SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage
Anyone using an SB-400 with a D200 and the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor?
The built-in flash on the D200 casts a shadow at the mid to wider end of this lens, so I need a compact speedlight that doesn't do so.
The SB-400 seems like a good complement to my SB-800 -- which gets too bulky to carry around for general purpose stuff where I use my 17-35mm.
From online docs it seems the coverage is about 18mm for DX format sensors ... so can I assume that if I only zoom out to no wider than 18mm I will be OK? Has this been a prob for anyone who's using this combo?
Should I consider something else?
#1. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 0
#2. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 1
Sun 20-May-07 04:45 PM
>Ken Rockwell has examples of use with 12-24 and 10.5 lenses:
Thanks ... he has a similar reason for using the SB-400 (practicality), and he is using it a lot wider than I intend to, so that's encouraging.
However, can I assume the coverage is a function of:
1. Angle/focal length
2. Length/width of the lens?
The 12-24mm lens is
82mm wide x 90mm long, whereas the 17-35mm is 84mm wide x 105mm long.
Would this make a noticeable difference (in particular the extra 15mm of length)? Or can I assume the sample pics at 12mm give enough fudge factor for what I need?
#3. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 0
I don't have the 17-35mm, and this isnt my usual setup, but I just tried the SB-400mm on a D200 with the 17-55mm Nikkor fitted for you
Without the lens hood fitted, there was no shadowing, and flash coverage was even across the frame. With the hood, there was a dark semicircular shadow at the bottom of the frame.
The 17-35mm is smaller than the 17-55mm but has a physically wider hood, so I'm guessing you'd be OK without the hood fitted