There were three little people here yesterday, and one wasn't having fun most of the time. Barb, and I are still recovering, yet I managed a few photos. 105mm f1.8 ais & the tc16a
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I’m very impressed by the 28–50 f/3 .5. My understanding it was released as a companion to the 50–135 lens you listed. Very compact with good IQ. I was also astounded by the 80–200 f/4.5 When I shot with it. It’s a well regarded lens, but doesn’t get a ton of use on here, likely due to its size. Otherwise I have the 50–135 and the 75–150. I’ve used the 25–50 in the past but was a bit put off by its overall length for a wide angle.
You are right, I was actually thinking of the 28~50/3.5, as it is the same generation as the 50~135/3,5, and the 25~50/4 is much too large for my taste. I always thought about getting an 80~200/4.5 as friends had them, and they seemed to perform well, but generally stuck to my 105/2.5 for telephoto, and would have been more interested in a wide-to-normal zoom at that time.
Of course, what I probably would have wanted (before it existed!) was the 20~35/2.8 AF-D, but we're on a manual-focus thread, so I won't open that can of worms.
But as I said, I keep seeing some amazing shots on this thread with just a few classic Nikkor zooms, so there must be some magic for people to hold onto what are now considered uninteresting lenses. I think the design goals of the zooms I mentioned, which were relatively light weight, moderate-but-fixed aperture, and moderate zoom range, seemed to result in some excellent quality optics.
Te: the 28-50 I think it’s relative lack of use is because of its relative scarcity. It’s not a pricey lens but I think only 25,000+- were made, not sure why Nikon moved on. It took me a bit to find one after seeing some sample photos and appreciating its compactness. It’s shorter than the 105/2.5 and about as thick as a 50/1.4.
I think lenses got more flexible over time but the best of yesteryear can still be fine optics today. They just usually won’t be as fast, as large a zoom range, as long a tele etc.
grantgoodes wrote:
You are right, I was actually thinking of the 28~50/3.5, as it is the same generation as the 50~135/3,5, and the 25~50/4 is much too large for my taste. I always thought about getting an 80~200/4.5 as friends had them, and they seemed to perform well, but generally stuck to my 105/2.5 for telephoto, and would have been more interested in a wide-to-normal zoom at that time.
Of course, what I probably would have wanted (before it existed!) was the 20~35/2.8 AF-D, but we're on a manual-focus thread, so I won't open that can of worms.
But as I said, I keep seeing some amazing shots on this thread with just a few classic Nikkor zooms, so there must be some magic for people to hold onto what are now considered uninteresting lenses. I think the design goals of the zooms I mentioned, which were relatively light weight, moderate-but-fixed aperture, and moderate zoom range, seemed to result in some excellent quality optics. ...Show more →
GeorgeBo wrote:
I used to use zooms more on my Df, but have hardly used them at all on mirrorless bodies. Because of the issue with in body VR with non-cpu zooms and the issue with me forgetting to turn it off But also because I really don't like using them with the added length of an adapter.
That said, I think of the 3 zooms you listed, I like the 50-135 the most. Mainly because of the focal length. The extra 25mm in width over the 75-150 worked better for me. And the "pseudo-macro" close focus capability of the 50-135 comes in handy.
I also shot with the 28-45 f/4.5 (internal focus and zoom) but was challenging to get critical focus in the viewfinders of DSLRs. I put a split prism screen in the Df and that helped a great deal. Of course mirrorless negates that issue with zoom in focus on the EVF and peaking highlights.
I think I may take that one out for a spin on Friday to a museum trip we are planning. *VR off
grantgoodes wrote:
As usual, the mighty AiS 25~50/4 produces the results (and of course excellent visualizing by the person behind the camera)!
As a "non-zoom" fan, I do note that there are three classic MF Nikkor zooms that show up again and again in this thread:
AiS 25~50/4
AiS 50~135/3.5
75~150/3.5E
I actually own the series E 75~150/3.5 (my only zoom), but it has been replaced in my heart by other lenses over time. I have always thought about buying a 50~135/3.5, but it's so close to my existing series E (which I don't use anymore), so have resisted. Question: What is your favourite MF Nikkor zoom, and why? And am I missing a hidden gem from my list above?...Show more →
I only own one zoom right now and that is the 50-135mm. It is probably my favorite lens. I love it on my Fuji because it's my poor man's 70-200. The contrast, color and sharpness is outstanding. I didn't like it as much on my FF when I had one.
