Sorry I know I am boring (another lens ?)

[Joe P]

James,

One thing you can help me clarify in my mind before I take the plunge should the opportunity become available - is a 100mm/2.8 macro lens as good as a regular 100mm/2.8 lens at infinity?

I don't know the Pentax stuff at all, so I can't say. But, for what it's worth, the MF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is incredibly sharp at infinity but (only) very good close up, while the AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm F/2.8 is amazing close up but so-so at infinity. In other words, it's a suck-n-see situation. Every macro is different, just like every prime and zoom is different.

_______________________

Artioneer,

Just an observation,how can you possibly deliberate about a lenses quality/resolving performance without you have tried the aforementioned lens in ideal conditions with a HR film ie Kodak TechPan (resolves nearly 300 lppm) and then enlarged the negative to at least 10" x 8" or better still 12" X 16" using 'good' darkroom practice and the very finest enlarging lenses available ?

If you put such stringent requirements on everything people write on a forum, not much would be written. I can't say anything with 100% certainty, but on the other hand, I'm not just making stuff up as I go along either.

I've had a chance to play with a Noct-Nikkor and it indeed is much sharper at f/1.2 than my crappy but fast 55 f/1.2 Nikkor is. I almost convinced myself I needed the lens, but it was $1500 and quite heavily used, so sense prevailed. (Incidentally, the Noct-Nikkor in question was traded in at a local camera shop by the London (Ontario) Police Force. They were using it for night-time surveillance and, apparently, a projectile to subdue criminals. It really was in terrible shape.)

As for the Noctilux, I haven't used it but I've seen enough results from that lens on the Net to know it's much better than my 55mm f/1.2. And, of course, Mick had one and we all know he is a man of uncommonly refined tastes.

...the darkroom is where the real expertise exists

Sure, but these days I either project my slides as is, or scan them with a film scanner, then pull my hair out trying to get them to look right with Photoshop. I haven't been near stinky, toxic developer in ages.

Joe

 

[Artioneer]

Artioneer,
If you put such stringent requirements on everything people write on a forum, not much would be written. I mena, I can't say anything with 100% certainty. But on the other hand, I'm not just making stuff up as I go along either.

Yes Joe,
My apologies for being so pedantic,I do insist though that the vast majority of HQ 35mm photographs are derived in the darkroom.

Of course I shall post soon about my experiments using my Winchester '73' one in thousand (one of nine actuallly) El-Cheapo Russian Sonnar copy 50mm f2.0 lens,using a fully loaded gitzo,lens hood,various aperture/speeds and TechPan and hd Durst/El-Nikkor.

Without exaggeration I would put this 1:9 (the other 8 were mediocre) up among the finest ~ Winchester 73 ~ that I have used,but the Kiev 4 and 4A's are rather like Trabants,Wartburgs etc. blXXdy awful in practise and not really recommended.

 

[garyi]

So what we are saying then is faster lenses are a waste of time unless you use it wide open often?

As joe has said the speed of the lens is the speed of the lens, a faster lens only benefits at the final few Open stops, if you are playing outside in the day for instance all that extra money was a waste of well, money?

 

[guybat]

Exactly Gary. I was going for high speed lenses too until I eventually worked out that what I really wanted to shoot was done much better using wide angle lenses at f11 and a tripod. You only need those high speed / wide apertures for low light hand held stuff, or for the creative use of selective focus.

I may even get a wide angle zoom lens next...

 

[garyi]

I have discovered that wide angle zoom lenses for digitals don't seem to exist!

 

[matthewr]

"I have discovered that wide angle zoom lenses for digitals don't seem to exist!"

There is a whole bunch of them created specifically to provide general purpose wide-normal or wide-medium telephoto zoom lenses for digital bodies. Each mnufacturer does a crappy one for sale as part of the kit with the entry level body and then one or more pricey / very pricey versions of higher quality.

Nikon, for example, do the 18-35 f3.5/5.4 and then the much better 17-35 f2.8. The latter is reportedly very good and will make for a very fine "travel lens" where you want to, say, wander around a new city with the missus wihtout faffing about swapping lenses every 2 mins.

Matthew

 

[guybat]

The one I'm interested in is the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. There's also a Sigma 10-20mm. The Nikon 17-35mm and 12-24mm zooms are seriously expensive.

 

[vuk]

So what we are saying then is faster lenses are a waste of time unless you use it wide open often?

As joe has said the speed of the lens is the speed of the lens, a faster lens only benefits at the final few Open stops, if you are playing outside in the day for instance all that extra money was a waste of well, money?

gary.

it's almost as if you're not paying attention. shooting wide open isn't merely something to do in low light. the aperture setting produces aesthetic qualities that you may want to control in a particualr shot. for example, the following 3 could only be taken wide open (f/1.4):

http://www.qstatistic.com/foto/g08/PresidentGas.htm

http://www.qstatistic.com/foto/g08/CarribeanAmber.htm

http://www.qstatistic.com/foto/g02/SL001117-samantha.htm

all of them are daylight pictures.

btw--it's not like i shoot wide open all the time or anything like that, but when i want to, the bloody glass had better perform. imo, a lens that loses a great deal in quality when used wide open is for people who are happy with mediocrity.

vuk.

p.s. zoom lenses are only for journalists who need to whore their photography for money or complete ****ers. you don't look like a steer to me gary...

 

[Joe P]

Gary,

Before you get your panties in a knot over lenses you should have bought, I should note that the E-series 50 you won on eBay is pretty respectable wide open (f/1.8), very good by f/2 and excellent by f/2.8. The 50 Vuk uses happens to be very good wide open, which is why he can shoot it there without worrying about softness. Ideally, all lenses would be that good wide open.

