pbraymond wrote:
Let's try to keep the pictures rolling. More from the 25-50. It was the only MF lens I shot with that day so it will make some additional appearances. Second shot is cropped in quite a bit.
leighton w wrote:
Lovely pics. However, this thread is for manual focus lenses ONLY. If you have any manual focus glass, we'd love to see more of your work.
I thought the manual focus nature of the D lenses would suffice no? There isn't any screw mount options on the Z bodies for AF-
RustyRus wrote:
I thought the manual focus nature of the D lenses would suffice no? There isn't any screw mount options on the Z bodies for AF-
Actually, it is in the name of the thread. Nikkor AF-D lenses can be used manually, but are not manual focus lenses. This is an area that exist to appreciate lenses made by Nikon before AF existed - though they still were making MF Nikkors up to a few years ago. The 28mm f1.4 AF-D is a rare bird that has an amazing price history - having seen it go up and down from $600-$6000 in my life-time. It is like the MF 58mm f1.2 Noct - special;.and hard to find a good affordable copy. I don't own any mirrorless Nikon bodies, but people here have been adapting MF Nikkors to them. A good gateway drug like lens would be a scalloped focus ring MF Nikkor lens from the early to mid 1970s. What you spend after that can make your wallet quite thin.
James Markus wrote:
Actually, it is in the name of the thread. Nikkor AF-D lenses can be used manually, but are not manual focus lenses. This is an area that exist to appreciate lenses made by Nikon before AF existed - though they still were making MF Nikkors up to a few years ago. The 28mm f1.4 AF-D is a rare bird that has an amazing price history - having seen it go up and down from $600-$6000 in my life-time. It is like the MF 58mm f1.2 Noct - special;.and hard to find a good affordable copy. I don't own any mirrorless Nikon bodies, but people here have been adapting MF Nikkors to them. A good gateway drug like lens would be a scalloped focus ring MF Nikkor lens from the early to mid 1970s. What you spend after that can make your wallet quite thin. ...Show more →
Yeah, as much as I love the 28/1.4D (bought mine about 5 years ago to go with my Df), it's "illegal" on this thread. It is a great _and_ super-rare lens, but fortunately I managed to avoid paying the extortionate prices they were fetching in the period after it was discontinued and before the 28/1.4E finally came out. The lack of screw-focus support on the Z-mount is what keeps me on my Df, as I just love the rendering of the 28/1.4D
As James writes, you should seriously look into some of the classic MF Nikkors, as they can be incredible bargains, even for the very highest quality examples. For instance, as part of my 105mm addiction, I recently picked up a factory-AI 105/2.5 Sonnar for not much over $100, and it is just a minor mechanical gem. The wide-open rendering is subtly different from my AiS/Xenotar copy. This thread is rife with great images showcasing these wonderful lenses, and you WILL end up being tempted to grab one.
With my eye situation I have been selling camera gear, but also my return to film - which I never saw coming. I've traded out some manual focus for AF versions, given up on some focal lengths, and began selling some of the film cameras i've restored, In less than two years I bought dozens and dozens of broken film cameras - and some working. Restoring and selling funded the acquisitions - much like the sale of my then 40 film cameras funded my move to digital 30 years ago.. Restored a batch of TLRs Ikoflex, Yashicaflex, Watzflex etc which made me wonder "did they ever make a professional TLR? All TLRs are the exact same design. Rollei, Minolta, everybody made the same TLR camera design except Mamiya. One reviewer calls it the "Bart Simpson" of TLRs, because in designing it's functions - Mamiya would create problems that needed solving..It has interchangeable lenses, view finders, and simple mechanical solutions to issues like parallax . Long story a bit shorter - I fell for the Mamiya C3. With it's 3.5X-6X chimney finder I can get good focus manually with my eyes. So, here is my latest muse shot with one of the first (circa 1981) 85mm f1.4 ais (the :cream machine") BTW - I picked up a (circa 2009) 85mm af-d from North Pole Alaska recently, and the dreamy rendering is identical to the 1981 lens. When Nikon gets it right - they don't mess with it.
James Markus wrote:
So, here is my latest muse shot with one of the first (circa 1981) 85mm f1.4 ais (the :cream machine") BTW - I picked up a (circa 2009) 85mm af-d from North Pole Alaska recently, and the dreamy rendering is identical to the 1981 lens. When Nikon gets it right - they don't mess with it.
I purchased an 85/1.4D IF after owning the AiS version for several years -- in fact it was my first AF-Nikkor. I never really did a close comparison of the two lenses (would be very easy on my Df), but my casual estimation was that the "cream machine" moniker applied for either. The AF-D-IF version is a 9/8 design while the AiS is 7/5. Also, as an IF lens, there is focal-length shift as you focus in. So, I'd expect that there _will_ be differences in the rendering of these two lenses.
grantgoodes wrote:
I purchased an 85/1.4D IF after owning the AiS version for several years -- in fact it was my first AF-Nikkor. I never really did a close comparison of the two lenses (would be very easy on my Df), but my casual estimation was that the "cream machine" moniker applied for either. The AF-D-IF version is a 9/8 design while the AiS is 7/5. Also, as an IF lens, there is focal-length shift as you focus in. So, I'd expect that there _will_ be differences in the rendering of these two lenses.
I assume then that the dreamy rendering is due to the CRC, Both the f1.4 lenses have CRC (Close Range Correction), or floating internal elements.
That wedding shot looks just a little too much of a setup! Photographer gets picture of another photographer taking a wedding shot. Were you part of the photography team or just an accidental participant with camera? (It's a great pic either way!)
MFNG shot with MFNG. Someone asked whether using older lenses on a Z camera made sense. I don't recall where I saw that question and couldn't find it. Edit: Ah, I found it. In the misleadingly-titled thread "Is Leica a good alternative?" That's sort of what this thread is about but not about Z-mount cameras per se. But just to answer the question somewhere...
35mm f/2.8, circa 1960's
200mm f/4 circa early 1970's
Both of those were shot with this. 50mm f/1.4 circa early 1970's
They saw a lot of film use and a lot of being carried around.
Color seems to be hanging on in NY, Serge. Thanks for sharing.
---------------------------------------------
jimmuller wrote:
MFNG shot with MFNG. Someone asked whether using older lenses on a Z camera made sense. I don't recall where I saw that question and couldn't find it. Edit: Ah, I found it. In the misleadingly-titled thread "Is Leica a good alternative?" That's sort of what this thread is about but not about Z-mount cameras per se. But just to answer the question somewhere...
They saw a lot of film use and a lot of being carried around.
I think the wear is actually appropriate, just some paint loss no major damage. I think they are very nice! Far cry from today's plastic fantastics; not complaining, the high performance zooms today are incredible.
