Curtis, that has to be one of my favorite flower photos from you. Beautiful colors

John, outstanding scenery

Reagan

Dustin Gent wrote:
I am been drawn to this thread, and have gone through the first 226 pages (daunting task lol).

So I have not really owned an AF enabled lens in years, so this thread is GREAT! I had the 85mm 1.8G for a few weeks, but sold it to pick up a Samyang 14mm 2.8.

My question is what to get next. I have seen the amazing shots with both the 75-150 and the 80-200 f/4.5 - and both are pretty cheap. The 25-50 is out of control $$$ - probably thanks to this thread

Is there another lens in the 20-70mm range that is as good as the 25-50? I still have 2000 pages to go through, lol.
Oh and I shoot with a D700

Welcome, Dustin!
Sorry, I can't help answering your question - the only MF-Nikkor-Zomm I've used is the 35-135/3.5-4.5 (my tip: stay away from it :-)
I don't know if you still own the 17/3.5 (I remember your outstanding work over at the other lengthy thread), but the 24/2.8 in every MF-version would make a good compact and worthy companion to any 17 or 14mm lens.
The 50/1.8 is another gem that can be found for a good price.

kings_freak wrote:
Great shot Jeff. Is that preserve the one down in San Diego? Good luck with the surgery!

–Tony

Thanks much Tony!

The preserve in the shot is in Coachella Valley near Palm Desert.

http://www.fws.gov/saltonsea/Coachella/CV_index.html

Jeff, Leighton, Ray, Ronny, Kevin, Tony and Reagan: thanks for your kind comments!

Tony, regarding the sharpness of the 105/1.8: I did an informal, very unscientific test of several short and fast tele-lenses and found that at medium distances all the lenses were lacking sharpness wide open.
Close up, for head-and-shoulder-portraits, I've found the 105/1.8 is just right wide open. Not "clinical" sharp, but not too soft, with a beautiful rendering of skin and hair.
edit: "tested" lenses were the "old" AF-D 85/1.4, the AF-S 85/1.8G, the 105/1.8 Ais, a converted Summicron-R 90/2 and the Ais 135/2. I would really like to know how the DC-lenses would have performed and also the 85- and 100-Zeiss-optics. The AF-S 85/1.4G is reported to be pretty good at medium distances - still have to try this one.

I had occasion Georg to shoot with the Summicron R 90/2 converted and loved the experience. I even went shopping for a bit, but then thought the better of it. I think I bought the 105 f/1.8 AI-s shortly thereafter both as an antidote for that lens and the Zeiss 100/2 I shot with the same day. I saved a great deal of money with that decision, which I haven't regretted.

A couple of more from today, both shot with the 135 f/2 AI-s bare. I believe both were shot at f/2.8.

jhinkey wrote:
Thanks for all the kudos from today's shots. I'm about to fall asleep after getting up so early and gaining 1,500 ft or so of elevation on skis.

Here's a couple more. Not all from Nikki - I also took the 16/3.5 AI of course. The 50/1.8G was also in the backpack, but it was never used.

The second shot of what I assume are the tracks from the ski's is great. Love the last one as well.

georgms wrote:
Kevin, I like the portrait of the singer - very nice conversion. I always try to find something not totally black behind a person on stage to bring a bit of life to the background.


Our stage has a black velvet background. I wish they would use something else from time to time. Thanks for the compliment. All I did with this one was desaturate it...

Curtis, we shot the same kind of flowers today... This was taken with my Series E 50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8 like you did. Slight crop and a touch of sharpening. Getting it right in camera takes a lot more work for me, but it saves so much time in post.


DSC_6613 by Kevin.Woodard, on Flickr

georgms wrote:
Jeff, Leighton, Ray, Ronny, Kevin, Tony and Reagan: thanks for your kind comments!

Tony, regarding the sharpness of the 105/1.8: I did an informal, very unscientific test of several short and fast tele-lenses and found that at medium distances all the lenses were lacking sharpness wide open.
Close up, for head-and-shoulder-portraits, I've found the 105/1.8 is just right wide open. Not "clinical" sharp, but not too soft, with a beautiful rendering of skin and hair.
edit: "tested" lenses were the "old" AF-D 85/1.4, the AF-S 85/1.8G, the 105/1.8 Ais, a converted Summicron-R 90/2 and the Ais 135/2. I would really like to know how the DC-lenses would have performed and also the 85- and 100-Zeiss-optics. The AF-S 85/1.4G is reported to be pretty good at medium distances - still have to try this one.

I currently have a 100/2 MP ZF2 rental (it's due to be shipped out tomorrow back to lens rentals) that I've been comparing to my other lenses.
In a nutshell, the claim to fame of the 100/2MP is not color rendering or (micro-)contrast, but rather it's corner to corner sharpness either wide open or stopped down. It seems to have no spherical aberration wide open (or very little at least) and thus is very sharp even wide open and gets just a bit sharper when stopped down. I tested my sample at infinity and it beats the 105/2.5 AIS handily in corner sharpness and overall contrast. I compared it to my 90/3.5CV at infinity and actually the 90CV was a hair better in sharpness across the frame with the same amount of contrast. The 100/2 MP also is very sharp up close (as is the 90/3.5CV).

