Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The 35/2.5 is an OK performer with its main advantage being that you can use it under or over the water. The 28/3.5 is a much better lens but only works under the water. Here is a site with lens personal lens reviews: http://www.foto.no/nikon/lens_nikonos.html#top_page And here is a site to scare the *£@$&! out of you on the amount of care you need to take with an underwater camera: http://www.southern-nikonos.com/ Salt will form rock hard mineral deposits on any equipment that is not rinsed properly. If you attempt to remove them after the camera has dried you will scratch your lenses and sealing o-rings. Internal o-rings need to be changed yearly for best sealing. About a $100US a year in maintenance. It is not a camera, it is a piece of underwater equipment and needs to be treated and serviced as such. Nikons support of discontinued equipment is not as good as I would like. John Collier > From: Tom Finnegan <TomF@piengr.com> > > I assume that Nikon will have to provide parts and service for the next 10 > years? > > Does anybody have any thoughts or comments on the Nikonos V and the two > amphibious lenses (a bit soft wide open, decent stopped down, pleasant > bokeh, somewhat flare prone etc...). I've used a co-workers Nikons IV and > 35/2.5 in the somewhat distant past doing stream surveys, but I don't have > any of the pictures and don't really recall much about the camera or lens. > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html