NightOwl Cat wrote:
figured out the problem with the D700... batteries. both the one in the body and the one in the grip. got two third party battiers for the grip, and off we went Saturday night to the annual event downtown.
Excellent HS (Hand Stabilisation) as usual, Laura. Nice sun stars.
SiMuMe wrote:
An opportunity to shoot with my longest lens (13.5cm f/3.5). Still not enough reach but the big subjects and a z50 helps. Slightly cropped.
, looks like a setup they did for you, two bookends. Nice shot!
SiMuMe wrote:
An opportunity to shoot with my longest lens (13.5cm f/3.5). Still not enough reach but the big subjects and a z50 helps. Slightly cropped.
Woolly-Necked Storks have become quite common round Durban North and the "Mgeni River".
Interesting birds.
But not very pretty birds . They always look like they could use some grooming, but they hang around and unlike Ibis, they don't run away from humans. The middle one yawned at me when I continued to take pictures. I knew then to turn around and shoot something more pretty.
SiMuMe wrote:
An opportunity to shoot with my longest lens (13.5cm f/3.5). Still not enough reach but the big subjects and a z50 helps. Slightly cropped.
Nice picture. I have no idea what they are but they are slightly frightening. Something out of Tolkien. Or just waiting for something to eat. If it was me, I'd get a longer lens and stay further away!
Yogifi wrote:
I wanted to ask a bit of weird question about lens "transparency".
I recently got the CV 40mm f2 ultron sII (n). I love the form factor on my fm2n. I love the build, I love the sharpness and the focal length for walkabout.
But when I look at images of it compared to my old nikon 50mm f1.4 AFd, it's not as "transparent".
I see no one has responded. That may be because this thread is about Manual Focus NIKON Glass and you asked about a Voigtlander lens.
I was curious to see what folks might say, but not so much for any explanation. I looked up reviews of that lens and from what I read it should be better than buttered sliced bread, which is to say better in every way than just about any other 50 available. Okay, I may exaggerate a little. But it makes me wonder if (a) your lens is grungy inside, or (2) you are trolling.
jimmuller wrote:
I see no one has responded. That may be because this thread is about Manual Focus NIKON Glass and you asked about a Voigtlander lens.
I was curious to see what folks might say, but not so much for any explanation. I looked up reviews of that lens and from what I read it should be better than buttered sliced bread, which is to say better in every way than just about any other 50 available. Okay, I may exaggerate a little. But it makes me wonder if (a) your lens is grungy inside, or (2) you are trolling.
I had a look inside after I posted but I didn't see anything unusual. It could be the light I guess when I did the testing, and I'll compare with another 40mm (cv 40mm f1.2 e-mount), but I do also see it sliiiiiiightly in a side-by-side comparison I saw with the 28mm f2.8 ais vs CV color-skopar I'm trying to decide between too, in the shadows perhaps.
Figured you guys would probably be the most familiar if there is something to it being fans of the nikon manual lenses and perhaps trying some of the popular Voigtlander F mounts.
Nikon 50mm f1.4 just seemed to have this clarity to it - I don't mean sharpness or contrast, but more transparent.
Yes, the ultron got going glowing reviews, and seems very popular. I do like the build (at least of the sII-n I have), sharpness etc.
It's subtle, some shots more than others.
I don't know, I'll do the comparison with a few other lenses to rule out the light - just thought I'd ask if people know what I'm talking about.
Years ago I tried the Voigtlander 58mm/1.4 SL (first version in F mount). Build quality was outstanding but wide open performance did not cut it for me. Veiling flare, CA and very soft. For “lens character” I settled on an old Nikkor 5.8cm f/1.4. So I have a very small sample size and was just my personal experience and preference.
Now I do have two Leica M mount Voigtlander lenses that I really enjoy (21mm and 28mm Color Skopar). But even in M mount I mainly use Nikkor LTM. Again just because
My extremely simple testing methodology is, I shoot them and if I like the results I shoot them again.
Yogifi wrote:
I had a look inside after I posted but I didn't see anything unusual. It could be the light I guess when I did the testing, and I'll compare with another 40mm (cv 40mm f1.2 e-mount), but I do also see it sliiiiiiightly in a side-by-side comparison I saw with the 28mm f2.8 ais vs CV color-skopar I'm trying to decide between too, in the shadows perhaps.
