I have the 28-70 and use it a lot. Bought it from National Camera. After a week it developed a focusing noise so I brought it back to National Camera. They had Nikon put in a new motor and didn't charge me one cent for the repair. Great company to do business with. When I'm just walking around I take a 24-85 3.5-4.5 vr. Works great on my D700 and D810. Its one of the cheapest used lens you can buy now, why, I don't know. I don't think the 24-120 takes any better picture, but it does expand farther, but also weighs more. 28-70 2.8 is worth having if the motor is good.
I had a friend who suffered from dementia. In the latter stages of dementia, he was contacted by a Nigerian prince and eventually swindled all his savings. He was convinced until the day he died, the money was coming. His widow was left penniless and could do nothing about the swindle.
The 80-200 2.8 non AF-S is the lens I have been using for a long time. It is still being produced and is cheaper than the 70-200 vr. I believe it as sharp as the the 70-200, but doesn't focus as fast because it is not an AF-S lens or have the vr function. Instead of the 70-200 f4, you might want to check out the 70-210 f4 for light a weight walk around. Sells now for about $100 to $200 and produces beautiful images. Its negative is you must use proper camera technique.
boberic wrote:
Currently Medicare iS a voluntary program. It is not forced upon anybody(although contribution to FICA is) When or if a medicare for all is passed it will be forced upon the population. Private health insurance companies will end. The federal gov't will then be incharge of who gets care and who does not. I do not want that kind of power in the hands of only about 600 people (congress). And please show me axactly where the constitution gives a central gov't that power.
Social Security was passed in 1935 under the New Deal while Rossevelt was President. Medicare was passed in 1965 under the Johnson presidency which was actually a Humphry initiated bill. Both acts of Congress and both have stood up under court challenge. Dropping the eligibility age to 55 or 60 would only require an amendment to the law.
Mr. boberic So what's wrong with extending the period of age making more people eligible for Medicare. I have no complaints about my Medicare coverage and how it is administrated. If you don't want it, don't sign up for it. If you want your own policy, just get it. If your like those who are 55 plus and can't afford $900 to $1400 and more, have lost their jobs and out of savings, medicare coverage might allow you to keep your house and stay off the streets after a life time of work. I'm happy for you, Mr. boberic, if you are so financially affluent as to not be concerned about who pays for your medical bills. The people I know in your position have either been doctors or government workers or military. The military have earned it, but so should those workers who made the arms, ammunition, uniforms, tanks, ect... Its time we take care of our seniors. Isn't it interesting that we provide medical to people who have never paid into social security, refused employment and poor, but not to the seniors who have worked all their life, been responsible citizens, and at an age and position that they have no medical coverage. Shame on us.
The price of medical insurance and care today is the last step in robbing the elderly of every cent they have remaining. After working a lifetime and paying into social security during the whole time people should be medically taken care of for their latter years. That means getting Medicare benefits earlier in life than what they are now. Lets say at age 55 or 60. Because medical prices are not regulated, providers are allowed to charge anything they want for their services. Doctors and hospitals don't like Medicare because they are limited on what they can charge and what services they will pay for. Medicare for all was almost instituted in the 1960's but was stopped by lobbying from the medical community. Its time the entry age for Medicare coverage be expanded for our seniors.
The Nikon d700 and Nikon 28-70 2.8 along with the Nikon 80-200 2.8 was what I used when I did wedding photography. The combination will still blow out of the water many other combinations. My wife shoots the Nikon 24-70 and aside from 4mm, they produce the same quality pictures. There is a reason the Tokina is $175 and the Nikon is 4+ times as much.
I shot the D700 for years until I purchased a D810. The biggest difference I find between the two is that the D810 has facial recognition and I can crop the pictures a lot more. The D700 has done a lot of professional work and is tough as a camera can be. I personally would not trade my D700 for a D610.
If this same scenario were to occur between Minnesota and Canada: I think the two sides would send out for a couple of pizzas and brew and schedule next weeks meeting. We have good neighbors and appreciate them.
DeeAndre wrote:
I used the aces and eights cards because of Wild Bill, but I didn't know what gun he used. Makes sense.
Actually I was maybe wrong. The Scofield pistols were stated on a history channel program I had recently watched. I just looked it up on the internet and it was stated in several places the guns were Navy Colts of 36 caliber. The fifth card was reported as either a queen of diamonds, a five, or a nine. So who knows for sure. However Wild Bill did have a winning hand, but lost the game.
