@ Gitzo Grat story... getting the last bid in on eBay and such is always a game...

Interestingly enough I am in the process of thinking about changing from Manfrotto quick release to Arca-Swiss....but the cost for four tripod heads is a bit high at present so I might have to look at eBay...

Inasmuch as I shoot from a tripod much of the time, (and I never could stand "screwing" the camera to the tripod, then "unscrewing" it when I finished, I have become a firm believer in quick release plates; as I usually use my tripod with an Arca-Swiss ball head, I have Arca style QR plates on everything; the one plate I have always wanted, but never have been able to find a bargain on, is an "L" plate designed to fit my D-300s; I've had a regular "bottom" plate on the 300s ever since I've had it, (which is just great when you're shooting in landscape format, but when you need to shoot in portrait format, you have to rotate the ball head all the way over to the side, putting the camera body off to the side of the tripod, and it's a "pain in the butt"; the best way to solve this problem, is by having an "L" plate on the camera, rather than a "bottom plate"; the only problem with "L" plates is.........they cost like $150 ! So......I have been trying for months now to buy a "like new" "L" plate on eBay.

I had the perfect opportunity about 10 days ago, as there was a "Really Right Stuff" L plate up for auction, (made to custom fit a 300 body), and it had no bids on it up to the day before the ending; the next day, I had to go to Terre Haute, didn't get home in time, the auction ended, and some lucky bidder snagged my L plate for $43 ! ( I had very seldom seen them fetch less than around a hundred bucks before) As they always say, "when you snooze you lose"! Damn! Now I had to start all over again; fortunately, there was another RRS plate up for auction, that ended in 3 days; some schmuck bid it up to $30, with 4 days to go; (which is clearly ignorant;) this time, I was ready ! as the auction was within a few hours of ending, the thing was already up to $55; (which made last week's winner look very lucky) this time I was DETERMINED........with 20m seconds to go, I confirmed my "max" bid......$ 101.59; when the clock ended, there was a few seconds of furious "back and forth" bidding, but I ended up winning, getting my plate for $81, + $10 shipping; not nearly as good as the previous auction, but still not bad.

What made it a little better, I had messaged the seller, asking him if he would "combine" shipping if I won two items, and he agreed to do so; (he was also selling a EN-EL3e Li-on battery for a D-300 ), ( $35 to $40 on Amazon) The battery had NO bids, right up to the last minute, and only a $1 opening bid; it looked like I was gonna score it for a buck, but not wishing to "lose a golden opportunity, I entered a "max bid" of $10.25 (just in case !) It was a good thing I did..........again.....last second, there must have been 2 or 3 bidders, but they set their "max" too low, and I got my battery for the very decent price of $6.26 (and no shipping ), thanks to my message to the seller. Nothing like winning an auction, after you have employed a bit of "strategy" !

Gitzo, Thanks very much. Make sense to me and I fully understand. Wow so much knowledge here. I will make some small (maybe bigger ones) sacrifices and save for a good longer lens. Thanks again.

Parke1953.........

The "reflex" lens you refer to is a "completely different animal" than a "regular" telephoto camera lens; here's what I mean by that.......

in 99.99% of camera lenses, the light from the "subject" enters the front end of the lens through a bunch of individual pieces of optical glass, known as "elements"; each individual "element", (or "group" of "elements") has a specific purpose........such as to make the "subject" look bigger than it would to the un-aided eye; ( just like binoculars and small telescopes do); such a lens is said to be "refractive"........in other words, each element "refracts" ( or bends ) the light rays, as they "pass through" the lens elements, on their way to the film. (or sensor)

In other optical systems, ( such as astronomical telescopes ), a much different "method" is used, ( mainly because telescopes that are designed to look at extremely distant, extremely "faint" sources of light, (such as stars and other astronomical objects), the "refractive" method of dealing with light becomes "not such a good idea" very quickly, as the telescope gets bigger. That's why almost all modern telescopes use mirrors, rather than "lenses" to collect the light. ( It would be completely impossible to build a 200 inch diameter glass lens ) (for a lot of reasons)

I'm sure you have noticed that great big telephoto camera lenses are VERY expensive; there are many reasons for this.......the main one being........they are very expensive to design and build; a good example, the last time I looked, Nikon's fine, 600mm, f4 tele goes for about $10K; (which is much more than almost all of the cameras that it's designed to work with)

Somewhere along the line, almost everyone gets the "urge" to "do something" a "different way", to "save money"..........or to "sell more" "units" ( of whatever ) That's why we have so-called "reflex" camera lenses; it sounds great to the "beginner" to be able to buy a 500mm "super-telephoto" camera lens, for a mere few hundred $$$$$; but as the old saying goes, you almost always "get what you pay for". A reflex camera lens is an extremely poor attempt to "get a lot" for very little $$; here's why..........

