Manual Focus Nikon Glass
/forum/topic/929565/2652

1       2       3              2652      
2653
       2654              4300       4301       end

leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 9451
Country: United States

MDoc9523 wrote:
Leighton love the winding road!

It's a "long" one.



leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 9451
Country: United States

raboof wrote:
leighton w wrote:
Hey Ray, great minds think alike!


OK, Leighton. I also took a cemetery picture yesterday. Not as good as yours so I didn't post. But here it is since we seem to targeting the same subjects

16mm







I wouldn't say that Chuong, I love it! I bet the cemetery is a great place to shoot with the 16mm.


leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 9451
Country: United States

Ok, while we're on the subject of trees.... AGAIN with the 50-135mm.



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 2967
Country: United States

Out of respect, I have removed the post.



pbraymond
Registered: Oct 23, 2009
Total Posts: 1080
Country: United States

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









Here's my picture post from northern Ohio....

take the photo above
imagine no snow but just brown leaves and twigs and dirt on the ground
take away the elevation gain from front to back of the photo
add a gray sky (though today was sunny)

and that's why there's been no outdoor shots in awhile. I actually kinda like your shot, Chuong.


CGrindahl
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Total Posts: 13159
Country: United States

Kevin, out of respect for Fred we've taken a position that perhaps is informal rather than legal, that folks will list gear they have for sale on this thread only if they have a Upload and Sell subscription. I know it is Fred's intention that the Buy and Sell thread is the only one in which sales are to be concluded. We will make private deals but only with members who have the subscription.

The cost of the subscription is modest and from my perspective is a way to support a website that gives me so much pleasure. I'd encourage you to secure the subscription and join the club. That looks like a very sweet lens. Someone will be very happy with it.



Reagan
Registered: Jan 10, 2010
Total Posts: 2992
Country: United States

I knew you would word it eloquently, Curtis

Reagan



Reagan
Registered: Jan 10, 2010
Total Posts: 2992
Country: United States

Tony, great start with Nikki
Curtis ,beautiful photos with her older sister
Chin, Nice to see the market there

Reagan



Reagan
Registered: Jan 10, 2010
Total Posts: 2992
Country: United States

Lieutenant Z wrote:
with the 28 & the 85 HC :




Love those 2 photos , Phillipe

Reagan

My eyes are tired and my contacts are giving me a little problem but I enjoyed all the images even if I didn't
comment on them



CGrindahl
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Total Posts: 13159
Country: United States

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. It is always a pleasure to see your work on this thread and every new MF Nikkor added to your kit increases the likelihood you'll join us.

I don't believe you were here when a former member of FM, Todd Adamson, was sharing a comparison he did between the Zeiss 100 and the Nikon 105 f/2.5. The Nikkor didn't do too badly. It was a bit like the 1973 Stag's Leap cabernet sauvignon that turned a few heads in Paris so many years ago...

He did a first comparison and then after receiving comments did a bit more elaborate comparison adding the Nikon 70-200 to the second part. Just for fun...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/940602/0?keyword=useless,exercise#8885589

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/940944



oh Curtis, Curtis - you love linking this but you've gotta stop it.....I love the nikon 105 - I've even got 4 different versions of it (one of which you forced me to buy) - but it's not the zeiss 100MP.

I'm not going get into whether one is better than the other - but they are VERY different. That's what I find so puzzling about his tests. Try as I might - I would find it very difficult to get the 100MP to look like the 105 - again not better or worse - but they render very differently, colour is the most obvious difference. Yet somehow he makes them all look the same. How does he do that? Hell, I reckon the different versions of the 105 render differently much less the zeiss.

But the main reason why I'm surprised you keep citing these tests is - they sort of defeat the purpose of this thread. He's making the 105 look just like the 70 - 200mm V1 - and I would have thought that, if there was any raison d'etre for this thread, it's that the manual focus nikons have a quality all their own, in particular the 105 - yet according to him it's indistinguishable from a modern (superseded) zoom.

I don't know what he's doing - but there ain't no way my 100MP looks just like my 105 - and if it really looked just like the 70 - 200 mm - well then, I could get rid of most of my lenses across that range and just shoot the zoom. We could all join a 70- 200mm thread and be done with it.

ben


Perhaps I haven't made clear why I post this, though I can quote from my comment on the second thread Todd started that essentially makes the point.