Too much in one picture. I would have liked more a shot of the gun, lantern, and the bottle by themselves. Or the cards, money, and the shot glass. Or the gun, cards, and the money. Other than that, the quality of your picture is very good. Since you chose to use aces and eights, Wild Bills dead man hand, you may be interested in knowing that Wild Bill used Scofield hand guns. They reloaded quicker.
Rich2236 wrote:
I say this with all due respect to the Pope. He, (Francis,) states "He who raises a wall, ends up a prisoner of the wall he erected." He further talks about other countries like Spain putting up walls/fences to deter migrants as "shameful."
Well, I have to say, when we were in Italy, we visited the Vatican. THE WALL AROUND THE ENTIRE VATICAN CITY WAS MOST IMPRESSIVE, being about 40 or 50 feet high, and I imagine about 10 to 20 feet thick! And there are guards, both civil authorities and Vatican police at EVERY entrance to keep out UN_WANTED people!!! He, (Pope Francis) goes further, stating, "The blame for poverty and war lays at the feet of capitalism." I do not feel that the Pope has any right to make those statements. When he tears down the walls around the Vatican and allows everyone to enter and camp out there, then he can say anything he wants about walls.
I apologize as this will probably evoke a tirade of reply's. But I have to repeat, I am not trying to be disrespectful at all. If there were no walls around the Vatican, then there would be nothing to say.
Rich...
I say this with all due respect to the Pope. He, ... (
show quote)
Hi Rich... Walls are neither good or bad. The Vatican is no different then anywhere else. They are only methods of controlling your property. They come in many forms. Walls to hold the roof up on your house. Walls to protect you while you sleep. We even put in walls inside our own homes for privacy and security. I have my own wall which is about 3500 feet long and holds cattle in and unwanted animals out. Its other wise called a barbed wire fence. I would like to install an underground electric shocker fence to keep my dog in a safe space and protect her from her own wonderings. I'm totally in support of a wall controlling the Mexican boarder, but strongly opposed of one for our neighbor Canada. Probably because I trust and like Canada and its people. I know they would be there if we need them and I trust we would do the same. Canada has been as active in controlling their criminal elements, I can't say the same for Mexico. We are not being flooded with illegal immigrants for Canada, again that's not the case for Mexico. When things change, maybe we could take the fence down.
sb wrote:
There ARE ways that health care could be made a lot more affordable. Health care is not a free market - it should be. Those who pay cash are very often charged far more than providers accept from Medicare and insurance companies. I have always found that to be not only wrong but reprehensible. Why should you be billed $3,000 for a CT scan that an insurance company pays $450 for? Our local hospitals charge $350 for a simple EKG - but if I did one in my office when I was in private practice, insurance companies paid me $35. So that is what I charged my cash-paying patients. Drugs are the same way - the pharmacy benefit management companies (PBMs) negotiate kickbacks to insurance companies from drug companies for putting their product as a "preferred" product on their formulary. The drug companies then offer coupons to reduce copayments - good only for those with insurance. So the Lyrica that will cost your $450 per month cash may only cost the insurance company $200 - and the customers of the insurance company, who are told that they have to pay a $75 copayment for this expensive medication, get a coupon for $50 off each month for a year. This is all hidden from the consumer, and is somehow considered a legal business practice.
I have proposed for years that there should be an "uninsured patient protection act" which says that the cash price for a medication or medical procedure/service should never be more than 10% higher than the lowest discounted price for insurance companies. That would make health care far more fair to everyone.
There ARE ways that health care could be made a lo... (
show quote)
I totally agree with your thoughts. I managed the health insurance for the company I worked for. When a injury occurred on the job and it was obvious there would be no long term affects to the injury, I would pay the medical bill directly so our mod factor would stay as low as possible. Because I knew what our insurance would pay, that's what I sent to the medical provider. Most uninsured people would not get very far with negotiating the charges. So for a lot of people their bills end up non collectable.
boberic wrote:
So we force people to buy insurance? How would you do this?
It's not that difficult. National Health Coverage. The government already pays for insurance for politicians and government workers. Which means although I don't get free insurance, I'm paying for the free insurance of above mentioned. We send aid money to other countries so that their people can have free medical and other programs. That money came out of my taxable income. We send our troops to other countries to help defend their boarders. More of my tax dollars. It is my belief that we need to take care of our own people before giving money to others.
and your point is? Do you now not agree with Trump or the Supreme Court? Forget it, I really don't care what or who you agree with.