First.......telephoto lenses, (just like "normal" lenses and "wide angle" lenses), have to do a LOT more than just make things look bigger or smaller, or closer or farther away. They also must be capable of producing a "sharp", well defined image of "something" on the film, (or on the sensor in a digital camera) To do this, you need to be able to control "exposure".....(the correct amount of light for a given "subject" under a given amount of ambient light ); ( a bright, sunny day at noontime requires a very different "exposure" than, say, an airplane landing at 10 pm on an un-lighted runway.)

Reflex lenses use a mirror to ":collect the light", which is "reflected" FORWARD, where it then is "reflected" BACKWARDS, ( by a small "secondary" mirror, and is brought to focus on either the film plane, (or a sensor). To accomplish this, if you take a close look at a mirror lens, you'll see that there is a large "opening" (or "hole") in the main mirror.......that's so the light can pass through the "main" mirror, on it's way to the film. What you WON'T see, (which is very necessary to control exposure), is an iris diaphragm, ( which ALL "regular" camera lens have ), together with a means of changing the shutter speed, in order to control exposure. So the only way the mirror lens has to control exposure, is to increase (or decrease) the shutter speed. Without going into a "long discussion", this just isn't a very good way to control exposure. ( which is probably the "under-statement" of the year ! )

Look through about 10 years worth of National Geographis magazines, ( or back issues of "Outdoor Photographer" ), and you'll see thousands of bright, very "colorful", very sharp images of wildlife (and other things)...........and not ONE of those photographs was taken, using a mirror lens ! Yes, you can take a picture of a car six blocks away, and have it look like it's one block away.........but it will be a VERY POOR picture ! (which is the only kind of picture you can take with a mirror (or "reflex") lens !

Please note........while I AM a very "opinionated" person, I'm NOT just discussing MY opinions here; I'm discussing the laws of physics, (as they pertain to optics and camera lenses); (and unlike "speed laws", you just can't break them !)

If you really have the need for a 500mm telephoto lens, and you lack the necessary "big" $$$$ to buy one, there are STILL about a dozen ways to "do it on the cheap"; ( but this post is already way too long ! )

Can anyone tell me about this lens. Nikon Nikkor-C Reflex 500mm Super Telephoto f/8. says the glass is flawless $245.

this one

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2106

sevencrossing said:
There is a thread on this very subject but it is closed . Any one brave enough to start a new one ? :)

Were you referring to this thread?
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=924

or this one?
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6038

; )

I've had a couple of my own threads closed as well in the past. However, now I know better than to start a new topic in NRF.

It's a pity really because instead of relying on the knowledge of current forum members, I find myself often searching for information elsewhere.

I don't know if I can say that I'm becoming more efficient that way because I have very little input from other members on how good the information I'm getting really is or if there are other ways of doing what I'm doing in better ways.

iris chrome said:
However, keeping a 3 year old thread going just to avoid starting a new topic is, IMO, ridiculous.

I absolutely agree

but I am not a Mod

I am sure I am not the only one, who been severely reprimanded, in the past, for starting new threads

There is a thread on this very subject but it is closed . Any one brave enough to start a new one ? :)

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2106

or should we all go here

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=688&page=26

Seven, I understand and that rule does make sense if there is already an ongoing discussion and somebody goes on to post a parallel thread at the same time. However, keeping a 3 year old thread going just to avoid starting a new topic is, IMO, ridiculous.

For one thing, three year old information is not always relevant today (nor is 2 year old or 1 year old information for that matter btw). Jamming all the questions on a particular topic or issues of a certain camera in just one thread does not help finding them in the future. Even if the thread could be located, you'd have to go through countless pages just to find your answer.

Besides, seeing a 4 page long thread with almost 100 posts to it tends to discourage participation from new members who feel like they're jumping right in the middle of an old conversation. Also, how many times have you seen an old thread being resurrected by someone needing help with a certain issue only to have his question completely ignored and everyone answering OP's original question which could have been posted years back? I see it almost every time somebody posts in an old thread.

iris chrome said:
Good God! Will this thread ever be allowed to die in peace?!