I love it! I'm late to the game after six days of relatives visiting from out of town, but this is precisely the comparison I was encouraging you to make. As I read folks "educated" guesses, which were all over the place, I was musing about a $200 lens being favorably compared with two lenses that cost over a thousand dollars more. Nikon shooters really are blessed to have these outstanding old lenses available to mount on our cameras. I took five MF lenses and NO AF lenses during my recent trip to the Netherlands and had a glorious time shooting. The D700 makes shooting manual focus a joy! Putting a 28-70 f/2.8 on my camera on Sunday was almost painful, but it was what the occasion called for.

Thanks Todd for giving us all the opportunity to consider this old gem. And thanks to all the FMers who spoke so highly of this lens in the past. It was my first MF purchase and will likely remain in my kit so long as I shoot Nikon...


Whether you're speaking about an $1,800 Zeiss or a $2100 dollar Nikkor zoom you're talking about big money. What Todd's exercise did was demonstrate that the 105 f/2.5 holds its own against these very pricey alternatives. I own three 105 f/2.5 lenses, the most expensive of which cost $197, the cheapest $90. I call that great value for money.

I've spent time on the alternative gear forum, a great deal in fact before I came to Nikon. A great many Canon shooters are playing with alternative gear and I was tempted to explore. I always shook my head when Zeiss fans were talking about micro-contrast and other esoteric terms while touting these lenses. I don't understand any of that, though I've done my share of wine tasting and know that ones capacity to discern and describe subtle differences is more an exercise in subjectivity than anything else. And so I smiled when a few fans of Zeiss were so mistaken in evaluating the lenses Todd used.

But I've nothing against Zeiss. I've been tempted more than once to pick up one or more of the lenses and put them through their paces. The thing that holds me back at this time is my enjoyment of this thread. Spending time on other forums within FM I haven't found another thread that comes close to this one in terms of collegiality. I'm not a big fan of technical analyses, though I enjoy what John and Jose do from time to time. I'm not interested in either the technical or aesthetic evaluation. That said, I am having a great time evaluating a few single malt Scotches... DIfferent strokes I guess. Nikkor MF lenses are still working for me.



CGrindahl
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Total Posts: 13159
Country: United States

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.






rafaelcasd
Registered: Jan 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1462
Country: United States

Curtis, the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo Photo shows you were an early DSLR nikkor MF user.

Cadman, great kit for your new D800E, did you receive them all?

Peter, Keurboomstrand looks very nice indeed, your D200 photos have a beautiful yo-no-se-que

Ronny, you have the most beautiful dog in the world, or your photos make it look so

Ron, did you get the TC16A to work? I tried with mine but gave up and bought and already modified one, very useful for sunlit shots with long lenses. Envy your 200-400 4.0

Philippe the Maja painting photo is Maja-estic! and the B&W juxtaposition mind expanding

Leighton, beautiful cemetery, can't say I saw one with a Barn before

Jose, thank you for bringing Pompei back to life for us, did you go to Herculaneum?

Chin, film still exists? you make it live!

Nice Sunsets Sam

Tony great sky in your Lake Skinner panoramas

Mark is knowledgeable about coffe planting altitute and mail order roman empire mosaics!

Rusty Chuong, haunting cemetery tree, Leighton responded and so do I below with a haunting tree of my own

Ben, your dissertation about the look from different lenses is right on. I post below a photo with the 20mm UD fully open in celebration


My haunted tree response 16mm 3.5


nikon nikkor 16mm 3.5 at 11 D800 Coatepeque Lake driveway by Rafael CA, on Flickr

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



asiostygius
Registered: Nov 29, 2011
Total Posts: 2638
Country: Brazil

CGrindahl wrote:
Two taken with Nikki's older sister, the H version AI'd. I guess I'm practicing in preparation for Nikki's arrival. Love your work with her Tony.



It deserves another look. Very nice Curtis!



bruni
Registered: Feb 15, 2012
Total Posts: 1422
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: 2638
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: 930
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: 2638
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: 3548
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: 2638
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: 2638
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?



1       2       3              2652      
2653
       2654              4300       4301       end