Manual Focus Nikon Glass
/forum/topic/929565/2519

1       2       3              2519      
2520
       2521              5889       5890       end

bruni
Registered: Feb 15, 2012
Total Posts: 1650
Country: Australia

CGrindahl wrote:
bruni wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Philippe, you could always add a 105 f/2.5 to your kit to cover that focal length at a considerably reduced price. INikkor MF lenses are still working for me.



Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.

What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).

nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.

We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.

Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.

ben Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.

What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).

nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.

We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.

Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.

ben



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

mp356 wrote:
leighton w wrote:
Thank you Chuong and Laura. I hope you can un-boot soon as well!

Here are a few from this morning, the light was quite nice. Let me explain the first one. When the snow starts to melt on the barn roof it curls when the weight of it comes off the edge. It has a nice curve to it that the shadow of the nearby tree followed. All taken with the 50-135mm.








Hi Leighton, sitting around did not make you rusty at shooting. Really like this image of the icicles.
Scott

+1


kings_freak
Registered: Jun 02, 2011
Total Posts: 952
Country: United States

leighton w wrote:
Thank you Chuong and Laura. I hope you can un-boot soon as well!

Here are a few from this morning, the light was quite nice. Let me explain the first one. When the snow starts to melt on the barn roof it curls when the weight of it comes off the edge. It has a nice curve to it that the shadow of the nearby tree followed. All taken with the 50-135mm.







Awesome Leighton!

–Tony


asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

leighton w wrote:
raboof wrote:
That is really sharp with the H Ai'd, Curtis.
I got nothing. Didn't manage to get out while the snow was here.

All melted - 20mm 3.5









Oh...I wouldn't say nothing... Nice. Looking forward to seeing what you do with the D600.

+1. Beautiful capture!


Zichar
Registered: May 13, 2009
Total Posts: 3759
Country: Singapore

bruni wrote:

Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.

What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).

nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.

We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.

Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.



Every wee dram not drunk is money that goes towards the Zeiss?
When you do get it, I suppose you'd be preoccupied for quite awhile.
I wouldn't mind having the 24PCE go around the world...
Just sayin'



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

CGrindahl wrote:
So... after many days of procrastinating, I did my laundry this afternoon. Guess what that means? Bicycle photos... and a few other things as well. These were taken with the 85 f/1.8 H AI'd I bought for myself after buying one for Rinie, who'd already had a spin with Nikki and found herself enjoying the focal length. I've always liked 85mm and at the moment have four primes at that length, three of which are MF. But I wasn't successful finding an H.C. and so we both settled for the older version. It certainly is a fine performer. I'm happy to have it in my kit.






Gorgeous flowers.



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

rafaelcasd wrote:
....

Back home on a rainy day, 20mm UD at 3.5, this will ruin my reviewer reputation but my copy of the UD is sharpest at 3.5, loses sharpness at 5.6 and kind of matched 3.5 at 8.0 with more even illumination.


nikon nikkor nippon kogaku 20mm 3.5 at 3.5 F3 by Rafael CA, on Flickr



Wow Rafael, this is an unbelievable and sharp wide open lens!! And what a PP! Are you drinking Philippe's cognac?



CGrindahl
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Total Posts: 16784
Country: United States

Ben, thou dost protest too much. If you believe that Todd was pulling one over on us, you're free to do your own comparison. Todd was a bit irascible but he was certainly a forthright fellow. I believe he took the photos posted with the lenses he mentioned and processed them minimally and folks couldn't distinguish the Zeiss from the Nikkors. Whatever the secret sauce is that you believe is evident with the Ziess lens wasn't apparent to quite a few folks who use the lens. That was one reason I had to smile.

I don't know if you own the Zeiss 100, but you can likely get your hands on one. Do a comparison with one of the 105s and post it in the Nikon forum and see what folks have to say. The proof is in the pudding...

Todd's was pretty tasty...



mp356
Registered: May 31, 2009
Total Posts: 5639
Country: United States

asiostygius wrote:
leighton w wrote:
raboof wrote:
That is really sharp with the H Ai'd, Curtis.
I got nothing. Didn't manage to get out while the snow was here.

All melted - 20mm 3.5









Oh...I wouldn't say nothing... Nice. Looking forward to seeing what you do with the D600.

+1. Beautiful capture!

Very nice Chuong.