I also tested my 70-200/2.8 VRII at 100mm against the 100/2 MP and found the sharpness at f/4 to be the same on my D800 except for the very far corners of the frame where the zoom tended to fall a bit short of the prime - not unexpected. This kind of behavior is backed up by photozone's test of each lens.

The DC lenses I've found to be just so-so. Specifically I found that my copy of the 135/2DC to be not sharper than my 135/2 AIS and super finicky to get to AF accurately - so why bother? I also have used the 105/2 DC and it seemed much better AF-wise, but it suffers from a bit of low contrast wide open with a lot of CA (as does the 135/2DC) although it is a bit sharper than the 135/2DC wide open (at least the copies I had). For the price you are better off with a used Zeiss 100/2.

John

Just bought my first MF Nikkor lens - a 200mm f/4 AI in mint shape for $110 shipped.. Heading to Yosemite end of next week, and want something to try and shoot Horsetail Falls when it is lit. Hope it is good

An excellent choice - I've taken many a fine image with that lens. What camera do you have?

John

D700 Now I need to fill the void between 14mm and 200mm, the only two lenses i own I am thinking a 35mm FL of some sort.

It does very very well on the D700.

Dustin Gent wrote:
D700 Now I need to fill the void between 14mm and 200mm, the only two lenses i own I am thinking a 35mm FL of some sort.

A 105/2.5 AIS is in your future . . .

And a 50/1.8/1.4/1.2, an 85/1.8, a 28/2.8, and a ...

kwoodard wrote:
And a 50/1.8/1.4/1.2, an 85/1.8, a 28/2.8, and a ...

Happy dreams................

CGrindahl wrote:
MDoc9523 wrote:
Outstanding John!
Philip that shot is amazing!

Kudos to you both. Both winter shots, but mountain blue and urban BW. These are outstanding shots, each in its own way. Well done guys!


+1

CGrindahl wrote:
A couple of more from today, both shot with the 135 f/2 AI-s bare. I believe both were shot at f/2.8.



Both are nice, and thanks for the colors, very much needed around here at this time of year. I particularly like this one how the red of the flower agrees with the red of the fence.

Dustin Gent wrote:
D700 Now I need to fill the void between 14mm and 200mm, the only two lenses i own I am thinking a 35mm FL of some sort.

Dustin, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I have and like the 28-50mm f3.5 ais, ut there are a couple of things about it you should know. On FX it vignettes a little at the wide end and shot wide open, not really a deal-breaker, but something to be aware of. It also doesn't focus as close as the 28mm f2.8, and it's for this reason I want to get a version of the latter. It has a somewhat usable micro feature at the 50mm end but it's NOT like a real micro.

I have the 50-135mm f3.5 AI-s and absolutely LOVE it. I also have the 80-200mm f4.5 ai and really like that as well. Someone said to look out for zoom creep, and he was right, most of them suffer from this, but don't let that be a deciding factor because for old zooms, they are worth the quirks.

Dear All,
Unfortunately life has kept me very off balance these last few weeks and I have barely been able to keep up with this thread, let alone comment on all the fantastic photos that have been posted. All I can say is that the quality has been as high or even higher as always.
I would like to make just two quick comments and apologies these are not strictly MF lens related.
1) Matt, I am glad to hear that the therapy has been working on pain relief for you, I hope that it continues to improve your neck and you get more and more pain free time.
2) Alan congratulations to Nikki and yourself on expecting your second child. Great news and I loved the series of your son showing how much he’s grown! I wish I’d thought of the same for my boy.

Lastly no more MF lenses for me, number 9 arrived thanks very much to Steven (Stevenvh) who has been very kind with a 85mm that just needs a little love but otherwise looks fab. I look forward to getting it back from the repair shop and giving it a whirl.
Oh wait. I still have a non-CPU lens slot on my D200 spare….

Hi. Back again.

My D700 has shipped and will arrive tomorrow. Thankfully, it will be a sunny, low assignment day, so I will be able to get out after I charge the battery!

I have the following lenses: 28 2.8ais, 50 1.2ais, 85 2 ai, 105 2.5ais. I was thinking of the 135 2.8ais, but realize that I have absolutely no AF lenses to fit this camera, and no zooms. I got a little better than expected on the sale for my Canon stuff, so I have another $500 or so to play with.

When I go to Lightroom and look back on my 3-4 years with the 7D, more than 90% of my shots were taken with the 17-55 2.8. So I could be looking for a mid range af zoom, or, with the 28 and 50 in mf, a long range zoom to compliment them. Preferably af.

Any suggestions?