After driving through No Where, South Eastern Kentucky for over an hour we arrived at the top of a small mountain. 2200 feet in elevation. Small by Rockies&#8217; standards, but approaching the top of the world in this area of the country. Last time we were here we got to see the elusive elk that meander around these parts. This time there were no elk, but the wild horses that roam the area were hanging out for a mid-morning snack. We snuck around leaving quite a distance so as not to spook them.</p>
<p>After a few minutes the &#8220;Alpha&#8221; male amongst them began to make his way towards us. His actions weren&#8217;t hostile so we stayed put. He came up to my friend first, putting his nose into the hood of my friends 400mm Canon lens. The horse noticed me taking a few shots of him and my friend, and came over to me. Highlight of my day. Petting him for those few moments, I felt connected to something WAY bigger than me. Miles from civilization, in the wild, 2200 feet up, 360 degrees views, super cold, and windy. Just us and our new friend. Don&#8217;t worry nature &#8230; I got the message, loud and clear.</p>
<p><a href="http://threefivephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/4393499053_d6c582f276_b.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-222" title="4393499053_d6c582f276_b" src="http://threefivephotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/4393499053_d6c582f276_b-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" /></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Photo by Daniel Boggs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://threefivephotography.com/2010/02/the-apex-jackpot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tech: Nikon, Canon, or ???</title>
		<link>http://threefivephotography.com/2009/04/tech-nikon-canon-or/</link>
		<comments>http://threefivephotography.com/2009/04/tech-nikon-canon-or/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Walt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Photography Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DSLR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nikon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.threefivephotography.com/wordpress/?p=78</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, here I am again, and this time around I will be responding to a question that a few people have contacted me with. That question is the same one you will see on countless Photography sites all over the net &#8230; &#8220;Should I shoot Nikon or Canon or maybe something else?&#8221; Well, unfortunately this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, here I am again, and this time around I will be responding to a question that a few people have contacted me with. That question is the same one you will see on countless Photography sites all over the net &#8230; &#8220;Should I shoot <a href="http://www.nikon.com">Nikon</a> or <a href="http://www.canon.com">Canon</a> or maybe something else?&#8221; Well, unfortunately this isn&#8217;t such a clear cut issue. The first thing that a person needs to know is they are buying a photography system, not just a camera. Each brand has things it is particularly good at, things it fails at, and various pro lenses that might be better suited for certain things. Hit the jump for a few basic tips as well as my take on this burning question. <span id="more-78"></span> First off, let me say this, I AM a Nikon shooter and ,as of this writing, I don&#8217;t plan on switching. As such, you might find this post a little bias, but I will try my best to remain fair and balanced. </p>
<p>The first thing I tell people is about the fact they are buying a system, not a camera. In fact, I just said that, but let me explain a little further. When you go out to buy a DSLR it is kind of like buying a car, you don&#8217;t jut pick a brand and pick the first one in your price range. You test drive it, you find the one that you feel good driving, the one which handles the best for the type of driving you plan on doing, and you look at how much it will cost you in the future. You should do the same thing when choosing a camera. Go out to a camera store and see about renting the camera you are considering purchasing. You might end up spending a $100.00, but as they say you don&#8217;t want to be penny wise and dollar foolish. By going this route you get a good feel for the camera in your hands, and its operation. You may even find that a camera you hadn&#8217;t even considered turns out to be the best choice for you.</p>
<p>Next, you should look at the types of lenses available for the brand you ultimately chose PRIOR to purchase. What many first-time buyer don&#8217;t understand is that the camera body you buy is disposable. In 2 years, maybe less if you&#8217;re like me, you&#8217;ll be on the hunt for a new camera body. However, you&#8217;ll still use your collection of lenses. The other thing most beginner don&#8217;t realize is that lenses can be expensive, and by expensive, I mean EXPENSIVE. Some lenses can cost as much as 2x any of a line&#8217;s camera bodies. Hence why I say lenses are your primary investment when choosing a brand. Be sure to see which brand of DSLR have good quality lenses for what types of photographer, and be prepared to pay god money for them. They will last you a long time.</p>
<p>Third, and I can&#8217;t stress this enough, forget Megapixels. Unless you plan on blowing up images beyond 20&#8243; x 30&#8243; 6MP is more than sufficient for the average print. Invest in glass (aka lenses) over megapixels. I could wax long on sensor types, brands, and sizes; but, that would really miss the mark on what I want to get across here. So, let me sum it up in a nice neat package. If you buy a non-Professional level camera you&#8217;ll be buying an APS (or close) sized sensor. For professional grade cameras they will have a 35mm sensor, or what is known as a Full Frame sensor. Just like film, larger sensor areas leads to sharper pictures, more contrast, and a larger image size. </p>
<p>In short, test drive the camera you are planning on getting to really make sure it is what you want. Ensure the brand you choose has suitable, quality, lenses for the type of photographs you plan on taking, and don&#8217;t let any salesmen try to get you to buy a camera based on more megapixels.</p>
<p>As for <a href="http://www.canon.com>Canon</a> versus <a href="http://www.nikon.com">Nikon</a> verses Olympus verses Pentax versus etc. I generally like to keep it in the realm of <a href="http://www.nikon.com">Nikon</a> and <a href="http://www.canon.com>Canon</a>. These are the two primary brands you are going to come across in stores and in the field. Canon does however seem to be more prevalent but I usually attribute this fact to Canon&#8217;s entry level gear being slightly cheaper than Nikon&#8217;s. This isn&#8217;t meant to slight the other camera makers, it is just that I have zero experience with those makes and models. If they would like to send me a sample to review I would be happy to do so. Otherwise, this blog will remain in the boundaries of <a href="http://www.canon.com>Canon</a> and Nikon.</p>
<p>Now, I am going to give my personal opinion on this matter. I shoot Nikon because they fit my hands well, and I feel like it is a better made camera. Perhaps this is just a bias remark, but it is how I feel nonetheless. The build quality also extends into the higher end Pro level cameras were, personally, I think Nikon&#8217;s offerings are leaps and bounds beyond <a href="http://www.canon.com>Canon</a>. Again, this is my personal opinion, your&#8217;s may differ and that is perfectly OK. Just like tripods, the best camera for you is one that you&#8217;ll use regularly.</p>
<p>As for Nikon lenses, entry level to high end for Nikon tend to be better made. Of course, this is my own opinion, but I feel it comes from experience. I have done plenty shooting with various Nikon and Canon lenses. In all cases, I find the <a href="http://www.nikon.com">Nikon</a> to be better suited to the photography I choose to do. </p>
<p>I did a lot of research when I first decided to purchase a DSLR. I also took the time to visit several retail stores to feel the cameras in my hands, and to get a real feel which one was best for me. This is honestly the best suggestion I can pass on to those who are looking to entry into the exciting world of Digital SLR Photography.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://threefivephotography.com/2009/04/tech-nikon-canon-or/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
