Manual Focus Nikon Glass
/forum/topic/929565/2847

1       2       3              2847      
2848
       2849              5890       5891       end

Randy Roy
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Total Posts: 1789
Country: United States

I just got a super clean 300mm/4.5 "K" lens from KEH. I just finished installing the AI ring on it. It's raining here right now - will post some shots later.

Here is a pic of the lens. Non-AI ring on the left: I stuck my head out the window and took one shot of a rose bush just to test.



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4683
Country: United States

pburke wrote:
MDoc9523 wrote:
Thank you all so much for your comments on the Charleston photos. Several folks have asked for a direct comparison between the 16mm 3.5 on DX vs FX. These shots are unscientific but they were both set at F16 in A mode. The first shot is with FX and second with DX using Center Weighted Average. They are SOOC



There's an illustration for at least half the reason I went from a DX body to FX. Not just how it changes this particular lens, but the performance of all my wide angle lenses. DX is handicapped at the wide end and you need (expensive) custom DX glass like the crazy 8-16mm Sigma to get something wide onto that tiny sensor. I didn't buy my 14mm Rokinon until after I got the D600, because on DX that massive lens is 'just" a 21mm, less than my comparably tiny 20mm f/3.5 Nikkor.


The reverse is true for me. Every time I have tried to talk myself into saving for a FF, I end up talking myself out of it. I like the Dx a lot because I can get away with not as pristine glass. I only use the central part of the lens and that is mostly where the sharpest images come from. Also, I like that I don't have to shell out as much for reach. Would I turn a FF down if the opportunity presented itself and I had the funds for one, probably not, but something to save for...not in the cards for me. I would like the sensor in the D7100, but for now, I am good with a Dx and my D7000.

I had an epiphany last night. I shoot more than pictures and was thinking about some of the pistol holsters I have seen people wear. Also, the department I work in includes the fashion department (sewing, etc.). Once upon a time I tried on my grandfathers shoulder harness holster. It was designed to carry two .45 Colts as well as 4 additional magazines. It fit so well that all the weight was felt on my legs, not my neck/back/waist. I am going to meet with the department chair for fashion and see if it (a new camera strap) could be a special project for an advanced student.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3008
Country: United States

kwoodard wrote: I like the Dx a lot because I can get away with not as pristine glass. I only use the central part of the lens and that is mostly where the sharpest images come from.

theoretically, I was thinking the same. However, when in photoshop and editing images, more often than not I turn off lens correction and definitely disable the vignette correction. I fact, unless I am stitching images, I find myself ADDING extra vignetting to the corners, so I really don't care too much about image quality down to the edges when the overall image is what asks for the light to lead the eyes to the center anyway. So unless the corners are solid black, the quality of the image way out there is less important to me than coverage or low light performance (could never shoot stars with a wide angle on DX for example)



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4683
Country: United States

pburke wrote:
kwoodard wrote: I like the Dx a lot because I can get away with not as pristine glass. I only use the central part of the lens and that is mostly where the sharpest images come from.

theoretically, I was thinking the same. However, when in photoshop and editing images, more often than not I turn off lens correction and definitely disable the vignette correction. I fact, unless I am stitching images, I find myself ADDING extra vignetting to the corners, so I really don't care too much about image quality down to the edges when the overall image is what asks for the light to lead the eyes to the center anyway. So unless the corners are solid black, the quality of the image way out there is less important to me than coverage or low light performance (could never shoot stars with a wide angle on DX for example)


That is a good point. I add in a bit of a vignette also. Stars are hard with a Dx. Can be done though. When I first got my D7000, I was given an 18-55/3.5-5.6 Sigma Dx lens, basic kit thing. Did a lot of night photography with it. Might have to post those in the "other" thread.



georgms
Registered: Jan 08, 2009
Total Posts: 4045
Country: Germany

Ray, thank you for the comparison! I have yet to try the 16/3.5 on the D7000.