The 28-50/3.5 was also nice when I had it. The only thing I didn't like about it was it wouldn't shoot close enough on the wide end.
James Markus wrote:
There were three little people here yesterday, and one wasn't having fun most of the time. Barb, and I are still recovering, yet I managed a few photos. 105mm f1.8 ais & the tc16a
grantgoodes wrote:
As usual, the mighty AiS 25~50/4 produces the results (and of course excellent visualizing by the person behind the camera)!
As a "non-zoom" fan, I do note that there are three classic MF Nikkor zooms that show up again and again in this thread:
AiS 25~50/4
AiS 50~135/3.5
75~150/3.5E
I actually own the series E 75~150/3.5 (my only zoom), but it has been replaced in my heart by other lenses over time. I have always thought about buying a 50~135/3.5, but it's so close to my existing series E (which I don't use anymore), so have resisted. Question: What is your favourite MF Nikkor zoom, and why? And am I missing a hidden gem from my list above?...Show more →
Thank you for the kind words Grant.
The 25-50 renders colors, has nice contrast, and a richness to its tones. The biggest drawback for me is the size and weight for travel. I prefer it over the 28-50 for the extra 3mm on the wide end but the 28-50 is a nice size, weight, and one ring design. Its a tough choice but in my bag the 25-50 gets the nod.
I agree the 75-150 is a great zoom lens. You get a lot given its size and weight. The images produced are very nice. Very handy for long work and travel. Leighton and others have produced beautiful work with the 50-135. Another excellent zoom.
GeorgeBo wrote:
Question for you Nikon lens film shooters (to keep on thread topic ) ...
Do any of you have experience with DF96 monobath and Neopan Acros II developing? That film is not listed on their developing instruction sheet. I think I read where you can do 2x the regular developing time and be ok with that film, but can't find where I read that now.
George, I'm no expert on this by a long shot and I've never used Acros II, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Your question made me curious, so I did a little quick research. I found one person who developed in DF96 and he said that he just followed the recommended time at 71F. Of course, we know that there isn't a recommended time for DF96 and Acros II.
Another review of the film that I read said that, though the reviewer doesn't know exactly what type of grain the film has, they suspect it is a tabular grain film like T-Max or Delta 100. That said, he went on to say that he processed in D-76 at the same time/temp that he would use for the original Acros. He did say that the grain is definitely different than the original Acros and is possibly even finer. This makes me think it is tabular.
I think the question comes down to whether or not Acros II is a tabular grained film with a dye layer. According to the DF96 instructions, these films should receive twice the recommended time. When I process Delta 100, I give it twice the recommended time. In my experience with Delta 100, you definitely want to prewash with water for a few minutes to remove the dye layer prior to processing. My results from rolls I processed without first removing the dye layer were very disappointing.
I think what I would do is to do a prewash of the film. If the prewash comes out pinkish/purplish (indicating a dye layer) I would double the normal DF96 time. If not, I would use the normal time.
Let us know how it turns out. After reading the rave reviews of the film, I may have to try some.
mp356 wrote:
The 25-50 renders colors, has nice contrast, and a richness to its tones. The biggest drawback for me is the size and weight for travel. I prefer it over the 28-50 for the extra 3mm on the wide end but the 28-50 is a nice size, weight, and one ring design. Its a tough choice but in my bag the 25-50 gets the nod.
I agree the 75-150 is a great zoom lens. You get a lot given its size and weight. The images produced are very nice. Very handy for long work and travel. Leighton and others have produced beautiful work with the 50-135. Another excellent zoom. ...Show more →
I note also that the earlier Ai version of the 28~50/4 has about double the focus throw over the AiS (typical change for the AiS series), which some might prefer, so useful information if you're looking for one. The 28~50/3.5 was only made for two years, and was a relatively small production run. Rumours are that it was designed as a Series-E, but was upgraded to AiS status. It's compact size and mechanical "cheapness" does seem to back up that theory.
