advertisement


Nikkor with digital

H

hifi_dave

Hi-Fi Retailer
Hi ya'll. A little bit of advice please.

I have asked similar previously but now I'm getting ready to splash some cash.

I have a Nikkor 105 mm 2.5 f which I bought in the early 80's. It was my favouritest lens and I shot thousands of pics of our kids. Those pics we got out over the weekend for an ooh, aah session, spurred on by the arrival this year of our first two Grandchildren.

I used the lens with a Nikon F3 HP, which I still have but I have a hankering for a new digital. The one I favour is the Nikon D90 but can I use it with the old Nikkor 105 and if I do, what are the drawbacks or failings ? Or is there a modern equivalent of the 105 that I should consider ?

Another very silly question but we took the memory stick from our Sony digital into Boots last week to get some prints and they were truly awful in every way. Is there a better way/place to get prints done ?
 
D90 will not meter the 105 correctly, but a D200 (2nd hand), Fuji S5 Pro (2nd hand), D300 (new), D700 (new), D3 (New) all will.

On a crop body (D90. D300 etc) the 1.5X mutliplication effect will render something like the Micro Nikkor 60mm AF-D to 90mm equivalent and that is a great lens which is cheap 2nd hand. If you can afford new I would look at the 85mm F1.8 or F1.4 nikkors or the 105mm AF-S VR Nikkor or Zeiss Makro Planar (which I use on a FF sensored D700)
 
hifi_dave said:
Another very silly question but we took the memory stick from our Sony digital into Boots last week to get some prints and they were truly awful in every way. Is there a better way/place to get prints done ?
Click to expand...

Have you tried bonusprint online?
 
Hi Cliff, no I haven't tried anything other than Boots. I am a complete and utter novice to digital cameras and haven't got a clue so I took the easy option in my local Boots but was bitterly disappointed. I'll have a look at Bonusprint.

Would the 85mm and 105mm Nikkors you mention have the same properties as the 105mm I have ? I like the head and shoulder close ups I get with that and the quality of the pics was great. Would the D90 and one of those lenses give me the same quality ?

Any idea of costs ?

As I said, I haven't the first idea but I do know that I got lots of stunning pics with my old combo.
 
hifi_dave said:
Any idea of costs ?

As I said, I haven't the first idea but I do know that I got lots of stunning pics with my old combo.
Click to expand...

Dave, the new 105mm AF-S VR is undoubtedly superb, and the Zeiss is better still at 3D-like images but has no AF. The Nikkor 105mm AIS 1:2.5 is pretty damned good, so you can get very good images with almost any combo from D90+105VR to D300+105AIS

As for costs, a new D300 is over £1K, a new D90 is maybe 300 less (I am not a shop so I'm sure you can google exact prices). On the other hand a second hand Fuji S5 Pro would be circa £250 and would work really well with the old Nikkor

Cheers
Cliff

PS Attached images give you an idea:

D700 with 105mm AIS (£1800 camera with £100 lens at F5.6)

3570890374_ebc0fca6fe.jpg


D700 with Zeiss Makro Planar (£1800 camera with £1400 lens at F5.6)

3851921052_2cda9a0abb.jpg
 
Are you look specifically for a fixed focal length lens?

I recently got a D5000 (about the same price as the D90 but newer, and I think nicer) and a Nikkor 18mm(F3.5)-105mm(F5.6) variable lens. I love it :)

A fixed focal length lens might have a larger aperture so you can use faster shutter speeds, but on the other hand the 18mm-105mm lens has 'vibration reduction' which means you don't necessarily need to use faster shutter speeds.

Actually I will be selling my almost new D60 and 18mm-55mm lens. Maybe that would do for you.

Oh, and ASDA near me produce superb prints.
 
Tenson said:
A fixed focal length lens might have a larger aperture so you can use faster shutter speeds
Click to expand...

A prime lens will also render out of focus elements better than almost any zoom*. The OOF elements are called Bokeh, by those in the know. The Nikkor 105mm AIS 1:2.5 is renowned for nice bokeh. Wide apertures of 2.8 or 2.5 also defocus the background more than lenses that only go to F5.6 (and also look nicer at F5.6 as per my examples).

Lastly, VR only compensates for camera / operator shake, if you are trying to freeze a subject which is not static you still need the faster shutter speeds.

cheers
Cliff

* save for exotics like the AF-S Nikkor 24-70 1:2.8 which is about £1,500

PS Ken Rockwell doesn't rate the 18-105 very highly
 
Different reviewers / sites all have different ideas. Photography Monthly magazine like the 18-105mm a lot. Ken Rockwell seems to mainly complain about the 18mm end of its range, and I rarely use that. I usually use focal lengths between about 30mm and 105mm where it produces very sharp images.