Figured you guys would probably be the most familiar if there is something to it being fans of the nikon manual lenses and perhaps trying some of the popular Voigtlander F mounts.
Nikon 50mm f1.4 just seemed to have this clarity to it - I don't mean sharpness or contrast, but more transparent.
Yes, the ultron got going glowing reviews, and seems very popular. I do like the build (at least of the sII-n I have), sharpness etc.
It's subtle, some shots more than others.
I don't know, I'll do the comparison with a few other lenses to rule out the light - just thought I'd ask if people know what I'm talking about.
What's there to troll about, I'm not sure....Show more →
I am interested in the CV 58mm f1.4 (for people shots on film) -- sorry I know we are well off-topic now. And part of that was because it seemed rather sharp wide open! At least compared to the 55mm f1.2 nikon and cv on the philipreeves review.
I did a quick side-by-side comparison indoors now and it's not obvious. I could very well be jumping the gun like I do sometimes but I will do an outdoor test in better light tomorrow to make sure.
Versus the 50mm f1.4 to rule out light, and vs 40mm f1.2 to rule out focal length causing the difference in feeling of transparency.
I’m a huge fan of the Nikkor 55/1.2 AI. It’s my most used MF lens, and my favorite of all the 50-55mm lenses. I have two of them in case one has an issue down the road. It’s great on film and digital.
Two examples… First is on film and second is on my old D700.
Yogifi wrote:
I am interested in the CV 58mm f1.4 (for people shots on film) -- sorry I know we are well off-topic now. And part of that was because it seemed rather sharp wide open! At least compared to the 55mm f1.2 nikon and cv on the philipreeves review.
I did a quick side-by-side comparison indoors now and it's not obvious. I could very well be jumping the gun like I do sometimes but I will do an outdoor test in better light tomorrow to make sure.
Versus the 50mm f1.4 to rule out light, and vs 40mm f1.2 to rule out focal length causing the difference in feeling of transparency. ...Show more →
Lovely photos! I've been very tempted by the 55mm f1.2 too.
My main interest with these F mounts is to shoot them with film as I went with Sony a7cii for the small size for digital.
But with my FM2N, it focusses wide open where I've read the 55 f1.2 is not the sharpest and I'm struggling as is with the 50mmf1.4. So I'm wondering how you found it, are you pressing the depth-of-field preview to focus?
I also like the compactness of my 50mmf1.4 AFD, will be seeing if I can get results I'm happy with after trying an entire roll at f2 (hopefully in-focus!) then grab the AIS version for a better feel with the mf.
Perhaps you have a poor copy of the Ultron? Before I got into Nikon, I had a couple of Canon cameras. A Canonet and a T80. The 50/1.8 for the T80 was a brilliant lens, but I went through four of them to find a good one. The one that came with the camera was straight awful and I nearly returned the entire kit. I returned to the camera store and they went through two other kits with the lenses being crap, then got permission from Canon to replace my lens with one from an individual lens box. That one was very good. Perhaps you have a lesser quality one.
Yogifi wrote:
Lovely photos! I've been very tempted by the 55mm f1.2 too. More so the CV one just because of marginal improvements in the 60 years since (and chances of getting one in better condition) but I think they tried to make it very similar and it should be close between them.
My main interest is to shoot it with film but with my FM2N, it focusses wide open where it's not the sharpest and I'm struggling as is with the 50mmf1.4. I also like the compactness of my 50mmf1.4 AFD, will be seeing if I can get results I'm happy with after trying an entire roll at f2 (hopefully in-focus!) then grab the AIS version for a better feel with the mf.
Back to my 40mm ultron thing, I think most of the problem was forgetting to apply the lens correction manually, I'm used to it auto-applying with with my CV lenses on Sony. Once I applied it, it was a lot better, and nothing really stood out in terms of transparency, but they all do look differently at f2 and even f4. I'll do the outdoor comparison still as it's kind of hard to tell with my cluttered desk comparison, I'll post it anyway in case it takes me some time to do the outdoor one, don't want to leave people who actually read this hanging.
Did my best to correct various things so they match up and lens corrections are applied on all them. CV Nokton and Ultron have been cropped to the field of view of the AFD, all at F2 mounted to the a7cii.
