Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage

zooloo

Chicago, US
46 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
zooloo Registered since 06th Nov 2004
Sat 19-May-07 09:49 PM

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?

--
VK

janlej

Brugge, BE
104 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 0

janlej Silver Member Nikonian since 27th Feb 2004
Sun 20-May-07 04:54 AM

Ken Rockwell has examples of use with 12-24 and 10.5 lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb400.htm

Jan L.
Brugge - Belgium

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

zooloo

Chicago, US
46 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 1

zooloo Registered since 06th Nov 2004
Sun 20-May-07 02:45 PM

>Ken Rockwell has examples of use with 12-24 and 10.5 lenses:
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/sb400.htm

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?

briantilley

Paignton, UK
30235 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 0

briantilley Gold Member Deep knowledge of bodies and lens; high level photography skills Donor Ribbon awarded for his support to the Fundraising Campaign 2014 Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003
Sun 20-May-07 03:40 PM

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

Brian
Welsh Nikonian

zooloo

Chicago, US
46 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: SB-400 with D200 + 17-35mm f/2.8 coverage" | In response to Reply # 3

zooloo Registered since 06th Nov 2004
Mon 21-May-07 01:03 AM

Cool! Thanks so much for testing that! Much appreciated.

G