My 55mm f/1.2, on the other hand, is crap wide open. I seems it was designed more to look the part than be the part, but I have other Nikkors, the 105mm f/2, for example, that are exceptional wide open. It's not universally true that Nikkors can't be shot wide open, though the 50s leave a bit to be desired at their maximum aperture, except for the old MF 50mm f/2 AI Nikkor. This is one of the reasons why I'm intrigued by the Carl Zeiss F-mounts lenses. I suspect that the 50mm f/1.4 ZF will be something special, hopefully with excellent bokeh to boot -- another area where Nikkors aren't renown.


_________________

Artioneer,

Of course I shall post soon about my experiments using my Winchester '73' one in thousand (one of nine actuallly) El-Cheapo Russian Sonnar copy 50mm f2.0 lens,using a fully loaded gitzo,lens hood,various aperture/speeds and TechPan and hd Durst/El-Nikkor.

Respect, dude!

Joe

 

[guybat]

There does seem to be a shortage of sub-20mm primes, the digital equivalent of 24mm-28mm on 35mm.

I want the impossible, the dSLR version of whatever this guy's using on his 8x10" Deardorff:

http://www.hilger.at/613_DE.5EAD7B1419173?kuen_id=3

 

[matthewr]

Digital has always been bad news for fans of wide angles. Instead of cheap, lightwieght and compact, high quality 24, 28, 35 and 50mm primes you have to stump up mega bucks for some humungous 18mm thing.

 

[vuk]

There does seem to be a shortage of sub-20mm primes, the digital equivalent of 24mm-28mm on 35mm.

I want the impossible, the dSLR version of whatever this guy's using on his 8x10" Deardorff:

http://www.hilger.at/613_DE.5EAD7B1419173?kuen_id=3

he either doesn't know how to scale his jpegs or you don't want his equipment at all. everything is hopelessly fuzzy.

vuk.

 

[guybat]

I suspect his jpegs. Someone else similar using an 8x10 is Robert Polidori - I saw one of his 'Death of Marat' 127x152 cm prints up close recently - absolutely beautiful.

http://www.camerawork.de/photographen_detail_polidori_en.html

But I don't think I'd last long lugging a field camera where I shoot round Bermondsey. On a Millwall home game day.

 

[garyi]

I was not whipping myself into a frenzy over the lens thing. I do actually have a master plan

Its coming together well. Today I took delivery of a standard 28-100 nikkor zoom lens. A modern job with a little more range than the stock lens but not much better quality. This is my snap shot lens now. The metal bodied one I got earlier is just not working the metering is all knackered so it still has to be used in manual for anything to work. I have all but given upon it basically. This new lens replaces that one.

I have a 100-300mm zoom, effectively a million or something on the digital, again AF so handy for wildlife and sporting shots when my kid is doing the 2020 Olympics.

And then 3 primes. At the moment this cheapy 28mm manual, the 50mm manual I had delivered today and a 35 mm AF which will be new and a goodie when I have the funds.

As time permits I will replace the 50mm and the 28mm with AF.

What do you think?

I have been playing with the 50mm today, again very nice in terms of the quality of picture, with the primes the pictures seem so much more luscious if you know what I mean, on the zooms blue sky is sorta washed out, on the primes its wonderfully blue. This is me a rank amateur but I can see the difference, I look forward to owning autofocus models in the future.

I did get worried though that as a muppet I would land up with a genuine digital 35mm, when what I am looking for is a film 35mm lens for effective 50mm on digital.

Man youc an see why Olympus was trying to put this to bed with their new four fifths or what ever it is they are doing! All so confusing.

 

[Joe P]

A couple of samples from my 55mm f/1.2 taken wide open this afternoon. None of them is a work of art, just quick shots of my daughter Anna while she was playing -- a subject I hope that's a little more interesting than a brick wall, the usual test subject for ****ery lens evaluations.

It's obvious the lens isn't tack sharp, but its softness could be an asset with certain subjects. (I should note that I also blew the focus since her sweater is sharper than her face, but that's my shortcoming, not the lens's.)

Joe

___________________

 

[garyi]

So wide open in good light will knock the back ground out yes?

I have not had an opportunity to play to this extent with the 50mm lens yet.

What camera do you use Joe?

 

[Joe P]

Gary,

So wide open in good light will knock the back ground out yes?

Wide open in any light will blur the background. It's a function of distance from the subject and aperture.

What camera do you use Joe?

A big heavy camera with a kick-arse viewfinder, but one that's otherwise bettered by a D50.

Joe

 

[garyi]

Haha, I bet.

I realise quite a bit now that I need AF on this camera. Presumably the viewfinder on a D70 is better, the two seem similar in spec.

With the pictures I have been taking today the focus has been set to infinity because its outside and landscapes, so no blurry bits.

Its interesting that I find that before I was interested in macro pictures, I think this was to do with the fact it was easy to do and subjects were easy to find, it was almost a cop out. Finding interest in the real wide world is more difficult but I am determined to continue.

 

[Joe P]

Gary,

I realise quite a bit now that I need AF on this camera. Presumably the viewfinder on a D70 is better, the two seem similar in spec.

They're more or less equal. If you want a better finder, you need to spend the big bucks on a D200, D2X or D2Hs, assuming you're going with current Nikon D-SLR models.

As time permits I will replace the 50mm and the 28mm with AF.

Either the 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 should do the trick, but if you're on a budget get the cheaper lens. As for the 28... bad news. The 28mm f/2.8 AF-Nikkor isn't a great lens. It's OK for the money, it just isn't anything special. The 28mm f/1.4 AF -Nikkor is much better, but it's a few times more expensive than your D50.

Joe

 

[garyi]

Thanks Joe. I might have a look into what Vivitar have as well. They have some very purposeful looking zooms in a local camera shop near me, seem to be extremely well made and priced.