Was after some opinions from you experienced V1/Nikon users, please.
Unlike most here, I only own the V1 and therefore have no other Nikon lenses, and therefore very little experience with them.
I'd like to get a bit more reach than I can with the 30-110mm CX lense. In OZ, the FT1 mount costs $395AUD but I can buy it from the US for $199US (plus freight). I was thinking about buying a AF-S DX VR Zoom - 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED Lens (about $249AUD). At 355gms the weight is OK.
So for about $475AUD I can put this combination together, I feel this is a reasonable price.
I mainly want to use this for say photographing animals in open exhibits in the zoo, river/port scenes where I'm on the other side of the river and no doubt there would be other uses as I gained experience.
I understand that I would only have single point auto focus, correct?
Any thoughts on whether this is a good idea would be much appreciated. If it's not, alternative suggestions would also be appreciated, bearing in mind that I'm a beginner and also my bank balance
>Another thought is weight balance. Having a bigger lens in >front makes it harder to hold the body stable during the shot. >So a lighter consumer lens may be a great option.
In addition to balance, the stress on the V1 mount must be considered. My manuals are not handy, but I recall some fairly specific guidance as to what (weight) lenses the V1 mount will safely accommodate when the camera is supporting the entire weight of the kit as opposed to supporting the kit by the lens or the FT1 mount.
BTW, RRS has L-brackets for both the camera and the mount.
Hi Guys, thanks for your informative replies. A soon as a lens goes to say 70-300mm, you're looking at 500gm on the front of the camera. I've just been reading Thom Hogan's Complete Guide to the Nikon 1 (which is excellent by the way) and the limit on the mount is a lot less than 500gms. This just means that you need to be VERY careful about how you handle it.
Here's an example of a photo I just felt could have been better, it looks very nice at web resolution, but doesn't print looking as good.
with the following data: Nikon V1, 30-110mm @ 110mm, f/5.6, ISO 800, 1/200.
The light wasn't great, hence the higher ISO and the focus is a little off on the subjects (which is my bad). I've cropped this and done some sharpening in PSE 10.
Having read the relevant section of Thom's book, I'm wondering if what I'd be better off buying is a faster lens? Which means that the 55-200 as I described above, is only going to give me a little more length but absolutely no more speed - am I right?
You have to bear with me, I'm a bit awash in a sea of alphabet soup with the lenses and crop factors etc
Right, with pretty much any decent lens with the FT1 adapter you're having to handhold completely differently. But it really isn't that bad. Especially if you're used to good handholding techniques anyway.
You are right, you won't have any meaningful depth of field benefits (or speed) from the 55-200. More length but no speed. But then price becomes an issue and lots of possibilities. Perhaps a 105 or similar macro. No length but you get both shallower DOF and also macro. Or perhaps a 70-200 lens? Nice length and 2.8.
>You are right, you won't have any meaningful depth of field >benefits (or speed) from the 55-200. More length but no speed. >But then price becomes an issue and lots of possibilities. >Perhaps a 105 or similar macro. No length but you get both >shallower DOF and also macro. Or perhaps a 70-200 lens? Nice >length and 2.8.
Thanks for your reply Neil, it's kind of where my thoughts were heading, although as you have observed, the $$ mount up! I've been checking out the 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Lens and I found this site with some pics from the V1/105m combination.
I do not own, and have never used, the 55-200 but have shot the v1 with the 80-400 and 200-400. These two combinations are obviously lens-heavy but do give quite satisfactory results. The subjects were turtles shot from a bridge on a bike trail, and saw-whet owls shot on their daylight roosts.
Didn't see your post for a few months, hope you don't mind a late question.
I have a V2 and have been considering the 80-400 D and was wondering whether you were using the D or AFS lens on your V1? If using the D, are you happy with it; does AE work well?
At 1/3rd the price, even without AF, I would prefer to use the D lens if it worked well with the FT1 on these bodies. While the AFS version is a significantly sharper lens, particularly at 400mm, I doubt whether that is noticeable on a sensor less than around 20-24MP.
For us FT-1 users: - I currently use the 70-300VR which works OK and acts like a 190-810mm FOV lens with VR. I would prefer something sharper but the new 80-400 VRII is a pretty big lens from a balance perspective. I still might consider the 80-400 VRII; - I'm also considering a used AF-S 300mm f/4D but lack of VR will cause me to upgrade when Nikon finally produces a 300mm f/4 lens with VR; - that recent patent for a Nikon 1 native 70-300 with fluorite glass elements has my attention. It of course would not require the FT-1 at all. Not sure if Nikon would actually pull out all the stops and produce a high-end lens like this for the 1-system, but my credit card is ready
Yes, I consider the lens fully functional except for the non-operative autofocus. My subjects were cooperative, and static (basking turtles, sleepy saw-whet owls). I also manually focus with a 105mm VR Nikkor and a 200mm micro Nikkor on a D200 and D800E, so I do not consider it such a handicap when using the old 80-400 on a V1 or V2.
I'm planning some wildlife photography with the V2 and trying to decide between the D and AFS versions of the 80-400. Price is a factor though I could stretch to buy the AFS if absolutely necessary.
BTW, the reason for the purchase of the V2 instead of the Olympus OMD E-M1 is the silent operation of the V2. Overall the IQ and handling of the Oly is significantly superior to the V2 but scaring away the animals with a focal plane shutter just kind of defeats the purpose.