Ken suggests the 16-85mm lens as a preferable option but I like to have more zoom. So that only leaves the 18-200mm pro lens, which I'd love, but is twice the price!

I hope Dave doesn't mind if I ask another question here though. Do all lens' set to a certain F-number on the same camera body produce the same depth of field? For example there is a Sigma 18-70mm lens that is suggested as an upgrade on many standard kit lens', but it has no vibration reduction. Some say that because it is a faster lens it doesn't need it, but if you want to make use of the large aperture won't you be stuck with a very narrow depth of field? Or do some lens manage to give a greater depth of field while still using a larger aperture?
 
Tenson,

I have the 18-200 which I bought as a "do everything" lens on the recommendation of a mate for use on a 1.5X crop body. It isn't particularly pleasing at either end of its range. It needs in camera correction to remove some vignetting at the long end, and the bokeh is so so. Unless you have the advamtage of a low noise sensor (none of the Nikon crop bodies is particlarly wonderful past ISO 1600) the limit of F5.6 at the long end is just that - limiting - when you use it in lowish light. As a result. if I want 200mm and occasional shorter focal lengths I prefer the heavier full frame 70-200 lens.

Now, to answer the question:

if you want to make use of the large aperture won't you be stuck with a very narrow depth of field? Or do some lens manage to give a greater depth of field while still using a larger aperture?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the detailed measurements here, but it seems to me that some lenses with apertures of F2 have almost as narrow a DOF as some lenses with apertures of F1.4 - eg the Zeiss Makro Planar at F2 has a tiny DOF and is comparable to the 85mm Nikkor at F1.4

I think te exact science is shrouded in a little bit of bluff and bluster with expressions such as Circle of Confusion, which Leica use to explain why you can't use a rangefinder like the one on the M9 to focus a 135mm lens at any aperture wider than F5.6. However the general rule is that a given F-stop will produce a narrower apparent DOF at longer focal lengths for distant subjects, so F5.6 on a 300mm lens is going to exaggerate the difference between two subjects at 50m and 100m more than a 30mm lens.

Incidentally, a DX sensor makes lens focal lengths appear longer than on FF sensors (by reducing the Field of View) with the consequence that the source light rays are less divergant and therefore the DOF goes up for a given F stop.

There is a calculator here by the way
 
cliffpatte said:
PS, I'm assuming you have this lens

3160434311_9c8e445d2f.jpg


here it is attached to a real camera
Click to expand...

Hi again and thanks for the info.

Yes, this is the lens .

I think I will go for a D90 because the others mentioned are way too expensive and I really could do with a really large, clear screen because my eyes are not as they used to be and I'm too vain to wear specs.

The D90 is usually priced on the various sites with a telephoto but from my experience with clockwork cameras, the fixed lenses were better. Is this still the case ? I couldn't really understand much of the technical speak between you two.

For some inexplicable reason, it appears that lenses now are 'longer' than their spec, so an 85mm appears to be the same as my old 105mm. Is that correct and is this the one for me ?

I spent hours last night, reading camera reviews but couldn't make much sense of it all - it's far more complicated than good old hi-fi !!!
 
hifi_dave said:
For some inexplicable reason, it appears that lenses now are 'longer' than their spec, so an 85mm appears to be the same as my old 105mm. Is that correct and is this the one for me ?
Click to expand...

Hi Dave

sorry to take so long to answer

The D90 uses an APS-C (advanced photo system - remember those) sized sensor rather than a 35mm one (which Nikon features on the D700 and D3 and D3X)

If you can imagine using a smaller film by a factor of 1/1.5 than 35mm, it would equate when filling the new film frame to lengthening the lens by 50%. A 105mm lens used on an F3 could be replaced with a 70mm lens (if anyone made one*) on a D90. Conversely an 85mm would present the same Field of View [FOV] on a D90 as a 127.5mm lens wouldon an F3.

Unless Joe Petrik wants to step in and suggest a different lens, then the one prime lens you might like on the D90 in my humble opinion would be the AF-S micro Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8G ED coming in at an effective 90mm at circa £390

If you normally crop anyway when printing negatives you can do the same with the digital frames to get to the effective FOV of your 105mm.

Alternatively, you could get either the F1.8 (£300) or F1.4 (£870) 85mm Nikkor lenses.