Zichar
Registered: May 13, 2009
Total Posts: 3759
Country: Singapore

Thanks for the kind comments. That's unfortunately all I have from the markets
From near my workplace, there's a semiconductor fab mini-plant upstairs I think
Have had this shot in my mind for some time now - capturing the natural lighting of the airwell with the cross-shaped shadow of the link walkway

FE2 + 400TX + 35/2 AI



to remind you (Roll 4668 006) by Zichar, on Flickr


CGrindahl
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Total Posts: 16784
Country: United States

Zichar wrote:

Every wee dram not drunk is money that goes towards the Zeiss?
When you do get it, I suppose you'd be preoccupied for quite awhile.
I wouldn't mind having the 24PCE go around the world...
Just sayin'


A friend and I split the cost of a bottle of Bruichladdich 10 year old Laddie single malt. It was the first 10 year produced by the new buyers.

http://www.bruichladdich.com/the-whisky/classic-whisky/classic-bruichladdich/the-laddie-10-year-old-whisky

We tasted it last night using Glencairn whisky glasses.

http://www.glencairn.co.uk/whisky-glass/

It was a very fine whisky. Here's a review by a character named Ralfy who seems quite knowledgeable about such things.



jhinkey
Registered: Jan 08, 2010
Total Posts: 8405
Country: United States

bruni wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
bruni wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Philippe, you could always add a 105 f/2.5 to your kit to cover that focal length at a considerably reduced price. INikkor MF lenses are still working for me.



Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.

What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).

nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.

We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.

Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.

ben Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.

What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).

nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.

We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.

Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.

ben


I rented the 100/2MP ZF2 from lens rentals and I gotta say that it beats the pants off the 105/2.5 for sharpness at 36MP - especially away from the center and it has a bit less PF at highlights, but does have some LaCA. The 100MP is great for shooting wide open - it doesn't get all that much sharper stopping down (the contrast increases a bit). On a D800 I found my beloved 105/2.5 AIS goes a bit soft in the edges and corners stopped down while the Zeiss, at any aperture, is just about equally sharp across the frame even into the last pixels of the corners. Very very impressive. It also focuses very close (like, 'cause it's a "macro" lens) and has surprisingly pretty decent flare/ghosting resistance. However the 100MP is NOT the end-all-be-all of absolute sharpness as at infinity my 70-200/2.8 AFS at 105mm at f/5.6 is an equal match for the Zeiss, though the zoom just can compare at f/2, f/2.8, or even f/4.

What the Zeiss is NOT includes: compact, lightweight, inexpensive, built-in hood (the metal hood I found to be a bit cumbersome to use and annoyingly loose), half-click/stop aperture reporting to the camera.

The 105/2.5 has it's place, but the two are very different beasts for sure. The 105/2.5 does well as a casual lens (throw it in the bag and go) while with the Zeiss you have to really want to take it someplace due to it's size and weight.

Not sure how this 100MP vs. 105/2.5 thing got started - they both allow for fine images when used to their fullest extent, but are very different beasts for sure.

PS -

I think Todd did not notice much difference because he was shooting portraits (so border/edges/corners did not come into play), was using a 12MP camera, I don't recall any high contrast scenes, and perhaps was more attune to color differences than most (especially if artificially lit). He also, like many (myself included) had a sample size of exactly 1 for each lens.

I did not find the color of the Zeiss to be noticeably different than any of my other lenses when shot side-by-side (perhaps I'm not as sensitive to those things). I also did not find the fabled/mythical Zeiss "pop" in colors either.

I shot both in landscape-type situations with a D800 and perhaps that's why I've seen differences.

I got my 105/2.5 for $125 (or something obscene like that) while the 100MP is $1K+. One could argue effectively that for most situations the price difference is not worth it.



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

Thank you Ronny, Ray, philippe, Peter and Rafael for the comments.

Before bed two more shots from my second day at Pompeii.

Pompeii road showing the pedestrian crossings:


Pompeii road showing the pedestrian crossings by labecoaves, on Flickr

D7000 + Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 ai, ISO 320, wide open at 1/8000s.

Road inside ancient Pompeii with stone blocks supposedly used for pedestrian crossings to sidewalks. At the same time there are enough spaces for cart traffic.
The roads were paved with slabs of lava rock. Most of Pompeii's roads included sidewalks. The visible ruts were left in the road by the cart wheels.



Remains of a door's house at Via dell'Abondanza in Pompeii:


Remains of a door's house at Via dell'Abondanza in Pompeii by labecoaves, on Flickr

D7000 + Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 ai, ISO 320, f/5.6 at 1/3200s.
These remains of a door were recovered by the plaster cast system. Large decoration bronze studs are still in the place.



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 3288
Country: Brazil

asiostygius wrote:
edit: some mistake here, sorry



jhinkey
Registered: Jan 08, 2010
Total Posts: 8405
Country: United States

Jose -

Not only are the images great, but your comments are great too. Love getting a little bit of history and context along with the images.

