I am buying a new Nikon (probably F100) to use in nature-oriented travel to S. America. I am interested in an F100 because it is tough, and that is my primary concern for work in the Amazon Basin. I had an Olympus OM4T with 35-70 f3.6 (purchased in 1988) that was recently stolen, thus the hunt for a new camera/lens.

I am not going to get prime lenses, because I carry plenty of non-photographic gear. I need a single lens. I gave up on typical "wildlife" photography long ago because of the huge equipment, so no major telephoto necessary. Photos range from waterfalls and river/forest shots to native folks doing native things to tiny tree frogs or birds in the hand (mostly bright daylight, for inside the forest I will get an appropriate flash later). Almost exclusively slides. Several photos have been published in magazines (more by chance because I went to places noone else goes, I am not a pro) and I would like to have good quality slides.

I know that this is quite a range, but nevertheless it is what I have to work with. I can spend around $500 for a lens if I get the F100. More if I get an N90s or N80s, but then those cameras will stop functioning when it rains or when the camera gets dropped. So then I would have no photos and 3-4 lbs of dead weight to carry around (hiking 40 km through jungle carry around, not sitting in a bag somewhere).

Any advice? I like the range of the 28-200 - ALOT, it seems perfect - but can't seem to find a single positive review about it, aside from absolutely glowing recommendations from local camera dealers. The range of the 35-70 that I had was definitely limiting and I would like more space since I am starting from scratch again.

Thanks for the help.

-- Peter English (drenglish@hotmail.com), April 26, 2000

Answers

I recently got the 28-105 and like it a lot. The factors that swung the decision to 28-105 vs 28-200 are:

It focuses much closer, 1.5 feet vs 2.8 feet for the 28-200.

It uses 62mm filters vs 72mm filters which are much more expensive.

It is a little faster, 3.5-4.5 vs 3.5-5.6.

It is more than $100 less expensive.

The critical factor for me is closest focusing distance. Many of my photos must be shot closer than 2.8 feet.

-- Arnold Theisen (macjet@eoni.com), April 26, 2000.

I can only comment on the 28-105mm lens. I found it a good all around lens for travelling. On my vacation I brought my 20-35mm and 28-105mm lens to Hong-Kong and Singapore and used the 28-105mm lens probably 70% of the time. I didn't find myself wishing for a greater focal length and the pictures turned out great. Excellent lens for the money.

-- Gil (g_il@yahoo.com), April 26, 2000.

You plan to shoot slides -- get the 28-105. There is almost uniform agreement that the 28-105 is an exceptionally sharp and contrasty lens with a very useful close focusing range. The 28-200 is ok for 4x5 snapshots but is soft for critical uses.

-- John Wall (john_wall@ncsu.edu), April 26, 2000.

Before spending your money, read the Tamron Super 28-200, Why are my photos so poor? thread on photo.net. As a former owner of one of these lenses I can attest that the photo magazines are full of crap when they praise these lenses. Putting one on a Nikon F100 is akin to shopping at K-Mart for tires for a Porsche.

Get the 28-105 or the 24-120, but stay far away from the 28-200 lenses.

Here's another idea too. Why not look for a Nikon F3HP. There are plenty around that were owned by rich people who thought that buying a pro camera would improve their photography. You can find one in near mint condition for less than $700. I know because I just got one last month for $625. Check KEH's web site.

The F3HP is small without the MD-4 motor drive attached, has a great viewfinder and an excellent meter. You'll also need far fewer batteries while you're out in the jungle. Just one less thing to worry about.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 26, 2000.

I've never used the 28-105 though reports and user experience said it's fairly sharp. I was in your situation a year ago deciding on a travel lens btwn the Nikkor 28-105 and a Tamron 28-200 Super. I decided on the Tamron 28-200. I've had pretty positive experience with the Tamron. It's fairly good for a general travel and for 5x7 prints. The lens is good up to 135 or so. anything beyond that is soft and okay for snapshots. In my opinion it's better than the Nikkor equivalent of 28-200. I didn't go with the Nikkor 28-105 b/c the Nikkor is more expensive and I didn't think the optical quality gained with the nikkor justifies the expensive. That is, I do have an array of Nikkor primes to use for critical shots. Thus, the tamron is sharp enough for me for a small travel lens and i am not gaining too much with the nikkor 28-105. maybe you can consider the tamron 28-200 super and buy a sharp and cheap Nikkor 50 f1.8 AF. it's make a good combo for travel. This combo would cost equivalent as the nikkor 28-105.