If you can make do with a zoom, then there are some good ones around that cover a range including 105mm effective (70mm on a FF sensor), including the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM at circa £779 (You need the HSM If your camera purchase does not contain the Autofocus motor). The equivalent Nikkor is over £1100 tho'

Cliff

* Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens £380
 
Cliff,

Yes, agreed. The zoom route should be considered. I have had some lovely shots from my Tamron 28-75 which is solid wide open (f2.8) and spectacular at f4. The bokeh is pretty creamy when it's used at it's long end at f4/f5.6

Here's a full res chunky one at F4, 1/125 at 75mm. I'm a canon shooter, and this is on a 1.3 crop, so this really is 100mm equiv. The lens works just as well on Nikon.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3921133330_beb326f4f4_o.jpg

Cesare
 
Hi Guys,
Thanks for all the info, I shall read it a few more times to get it to sink in. At least I have some idea now about the DX thing.

I have spent most of the day reading your posts and studying Ken Rockwell with the result that I think (perhaps) I should be considering a zoom. These now appear to be far better than the zooms I've used in the past and quite reasonably priced. I'll see how that goes and it should give me an idea as to which way to go with a prime lens.

David
 
Dave,

Since you already have some nice Nikkors (24 f/2.8, 50/1.4 and 105/f2.5 if I'm remembering right), if I were you I'd look for a compatible digital body that will meter with them, such as the ones Cliff has noted -- i.e., D200 (2nd hand), Fuji S5 Pro (2nd hand) or D300 (new).

Legacy -- ummm, I mean legendary -- glass is where it's at, baby.

Joe
 
Cesare said:
Cliff,

Yes, agreed. The zoom route should be considered. I have had some lovely shots from my Tamron 28-75 which is solid wide open (f2.8) and spectacular at f4.
Click to expand...

Cesare, I'm sure it is a fine lens. The current model is the AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD. Dave just has to be wary to buy the BM model in Nikon mount if he is going to use it on a Nikon body without the focussing motor (the D90 does have the motor but the D5000 does not)

Dave, unless you're going for the very high end Nikon Zooms (24-70 F2.8 etc) you may find there is a cheaper alternative from Sigma or Tamron with the same constant aperture and at a price between the professional and consumer models from Nikon


cheers
Cliff
 
Joe Petrik said:
Dave,

Legacy -- ummm, I mean legendary -- glass is where it's at, baby.

Joe
Click to expand...

Joe, the you've hit the nail on the head.

For over 95% of Nikon shots, I could seriously "manage" with my 24mm Nikkor, 35mm Zeiss, 50mm F1.2 Nikkor, 85mm AF-D Nikkor and the 105mm AIS and do without the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. In fact the zooms are a massive bind in terms of absolute weight compared to a carefully selected bunch of primes. The primes are also all faster than the zooms.

regards
Cliff
 
Dave,
check out www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

That'll give you a very good idea of the market. Ebay is a posibility, I have been tracking prices on there for a couple of weeks but have come to the conclusion that ebay buyers are nuts.

There are many instances of kit going for between 90-110%. No, not a typo !

If you can stretch to a D300 for about £1000 then its worth it. If your eyes are not so good without specs, then autofocus will be necessary. VR is a plus.

My suggestion ? Sell all your exisiting glass and buy a D90 with a 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 and use that for your portraits of the grankids. A new AF 50mm will give you an effective 75mm on a DX (smaller) sensor.

The D90 can also take videos, funnily enough if you decide to take lots of videos, hang on to your old non AF lenses, as you get better results with them, as the camera can't change aperture on the AI lenses and the manual focus is much nicer to use on the older lenses.

Good luck
fs
 
Hi Y'all. Many thanks for all the advice. As a complete clutz, I don't understand it all but I have picked up some knowledge from your wisdom and also by studying Ken Rockwell.

I've had a look and pretty well decided on the D90 as it's got the right balance of quality, screen size and price. I quite like the idea of one of the better cameras but I can't really justify spending over £1000 on a body and I'm not sure I'd be able to work the thing.

As for lenses, I now understand why I can't use my old glass (see I've picked up some lingo) and might resurrect my old F3 HP for outside in good light when I can make use of the 105mm. For use with the D90 I might go for the 18-105 as it's inexpensive and offers a good range of lengths for my use but for really good portraits of the Grandkids, what do I use ?

Is a standard 50mm 1.8 OK for the job ? I like the idea of this because it's supposed to be high quality and it doesn't cost much but isn't it way too short ? If I go for a longer one at reasonable price they appear to be 'macro' or 'micro' which I think Cliff suggested. Have I got this right and are they suitable for portraits or just close up work ?

Thanks again,
David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top