Mods, honestly, how is this practice of reviving old threads helping anyone?

In Nick Dolby's day starting a new thread on subject already covered could get you banned for life

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2106

Gitzo said:
Willis..........

Why do big, serious camera companies (like Canon and Nikon) DO THIS to their "unsuspecting" customers ? That's "simple"; the shorter lens costs less, so about twice as many "unfamiliar" folks will buy them ! (then, after they "figure out" how "inappropriate" the shorter lens is for most things, ...........you can THEN sell them yet ANOTHER lens.......( the one you should have sold them in the first place !) Understand this........camera makers, (like "makers" of everything else ), are out to sell "units"; the more "units", the more $$$ you have coming in the door !

I used to use a 55mm Micro Nikkor with a Nikon F in the 60s . I do not think it was designed for insect photography but for photographing flat artwork of about A4 size for AV presentation. Today people use a scanner or generate the original on a computer

the 55mm Mico was also used a lot for 1:1 slide copying

The Nikon F was one of the few SLRs with a100% view finder essential for AV presentation and the Micro Nikkor had minimal distortion

Good God! Will this thread ever be allowed to die in peace?!

Gitzo, thank you for sharing your knowledge on macro lenses. However, Willis already got himself a 105 macro...

...probably at the same time he posted this thread which is 3 years back!

Skimming through the past posts, I can count 8 times where this ancient thread had been resurrected.

Mods, honestly, how is this practice of reviving old threads helping anyone?

Casperweb made some VERY good suggestions on how to proceed with new topics that have already been covered in the forum before.

Unfortunately, it seems his suggestions have been largely left untouched.

I'm quoting him from 11 months back:

casperwb said:
Niko

good points,

" if someone searches for telephoto info they aren't going to find it in this "Macro" discussion."

I agree with you totally, what we have to come up with is a way to direct the discussion, or maybe switch over to the correct subject in the header.

your way of posting links is a nice way, and then maybe asking eveyone to continue the discussion over there.

or, maybe just open up the link and paste the question over there.

Willis..........

If you want to "do macro" keep one thing in mind; the "things" that you want to take pictures of, are going to be "close".......REAL close....to the end of the lens; the main problem in doing macro, (and there ARE tons of "problems"........is to get sufficient light onto the "subject".......(whatever the "subject" happens to be" ). Years ago, when I bought my very first "real good" 35mm camera, ( the famous old Canon F-1 (film camera), I bought a "marvelous" 55mm, f 3.5 macro lens for it; it's an incredible lens, sharp as a tack, able to reproduce clear up to "life size" just with the 25mm extension tube that's sold WITH the lens; I LOVED that nice sharp lens; the problem was though, I soon realized I was very seldom making very many,(read:NONE) photos with the thing, simply because there is hardly any WORKING DISTANCE between the "subject" and the lens barrel; if you are doing "copy" work, (anything perfectly flat, such as stamps, printed matter, you CAN do a decent job with it, but you STILL have to light the subject ! Even using a "ring light" it's insufficient WD on many subjects. ( Even at just "life size" ) Invariably, most beginners to doing macro want os "start out" by taking GIGANTIC photos of a fly's eye, (or his hairy feet); this is where problem no. 1 (of thousands) come up; busy things, like most insects, even reptiles, just aren't "into" having their pictures taken! ( and remember, the higher the magnification you go, the more light you need, (and the more heat the light makes, and the less "co-operative" your "subjects will become ! ( There is a GIGANTIC "trick" to catching "in flight" photos of even the slowest-moving of beetles, so if you desire to capture a nice, sharp photo of say, a bat's tongue, as he laps up nectar, all the while flapping his furry little wings............be prepared the spend a LONG , LONG time studying and doing macro ! ( and in the meantime, forget about anything less than about 105mm in focal length !) ( Been there, did that; it can be fun, but it isn't easy!)

And so far, we're just talking about doing "life size" here; ( making an image on the film (or the sensor) that's the same size as the subject; (You have a 1cm bumblebee, you get a 1 cm image of the bee; that's "macro" (life size)........but "just barely" ! If you want a 2 cm bee, you have to go to "2X"; and at this point, you can just about forget about your 50mm, or 60mm macro lens ! A 105mm macro (or as Nikon likes to call theirs, a "micro"....( same exact thing) can, and will do ANYTHING a 50 or 60MM macro will do, but it will ALSO do a lot of things the shorter lens WON"T do !