-- Sang (sangdkim@msn.com), April 26, 2000.

I agree with Darron, the F3 is camera you shall look for. As well I'll never take an AF lens to wet locations. If the lens stop functioning you will have the same problem. The 28-105 is not a pros version. For tiny subjects an Micro Nikkor 55mm f2,8 is a much better idea than a zoom lens. Have fun.

-- Ralf Grambrock (101.51955@germanynet.de), April 27, 2000.

I forgot something. It may happen that you "fight" with a wet eyepiece. Take the DK-14 (F5, F4-Serie, F3HP, F3T, F3P.) or DK-15 ( F100, F90X, F90-Serie, F801s, D1.) for canceling that problem.

-- Ralf Grambrock (101.51955@germanynet.de), April 27, 2000.

I have taken the 28-105 with me on a recent trip to Ecuador. Great all-round lens. Low light situations? Buy the pocket-size Metz 34AF3 (around 150 $) flashlight. Very, very small and great for fill-in. Enjoy!

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), April 27, 2000.

I think it is not true that the F90X or F80s are not working when they get some rain drops, they will stand as much as your lens. For traveling I would recommend 2 bodies and 2 lenses, I have finally added a 75-300 (that is the older version) to my 24-50 (which I still like), so I can cover the range from 24 to 300, and still in better quality than with a 28-200. 105 is definitely limited.

I have a 80-200 2.8 but I am usually not taking it for a backpack-like trip. But I would definitely take a second body, either a light MF backup (FM2, FE2 or similar) or another AF body.

Finally I would add a fast prime (50, 85 or 35) and a diopter.

-- siegfried boes (boes@first.gmd.de), April 27, 2000.

THANK YOU! Thanks for the lens info, flash advice and the link to the Tamron thread. I looked at the Tamron thread and it was very helpful. For those of you who are locals, I have been looking all over for information about these, and I cannot find a search feature for this forum. I spent about 2 hours reading threads here before posting my question. To avoid questions like mine, you might think about a "zoom lens" heading.

I am replacing my MF (OM4T) camera to get added convenience at family gatherings, etc, so manual focus is not what I am looking for. I am also still not interested in multiple lenses, because I simply will not carry them. I generally carry binoculars, tape deck, microphone, small mic amplifier, 5-10 cassette tapes, water, raingear, snake kit, and epinephrine kit. Plus various little things like passport and money. Several lenses would put me in the hospital.

And to clarify, I once was pretty into photography. I had a darkroom, 2 cameras, several (prime) lenses, read 20+ photography books, and shot about 15-30 rolls of film a week. Not a pro, but more than just an occasional hack. Life changed and that gave way to other interests and now I am coming back. At least I have some history with this stuff, and I do not think that the principles of exposing film to light have changed much in the last 20 years. But the equipment has! That Tamron thread had some pretty snippy responses about questions like mine, and I just wanted to let those snippy folks know that these questions are legit for folks who have 15 year old equipment and are looking to upgrade - coming back to photography. I am on the upper end of binocular technology, and binoculars that cost $600 15 years ago are worse than binoculars that cost $200 now. I thought that similar advances might have taken place in the world of camera lenses, so I asked. Apparently these advances have not taken place with camera lenses.

I think that I am going to get the 28-105. This is still more range than the 35-70 that I had and seems to be relatively highly regarded. The only zoom that does better (according to photozone surveys) is the 28-70 f2.8, and that costs both legs. I am also going to put a UV filter on the lens, because with my last camera I smashed 2 filters (the camera and lens never faltered). I am thinking of the Hoya ultra-thin multi-coated. Is the Nikon better? Since filters are relatively cheap, $20 here or there makes no difference to me. Is a hood important for this lens?

Anyway, I have taken enough of your time. If you want to answer the filter/hood questions I would appreciate it . Thank you for the feedback thus far. This is a very helpful forum for folks like me, and I am sorry if my non-pro question offended anyone.

