Camera Talk

Got a couple of new, to me, Nikkor zooms: 100-300 f/5.6 and 35-105 f/3.5 to 4.5.

The 100-300 is a solid, long piece of plastic. The lens has a single control ring that slides on the full length of the main tube - close to you for the 300mm, far end for 100mm, total length of the lens remains fixed as you change focal distance.

I read that this zoom was meant for sports, and it makes a lot of sense - it can be operated quickly hand held.

These two were taken in a sunny day in the main harbor, Bellavista area. First one about 135mm and second one 300mm, both full frame. Probably f/8 aperture.





Sharpness cannot be compared to the 105/2.5 in the shorter end of the range, but it does the job. I found an old case of a wine bottle that works beautifully as a lens container for this monster, with appropiate foam lining.

The 35-105 is a more common lens, a typical kit zoom. I got this type after recommendation of PF here, and he was right about convenience and weight. These two from today, overcast skies with mist and light rain. First one about 3/4 crop of the full frame, second one full frame. Aperture f/5.6.





This zoom could be handy for travel; I prefer using a single lens on trips. I had forgotten how convenient zooms are!

The test roll took almost two months to finish. I am getting lazy, winter is upon us in the Southern hemisphere, and the World Cup in Russia is played at the same time that I usually go out for pictures in the weekends.

Film was FP4+ in Beutler. Thanks for looking!

Was the second photo using the 100-300 mm taken handheld? I can't see any signs of camera movement. If so, with your steadiness (using FP-4!) and that lens you could truly reach out in some travel situations. I like my 35-105mm Minolta lens a lot for putting it on the camera and pretty much leaving it on for everything. Both of your Nikkors seem to have passed the test with high grades.

Bill Delehanty

I really like the moodiness of the 35-105mm shots, Julio. I remember packing my 100-300mm on a couple of runs, but not getting around to using it. Will have to remedy that in the future.

PF

Impressive Julio, what a lens that 100-300!!
I agree with Phil, I can feel the rain on the second ones, how much I miss the sea!!

Thanks for the kind comments! The little harbor for fishing boats is a favorite subject of mine, as you probably could tell.

Bill,

Was the second photo using the 100-300 mm taken handheld?

Yes, handheld. In my experience, one can safely shoot lenses at about twice their focal length, or shorter exposures. In this case, 1/500 for 300mm would work for me. I think this one was exposed at 1/500 in f/8.

This large and heavy lens could be difficult to use with a tripod because it does not have a separate tripod mount.

I was not planning to get this large zoom because I do not use large focal distances very much. My original target was a 28-50 that went out of my price window. This 100-300 came out very cheap and it helped to share shipping costs from a Japanese auction site. A further step down the slippery slope!