All the mentioned lenses have "money where their mouth is" photos on this thread, just going to prove that after the initial missteps with the 43~86/3.5, Nikon was really able to lead the world in quality zoom designs.
Very useful resource of opinions on "cheap" Nikkor zooms here (FM linking feature breaks for this site): www.678vintagecameras.ca/blog/best-bargain-lenses-nikon-manual-focus-zooms
Thanks Scott! DF96 is very forgiving in protection against over development, so not a lot of risk extending the time.
Was thinking of shooting a roll this weekend.
spoupard wrote:
George, I'm no expert on this by a long shot and I've never used Acros II, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Your question made me curious, so I did a little quick research. I found one person who developed in DF96 and he said that he just followed the recommended time at 71F. Of course, we know that there isn't a recommended time for DF96 and Acros II.
Another review of the film that I read said that, though the reviewer doesn't know exactly what type of grain the film has, they suspect it is a tabular grain film like T-Max or Delta 100. That said, he went on to say that he processed in D-76 at the same time/temp that he would use for the original Acros. He did say that the grain is definitely different than the original Acros and is possibly even finer. This makes me think it is tabular.
I think the question comes down to whether or not Acros II is a tabular grained film with a dye layer. According to the DF96 instructions, these films should receive twice the recommended time. When I process Delta 100, I give it twice the recommended time. In my experience with Delta 100, you definitely want to prewash with water for a few minutes to remove the dye layer prior to processing. My results from rolls I processed without first removing the dye layer were very disappointing.
I think what I would do is to do a prewash of the film. If the prewash comes out pinkish/purplish (indicating a dye layer) I would double the normal DF96 time. If not, I would use the normal time.
Let us know how it turns out. After reading the rave reviews of the film, I may have to try some....Show more →
Nice shot Serge and kudos on the effort to get yourself to the right place at the right time for that composition
serge07 wrote:
Hi, everyone
Scott, great captures colors with the 25-50 AIs.
Matt, thanks for sharing all the tasty photographs with Nippi. I suspect that it is in very good hands with Samy.
James, great shots of the little people.
Took this one the Saturday before last which was a super hot and hazy day The colors were blah so tweaked with Silver Efex to clear up the photograph.
Had to do some running to get this one. With the 75mm fov, one has to get way back to capture the entire 1776 ft One World Trade Center. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53834932769_6b45750865_h.jpg
Fuji S5 + 50/1.8 Ai
Enjoy the 4th and the grill.
Serge
Matt, thanks for sharing all the tasty photographs with Nippi. I suspect that it is in very good hands with Samy.
James, great shots of the little people.
Took this one the Saturday before last which was a super hot and hazy day The colors were blah so tweaked with Silver Efex to clear up the photograph.
Had to do some running to get this one. With the 75mm fov, one has to get way back to capture the entire 1776 ft One World Trade Center. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53834932769_6b45750865_h.jpg
Fuji S5 + 50/1.8 Ai
Enjoy the 4th and the grill.
Serge
Great shot Serge! To capture the ship is icing on the cake, not to mention the perspective of downtown. I've never seen it from this angle. Nice post work too.
leighton w wrote:
Great shot Serge! To capture the ship is icing on the cake, not to mention the perspective of downtown. I've never seen it from this angle. Nice post work too.
Thanks, Leighton.
Governors Island provides great views of the skyline in a very relaxed atmosphere.
Matt, thanks for sharing all the tasty photographs with Nippi. I suspect that it is in very good hands with Samy.
James, great shots of the little people.
Took this one the Saturday before last which was a super hot and hazy day The colors were blah so tweaked with Silver Efex to clear up the photograph.
Had to do some running to get this one. With the 75mm fov, one has to get way back to capture the entire 1776 ft One World Trade Center. https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53834932769_6b45750865_h.jpg
Fuji S5 + 50/1.8 Ai
Enjoy the 4th and the grill.
Serge
Black and white goes well with this NYC scene, Serge!!!
But also because I really don't like using them with the added length of an adapter.
) ...