Kevin, I hope the harness-idea works well for you. On the FX- vs DX-theme: I for my part was never really happy with my DX-bodies (the Fuji X100 the only exception). I love big and bright finders and the D700 brought back the fun into digital photography for me. I rarely used (and use today) MF-optics on the DX-bodies, while they feel like being at home on the D700. But I love shooting wide angle lenses and also love a super-shallow DoF, so I'm probably biased towards FX for this reason as well. Birders and macro-shooters might love the crop-factor ( I do from time to time while shooting sports), but for everyday use I prefer FX.
The argument of using just the central, better performing area of the image circle of a given lens proved to be not really valid for me. In fact, I think Nikon's FX 12MP-sensors are more "forgiving" than the 16MP-sensor in the D7000.
But that's just my personal opinion, not based on critical tests, rather from using a variety of lenses in the field.
Btw, I've just tried my old 28/2Ai on the D7000 and was surprised by the almost bitingly sharp images it delivered on DX, so please take the words above with a grain of salt.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3008
Country: United States

kwoodard wrote:
pburke wrote:
kwoodard wrote: I like the Dx a lot because I can get away with not as pristine glass. I only use the central part of the lens and that is mostly where the sharpest images come from.

theoretically, I was thinking the same. However, when in photoshop and editing images, more often than not I turn off lens correction and definitely disable the vignette correction. I fact, unless I am stitching images, I find myself ADDING extra vignetting to the corners, so I really don't care too much about image quality down to the edges when the overall image is what asks for the light to lead the eyes to the center anyway. So unless the corners are solid black, the quality of the image way out there is less important to me than coverage or low light performance (could never shoot stars with a wide angle on DX for example)


That is a good point. I add in a bit of a vignette also. Stars are hard with a Dx. Can be done though. When I first got my D7000, I was given an 18-55/3.5-5.6 Sigma Dx lens, basic kit thing. Did a lot of night photography with it. Might have to post those in the "other" thread.



Kevin, I did stars with the D7000 and D90 with the kit lenses, but most were fuzzy, and in all cases I had to go for star tracks. I never was able to get anything decent with a short exposure (e.g. sub 20 seconds to avoid tracks) and using a fast long lens such as my 85mm f/1.4 would have required a star tracker, which I wouldn't use enough to justify owning. With a fast 14mm f/2.8 and maybe one day a 24/1.4 on FX, though, I can snap a 15 sec image wide open and have a large number of stars without needing really high ISO. I can't post those in the other thread, since the lens is manual focus...




leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 12621
Country: United States

georgms wrote:
Ray, thank you for the comparison! I have yet to try the 16/3.5 on the D7000.

Kevin, I hope the harness-idea works well for you. On the FX- vs DX-theme: I for my part was never really happy with my DX-bodies (the Fuji X100 the only exception). I love big and bright finders and the D700 brought back the fun into digital photography for me. I rarely used (and use today) MF-optics on the DX-bodies, while they feel like being at home on the D700. But I love shooting wide angle lenses and also love a super-shallow DoF, so I'm probably biased towards FX for this reason as well. Birders and macro-shooters might love the crop-factor ( I do from time to time while shooting sports), but for everyday use I prefer FX.
The argument of using just the central, better performing area of the image circle of a given lens proved to be not really valid for me. In fact, I think Nikon's FX 12MP-sensors are more "forgiving" than the 16MP-sensor in the D7000.
But that's just my personal opinion, not based on critical tests, rather from using a variety of lenses in the field.
Btw, I've just tried my old 28/2Ai on the D7000 and was surprised by the almost bitingly sharp images it delivered on DX, so please take the words above with a grain of salt.


Georg, I know what you mean about the viewfinder. This was one of the main reasons I switched to the D600 from the D7000. It really does help in focusing.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3008
Country: United States

georgms wrote:

Btw, I've just tried my old 28/2Ai on the D7000 and was surprised by the almost bitingly sharp images it delivered on DX, so please take the words above with a grain of salt.


this must be a lens by lens thing - my 24mm/f2.8 was essentially useless on the D7000, same the 50mm/f1.8 which just wasn't sharp, all across the image. On the D600, both lenses are much sharper. I read something about the "angle of the light" in another thread, which discusses how FX lenses are designed differently from DX due to the way the sensors respond to light at various angles. Seems like there's a lot going on and not all FX lenses work well on DX sensors, even if you just grab the sweet spot in the middle.