Why do big, serious camera companies (like Canon and Nikon) DO THIS to their "unsuspecting" customers ? That's "simple"; the shorter lens costs less, so about twice as many "unfamiliar" folks will buy them ! (then, after they "figure out" how "inappropriate" the shorter lens is for most things, ...........you can THEN sell them yet ANOTHER lens.......( the one you should have sold them in the first place !) Understand this........camera makers, (like "makers" of everything else ), are out to sell "units"; the more "units", the more $$$ you have coming in the door !

If you SERIOUSLY want to "do macro"........save your bucks (at least until you have really studied up on macro work ).........then INVEST in a great 200mm, dedicated macro lens; notice I didn't say a zoom lens that advertises it will do "macro"....(a few do, but again, JUST BARELY; macro work gets VERY demanding, very quickly; there are all manner of "problems" to deal with; (and a great 200mm dedicated macro lens is gonna "set you back some"....WAY back ! ( but you can DO all sorts of things that you CAN'T do, even with a 105mm macro.

If you start looking at macro work in some of the newer books published on the subject, you're gonna start seeing stuff done at 3X, 4X, clear up to 10X; believe me........photographing things at 10X is NOTHING like taking pictures of "normal things" ! ( and if you try it, you will very quickly SEE why I have ALWAYS "lusted" after a great 200mm macro lens, but have as of yet, failed to lay my hands on one.)

If you ever want to read about "doing macro", get on "half com" ( eBay's non-auction, new and used book website), and buy yourself any book on Macro that's written by John Shaw; (he's as good as they get !) Just remember, it gets VERY technical, Very quickly.

Niclovin1..........

Any time you find an older Nikkor lens that you're not sure about, get on Nikon's website, go to their "tech help", and send them an email, describing the lens with all numbers, and especially the serial number; they will email you back and tell you if it is compatible for use on a particular camera body.

There are any number of lenses that WILL mount to the body of most newer cameras, but very often, just as others have mentioned here, there are lots of older lenses that "have things" (or sometimes LACK things ), which can damage cameras newer than the ones they were designed to work with.

That's the one area that all of the "Canon Lovers" seem to be totally oblivious about; the compatibility of today's digital camera bodies to actually WORK with lenses made "way back when" for old film cameras. If you "shoot Canon", there is NO compatibility.

At the time Canon started "switching" from making film bodies, to digital bodies, they introduced the new "EOS" digital cameras,(with a totally different mount, and just like that, all of the marvelous Canon "FD" lenses became completely obsolete, overnight ! ( I know, I had a whole bunch of them ! ( And Canon's fine FD lenses hadn't "been around" all that long.

Canon had what they called, "the breach-lock mount", (which was arguably the best mounting mechanism ever), but they made absolutely NO attempt to carry it over to the digital camera line; it seriously "pissed" a lot of people off, and many of them went to Nikon, and never looked back ! ( And I'm one of them ) Their whole "strategy" being, "screw 'em all" ! This way, they'll all have to buy NEW LENSES too ! (Yeah, we DID have to buy all new lenses, but NONE of them came from Canon !) It amazes me how quickly people forget all about things like this ! Yeah, Canon sure does make some great lenses; but I'll never need one of them, because there are some things about Nikon's bodies that I like better than Canon's, (and I also just have this LONG memory ), ( of getting screwed ! )
And I can't think of a single thing that I'll ever need that Nikon doesn't make that Canon does.

Is this thread just for bodies and lenses, or can we "brag" about accessories too ? I just found something on eBay last week that "sounded" EXACTLY like something I have been wanting for a very long time........a rock solid camera window mount; I remembered seeing one that Kirk makes, 3 or 4 years ago, but the thing sells for like $ 275- $300; ( I didn't want one quite that bad ) anyway, last week, while I was looking through "window mounts", I saw this "thing".......the fellow had one photo of it taken by the company that makes it, (which made most cell phone photos look good by comparison) then he had taken 3 photos himself, and they were all TERRIBLE !