(BTW: That camera salesman said he used only his 28-200 now. Guess that says more about him than the lens.... And why he works at Ritz Camera:)

-- Peter English (drenglish@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Peter,

Your non-pro question doesn't offend anyone on this forum. That's why this Camera Equipment forum was created. I'm one of the moderators on photo.net, and I would have nuked the thread and suggested you post it here. The reason for those snippy responses on photo.net is that it is intended as a technique-oriented forum, and the old timers get testy when newcomers ask equipment questions without searching the archives first. You did the right thing by posting here.

Where were qw? Oh, yeah. Filters and hoods.

Always use a hood. It helps keep stray light off the lens surface and greatly enhances contrast and color saturation.

All the new multi-coated filters are good. I bought some B+W, Calumet and Hoya multi-coated filters for my 35mm system, just to test and see if there is a difference. I cannot see any differences among the UV/Sky filters. B+W has the best reputation for rendering accurate colors among polarizing filters, but I can't say for sure as I bought a B+W polarizer and cannot afford to spend sveral hundred dollars to experiment with those filters.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 27, 2000.

You really should buy the Nikon hood (HB 18, I think). It's pretty big but very useful. For filters: I've changed from B+W towards the original Nikon filters. They are very thin and give in my opinion that extra punch other filters miss.

BTW I agree with Siegfried, a few raindrops will not hurt a F90x. I own the F90x and it has withstand more than a few drops.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), April 27, 2000.

I have the F100 and Nikkor 28-105 (I also have a 24/2.8, 50/1.4 & 180/2.8), and think that they are a great combination. The 28-105 can easily be used for 11x14 prints. I also have the Nikkor 70-300 which I think makes a very good, pretty light 70-200 lens. In regards to the F3: the F3 and F100 weight the same. As an almost 20 year newer designed body the F100 is probably better sealed against moisture than the F3. Just carry enough lithium batteries (figure 25 rolls per set of batteries).

-- Bruce Rubenstein (brubenstein@lucent.com), April 28, 2000.

I'm an old Nikon croak -- bought my first in '63, and have never used anything else as my main system -- and have done extensive jungle photography in Latin America since 1986.

This note is late for the original question, but is quite important for anybody considering a serious trip to any remote jungle.

HEAT KILLS BATTERIES, AND THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE INTERESTING JUNGLES ! You might not get 10 rolls from a set of batteries, depending on heat.

I used to carry only manual focus equipment, but as I've aged, I've accepted convenience.

I have 2 solutions that work for me:

(1) BRING LOTS OF EXTRA BATTERIES, ESPECIALLY IF YOU USE ANYTHING BUT AA -- AA batteries are somewhat available in small cities, but they are of questionable age and parentage, in most dcases, and may not last more than a couple rolls. But at least you can find them!

(2) GET A 5005 MODEL AS A BACKUP -- it uses AA batteries, has a fill flash that covers a 28mm lens, and is CHEAP on the used market. It's the same as the 4004S, with a wider coverage flash. And it will take just as good a picture as any other body that your lenses fit.

Right after the contra war ended, I took a trip to Nicaragua's rainforest with 4 other fellows who all had the latest, most fully automated cameras -- literally on the second day, ALL of their batteries had been sapped, and no lithium batteries were available. So for the rest of a week, they had to ask me and my low-tech equipment to take the shots they wanted.

-- Robert Swanson (swanny@RampageUSA.com), December 31, 2000.

If you are looking for a sharp lens, you must know that when comparing 28-105 to 24-120, the first one is sharper at short focal lenghts, the second at long. Thus if you are going to take a lot of wide angle photographs you should choose 28-105, and if you rather want to take close-up photographs then choose 24-120. Both give very good contrast. 28-105 has also macro function, but rather forget it (you cannot reach sharpness in whole frame). Regards!

-- Cezary Sieluzycki (c.sieluzycki@azvu.nl), January 28, 2001.

Whatever body you buy, F100 or N series, pick up a second hand FM2 body and throw it in your pack. Small, light, only needs its one tiny battery for metering and fast shutter speeds. Works at 1/60th second with no batteries at all. IMO the best choice for a backup.

-- Craig Raison (craigr@comcen.com.au), February 13, 2001.

Actually it works at all shutter speeds with no batteries at all...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 14, 2001.

A new camera body of Nikon is available now - FM3A, a camera which combines FM2 and FE2. An excellent backup body.

-- YK Choi (ykchoi@mail.com), April 19, 2001.