I don't see an issue with "transparency" with the corrections and all balanced out, though there is something there, at f2 anyway.
To me the Nokton and Nikon look more natural than the Ultron, I don't know how to describe it but it is was wide open for the ultron, though this is cropped. I compared only the two CV lenses at f4, and it's harder to notice any issue. At f2 you notice this almost strange brightness with the ultron at the center compared to the nokton. I had to raise the exposure on the Nokton by 0.7 to match the overall image more too.
Here's the uncropped of the nokton and ultron at f2.
Sorry I know it's not the best comparison, perhaps someone with more experience might find it more useful. Thought I'd share for those curious as I did get dm'd about it after mentioning it. When I look at the 40mm f1.2 and 40mm f2, uncropped and f2 with lens corrections, I like the 40mm f1.2 a lot more.
Something is just off with the ultron for me that I'm struggling to explain, it's harder to look at. But this is again wide open for it and I can't tell as easily at f4 (I didn't test f2.8). It probably won't matter for film and that's what I have it for. I like the AFD more (than the ultron) but 50 is a bit more restrictive for general walkabout....Show more →
Yogifi, I don't want to sound cranky here but you should know that four of those five photos aren't supposed to be here. I'm sure there are more appropriate threads in this forum. I'm not the person to judge the pics' qualities but FWIW I see nothing unusual about them, would not be able to distinguish one lens from another. Also FWIW, when I tried to load them into other tabs in my browser for quick AB comparison they would not load as images. They loaded as smaller images (useless for comparison) in full web pages surrounded by soft porn ads from that website.
kwoodard wrote:
Perhaps you have a poor copy of the Ultron? Before I got into Nikon, I had a couple of Canon cameras. A Canonet and a T80. The 50/1.8 for the T80 was a brilliant lens, but I went through four of them to find a good one. The one that came with the camera was straight awful and I nearly returned the entire kit. I returned to the camera store and they went through two other kits with the lenses being crap, then got permission from Canon to replace my lens with one from an individual lens box. That one was very good. Perhaps you have a lesser quality one.
It could be, I haven't tried a different copy and this one was hard to find in good condition - the new one is significantly longer, although tbh that probably makes it a little easier to use (at least initially - without much time with it) as the focus ring is quite narrow on this. It's fine though, nice and smooth and very compact and I love the overall package with the fm2n.
Honestly, I think there is something there to it but I'm guessing it's due to the small size, and physics.
It's also very minor and hard to see an issue at all in most shots. It's hard to explain what the issue even is. Maybe it's like the IQ looks a little "compressed" and that's making it feel not as transparent.
I don't know, it's something that just doesn't gel fully with me. And absolutely it might just be my copy though I haven't seen different enough output online to pay for another.
In fact I see it in basically every shot in this review:
Will give it a good shot and see if I still feel the same on film, need more experience with film first in general.
jimmuller wrote:
Yogifi, I don't want to sound cranky here but you should know that four of those five photos aren't supposed to be here. I'm sure there are more appropriate threads in this forum. I'm not the person to judge the pics' qualities but FWIW I see nothing unusual about them, would not be able to distinguish one lens from another. Also FWIW, when I tried to load them into other tabs in my browser for quick AB comparison they would not load as images. They loaded as smaller images (useless for comparison) in full web pages surrounded by soft porn ads from that website....Show more →
Sorry about that the ads, I just saw them when I disabled adblock for the site.
imgur is banned in the UK unfortunately. Postimg.cc does let you upload quite high resolution.
if you the open the image in a new tab, it will load up a smaller image, but you can click that and open that image in a new tab and it should be fine if needed.
I'll leave you guys be, thanks for putting up with the posts. I will edit the garden comparison images, if I take them, to the previous post for referencing instead of posting a new one.
Respectfully, I’d like to point out that all posted images in this thread need to be taken with Nikon manual focus lenses. AF lenses that are manually focused do not qualify. Please refer to the first post in the thread, which was made by the founding member. While our discussions may vary over time, they consistently revolve around these classic lenses. For a direct comparison between lens manufacturers A and B, you can find many other threads on the site that address this topic.
However, adhering to these guidelines has made this thread a very long-standing and well-established thread, with a rich history and numerous examples of these classic lenses.
, looks like a setup they did for you, two bookends. Nice shot!