John



rafaelcasd
Registered: Jan 07, 2011
Total Posts: 2486
Country: United States

CGrindahl wrote:
Ben, thou dost protest too much. If you believe that Todd was pulling one over on us, you're free to do your own comparison. Todd was a bit irascible but he was certainly a forthright fellow. I believe he took the photos posted with the lenses he mentioned and processed them minimally and folks couldn't distinguish the Zeiss from the Nikkors. Whatever the secret sauce is that you believe is evident with the Ziess lens wasn't apparent to quite a few folks who use the lens. That was one reason I had to smile.

I don't know if you own the Zeiss 100, but you can likely get your hands on one. Do a comparison with one of the 105s and post it in the Nikon forum and see what folks have to say. The proof is in the pudding...

Todd's was pretty tasty...


A Lens duel - to the death!



kings_freak
Registered: Jun 02, 2011
Total Posts: 952
Country: United States

Thank you for all the comments on my first Nikki series!

I just received my 16mm ƒ3.5 (that was fast!) and my first thought was that he sent me the wrong lens! I don't know what I was envisioning, but I thought it would be much bigger. I am actually quite happy with it's size. It will make it easier to pack it in the bag and walking around will be no problem. It will get a nice workout tomorrow when I take it and Nikki to the Temecula Rod Run. Should be a pretty day here with cloudy skies and in the mid 60's.

–Tony


I thought you'd be bigger... by T&J Photography, on Flickr



rafaelcasd
Registered: Jan 07, 2011
Total Posts: 2486
Country: United States

kings_freak wrote:
Thank you for all the comments on my first Nikki series!

I just received my 16mm ƒ3.5 (that was fast!) and my first thought was that he sent me the wrong lens! I don't know what I was envisioning, but I thought it would be much bigger. I am actually quite happy with it's size. It will make it easier to pack it in the bag and walking around will be no problem. It will get a nice workout tomorrow when I take it and Nikki to the Temecula Rod Run. Should be a pretty day here with cloudy skies and in the mid 60's.

–Tony



Tony, you will be happy with this lens, but do not trust the lens cap, it will come off in your bag and ruin the glass, this was posted before,

quote]rafaelcasd wrote:
A word of advice from my own experience, I have long worried about my 16mm fisheyes, their caps are near useless, cannot keep the lenses on the camera or in a camera bag unless you are actually using it. I started using bubbles with the cap on the lens, but after an incident where the cap came loose within the bubble now I keep it and carry it in camera bags in the Nikon bubble with no caps.

This is what I mean:


nikon nikkkor 16mm 3.5 with D3 55mm 3.5 by Rafael CA, on Flickr


These bubbles can be found on ebay for $15 to $20 in good condition, it need not be pretty, do clean the bubble prior to use as it will be dusty after all those years. Make sure your lens bayonets into the bubble tightly, some are worn in the base mount.


nikon nikkor 16mm 3.5 in buble with 55mm 3.5 D3 by Rafael CA, on Flickr



NightOwl Cat
Registered: Feb 19, 2007
Total Posts: 9315
Country: United States

been on the gogo all day, just got home and wanted to post these before I went to sleep so Leighton could see one of them for sure

First two, I'm torn which I like, the first or the second. The 55 is how many years they've been broadcasting, but I also like the bokeh of the second.



rafaelcasd
Registered: Jan 07, 2011
Total Posts: 2486
Country: United States

asiostygius wrote:
rafaelcasd wrote:
....

Back home on a rainy day, 20mm UD at 3.5, this will ruin my reviewer reputation but my copy of the UD is sharpest at 3.5, loses sharpness at 5.6 and kind of matched 3.5 at 8.0 with more even illumination.


nikon nikkor nippon kogaku 20mm 3.5 at 3.5 F3 by Rafael CA, on Flickr



Wow Rafael, this is an unbelievable and sharp wide open lens!! And what a PP! Are you drinking Philippe's cognac?


Jose
A 1000 pixel image can be misleading, my copy of the UD is sharp enough at the center, at 3.5 the UD is not sharp in the corners and is only sharp in the edges if the curvature of field matches the topography. But it softens gracefully and renders an interesting image at 3.5 with most of the central area in sharp focus. As I said it degrades at 5.6 and comes back at 8.0. For best results I need to focus on the furthest part of the photo and let the curvature of field work, or not, in most cases the floor and the sides are closer and it works, this is the least predictable of all my lenses, particularly if you focus close.
Saturation is courtesy of a heavily overcast day. I plan to use wide open to create 'moody landscapes', The red wine I was drinking was excellent but it barely does white balance.

As a side comment, when I focus the 16mm, I focus it on the closest part of the image and it carries sharpness all the way out, this lens does the opposite, I focus in the furthest part and it carries sharpness back in.



1       2       3              2519      
2520
       2521              5889       5890       end