You couldn't even tell what the "thing" looked like, or how it worked; his "description" wasn't much better; anyway, he had listed it as "Buy Now", $80, +$12 shipping; so I send him a message......"will you take $75 NOW, and pay the shipping?" his reply....NO! It's well worth what I'm asking! It's hard to explain this, but somehow, I thought it was too, so I sent him his $92, via paypal; a week goes by, (while I was out of town mostly), then it's at my post office when I get back;

I should mention, in his "description", he referred to it as a "Groofwin" ! (his only decent photo was of the riveted on metal name tag, "Made by: L.L. Rue Enterprises" I had actually emailed L.L. Rue Enterprises, and the reply was......"Sorry, the website is down for revision while we're on safari in Kenya" ! (I'm thinking, "I hope your photos from safari in Kenya are better than your advertisement shot of your hi-tech window mount"! )

Anyway, I ran to the post office, get this BIG, very "rumpled" looking box (completely filled with foam "peanuts")........and right there, among all of the peanuts, is my new "Groofwin"! Damn ! I think they must have copied Kirk's window mount in detail !
But the thing is AWESOME ! it essentially consists of two 3/16 th in. thick X 3 in. wide anodized aluminum plates, with a VERY clever "hinge" fastening them together; the uppermost "plate" ( the one that sits level and holds the camera / lens via a 3/16 X 16 captive threaded stud, with a 10 in long, 1"X1" aluminum angle to "hook" over a partially opened window, and the longer plate, (about 12" long), rests solidly via two BIG rubber "feet", (also 6 to 8 inches apart, against the inside, lower part of the car door. The two plates are held rock solidly in position by a VERY sturdy aluminum rod, which has a marvelous "pivot" on both ends, and is tightened by a HUGE big hard rubber knob. This thing looks like it was designed to be sold to NASA !

I immediately ran home, got my Arca-Swiss B-1 ball head, screwed it on the stud, stuck my D-300s / with my old Nikkor 300 mm f4 with great big ":collar" mount on the lens barrel, attached it to the B-1 head with it's arca style QR plate, and it was like screwing the whole thing to a 600 lb block of granite ! I mean, with a gimbal mount, you could operate my Nikon F-5 with a 600mm Nikkor F-4.....(which lens, unfortunately, I still don't have just yet.)

Why am I so "ecstatic" with this "thing" ? I happen to live in a very rural area of western Indiana; almost every day of my life, on my 24 mile ride to Terre Haute, I see a dozen or more deer, wild turkeys all the time, turkey vultures too numerous to count, an occasional bobcat, (even an "escaped" elk once........and between "sometimes" and "now-and-then", my most favorite of all native birds,bird, a pileated woodpecker ! You can frequently stop the car and have time to get a "shot" (with a camera) (I don't kill wildlife), BUT if you try to open the door to get out..........off they go, into the woods ! I have been needing this marvelous "gadget" for 20 years now; (and the thing is in such "pristine" condition that I will probably need to buy me a new D-4 body to look "equal" to it in "design excellence" !

I hear people all the time asking, "how are you so "lucky" finding things that are "such a great deal", etc; here's the whole "secret" folks; you do like I do, you check out ebay at least 3 or 4 times a week, plus Amazon, Craig's List, you go to a lot of yard sales, garage sales, auction sales, etc, etc. etc. and over about 20 to 50 years, (if you are blessed with a fantastic memory like I am), you have a very good idea what "things" should sell for, to be considered a "bargain". I have bought a TON of camera equipment on eBay; I can only remember ONE big "gippo deal" that I bought; and old manual focus, f 4, 105mm Micro Nikkor, that I paid about $100 or maybe $120 for, supposedly in "like new" condition; (the front end of the thing was so dented up, it looked like it had been mounted to a "dodgem-car" at an amusement park ! The front objective element even has a slight "nick" in it ! I raised so much hell that eBay finally made the seller refund my money, threw to guy off of eBay, and I ended up keeping the dented up old lens; (I was shooting Fuji velvia back then in my Nikon F5; never even mounted the thing to a camera !...........until "a while back" when I bought my D 300s; it occurred to me one day........hey, it's digital ! maybe I should "try" the damned thing out ? Gess what....superficial dents and all, the thing works like a new one ! when I'm doing Macro, I always use manual focus, manual "everything".......let's face it.........I take pictures because I LIKE TO!

I enjoy making great prints......and when I exhibit prints that "look great" in a gallery, or a contest, no one gives a rat's "behind" if the lens used cost $10,000, or if I bought the thing at a flea market for $10 ! It's the PRINT that they "care about" ! Hell, anyone ever notice what kind of "gear" Ansel Adams used to make his "reputation" ? (He sure didn't have a new D 800, of a Hassleblad with a Phase One "back"..........he used mainly his brains and his unbelievable talent ! (Got pretty "well known" along the way, too !)

The first thing I did when I bought my new D 300s was to take the shoulder strap off, (with NIKON in big yellow letters every 3 inches), threw it away, and put a nice little "wrist collar/ strap" from "Clik Elite" on it; plus, I lug my BEAUTIFUL, powder coated Gitzo 340 around in a VERY nice bag (made in China by, I presume, an industrious little old Chinese lady), and all the "thugs and muggers" on Lake Shore Drive just "assume" it's a raggedy old el-cheapo tripod from Goodwill, so not even worth stealing.........you may be "impressed" by high dollar photography equipment; ( I enjoy using it, but I go to great lengths to "cover up" anything that says "Nikon".........I'm just "impressed" by great photography. (I couldn't care less where the equipment came from.)

Great thread, BTW !

niclovin1 said:
How does it damage the AI metering?

If the Non-AI lens pushes the small metering prong that goes around the F-mount it can potentially push it to far and break it internally or externally either way making it broken. I have a Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 shift lens that does this that I need to get AId as much as it can be so this very thing does not happen.

Oh yeah to add to this thread. Picked up a Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 AIS DX fisheye (a little over a year old) for $144 after taxes at a local pawn shop on Fri. It is nice to finally have a fisheye for the D7000 with similar coverage (slightly wider) than my 15mm f/2.8 Sigma that I use on the D800.

PB PM said:
Nice lenses, but keep in mind that they wont all mount on a D7000 (and it's replacement most likely). Any Pre-AI lense like the Nikkor-H would damage the AI metering tab, unless it has been converted to AI. Do a google search and you'll quickly find images showing the difference between AI and non AI lenses.

How does it damage the AI metering?

Nice lenses, but keep in mind that they wont all mount on a D7000 (and it's replacement most likely). Any Pre-AI lense like the Nikkor-H would damage the AI metering tab, unless it has been converted to AI. Do a google search and you'll quickly find images showing the difference between AI and non AI lenses.

Hey, I'm a bit of an amateur.. got into it with a d5100 last year.. had it stolen in europe though :/ (waiting for a d7000 update <3)
Anywho, I picked up some neat glass (always free) from some family that just had this stuff lying around.. seems like this is the place to have some input on the quality on any of the stuff I've got.
Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8
Nikkor-H 50 3.5
Tamron adaptall-2 60-300 3.8-5.4
Nikkor 28-70 3.5 AF
They're all from the the 70's- 90's but pretty damn mint (best of all, free). Are any of them decent?
Much appreciated :)

Snagged a used D300 today for $300. It is well used, a lot of shutter actions, but it is in great shape and still runs like new (I had one a few years ago, but foolishly let it go). Good enough to be used as a backup.

rensuchan said:
I read it.

Next time I find a "broken" lens deal, I'm PMing you :)

Feel free too. I have my eyes on a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 for lightning shots that has some problems to sort. A lot of the stuff that I am able to sort out has been by extensive Google searching and the collective knowledge of repairing many random lenses. Being in the repair industry has helped quite a bit as well since i take stuff apart all day. Thinking in layers is helpful as well.

Anyway wanted to add the set of Nikkor PB-2s that I got from the local camera shop for $50. Fits easy on the D7000 but the D800 the PB-5s I got from Adorama are better suited for that camera. I should probably stop posting in this thread.

Was this 10-24mm lens a Nokin. Kind of like a co-worker of mine who bought a Rorex watch in the parking lot from a "jeweler" who needed money. I don't think he ever lived that down, even if it was only $ 25 in 1972 money.

kanuck said:This past weekend a D800 for $2800 not bad and a D4 for an even 5 grand. Never seen new or used D800e bodies or the wonderful 5D Mark III though

One of my friends has a D800e. Maybe I can stencil the 'e' onto my D800 and swap em. :P

Lets see...

I got an 300mm f/2.8 Ai lens for $400. Pristine condition, tack sharp, boy what a steal!

My D200 only cost me $400 a few years ago but it was/is an ugly piece of gear...