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

Warning: Shameless Plug

Thinning out and have put four MF lenses up for sale on the B/S Forum. Let me know if you have any interest.
Scott



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4683
Country: United States

pburke wrote:
georgms wrote:

Btw, I've just tried my old 28/2Ai on the D7000 and was surprised by the almost bitingly sharp images it delivered on DX, so please take the words above with a grain of salt.


this must be a lens by lens thing - my 24mm/f2.8 was essentially useless on the D7000, same the 50mm/f1.8 which just wasn't sharp, all across the image. On the D600, both lenses are much sharper. I read something about the "angle of the light" in another thread, which discusses how FX lenses are designed differently from DX due to the way the sensors respond to light at various angles. Seems like there's a lot going on and not all FX lenses work well on DX sensors, even if you just grab the sweet spot in the middle.


I will agree 100% about some lenses not being Dx friendly (one 50/1.8 I tried wasn't very sharp regardless of aperture/light/focus, my Series E 50/1.8 I think speaks for itself). The Series E 28/2.8 is super hard to use and only seems to work (to my standards, which admittedly are very lofty) in the lenses sweet spot of f/5.6. What kills me is that some Dx oriented lenses can suck too. The 18-105 kit lens that came with my D7000...I could not get a sharp shot out of it to save its life (its selling paid for my first fast 50/1.8D, a very sharp lens).

The other thing I will agree with 100% is the Dx viewfinder (in general). It leaves a lot to be desired. I wear glasses and this compounds the effect. It is exceedingly hard to focus sometimes. The Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 is a bear to focus through the viewfinder at anything faster than f/8. I have yet to take a shot at 2.8 using the viewfinder that was in focus...not a single shot. Luckily the Live View is good and I can then focus there. Requires either a steady hand or a tripod, but workable.



georgms
Registered: Jan 08, 2009
Total Posts: 4045
Country: Germany

A quick shot under ugly conditions, will try to get something more out of this old squeeze-box this weekend:

poor little thing I von georgsfoto auf Flickr
it's probably a missing "b": D3s at ISO 6400, 1/50sec., handheld, PC-E 45/2.8D wide open, effective aperture as displayed f/3.8



georgms
Registered: Jan 08, 2009
Total Posts: 4045
Country: Germany

another one, this time with the D7000:

poor little thing II von georgsfoto auf Flickr
D7000 at ISO3200, 1/50sec. handheld, Ai-Nikkor 28/2 + PK-11A, full aperture



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

georgms wrote:
another one, this time with the D7000:

poor little thing II von georgsfoto auf Flickr
D7000 at ISO3200, 1/50sec. handheld, Ai-Nikkor 28/2 + PK-11A, full aperture


Georg, I like the graphic quality to this. Nice b&w conversion.



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

Not up to the standards set by others that have posted flowers in this thread, but this little ravine full of day lilies caught my eye. Taken with the 50mm 1.4 SC at f2.8.
Scott



kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4683
Country: United States

georgms wrote:
another one, this time with the D7000:

poor little thing II von georgsfoto auf Flickr
D7000 at ISO3200, 1/50sec. handheld, Ai-Nikkor 28/2 + PK-11A, full aperture


I like this alot! One thing that has me puzzled... How are you able to use a 28mm with 50mm+ of extension tube? Unless I have missed something vastly important, focusing should be inside the lens...! Mir helfen zu verstehen! (Did I say that right, my German is 20 years rusty).



georgms
Registered: Jan 08, 2009
Total Posts: 4045
Country: Germany

Scott, thank you!

Kevin, thanks! It was just the 8mm PK-11A extension tube. The tube with over 50mm of extension is the PN-11, if memory serves (don't own the PN-11, I think this one belongs to the 105 micros).
The 28/2 is always in for some wild highlights ;-)
Btw, your German is much better than my English.



saph
Registered: Jun 10, 2012
Total Posts: 3699
Country: United States

This is the PN-11 stuck on the 13.5cm 3.5Q at f/8. PN-11 is 52.5mm and I like it for its tripod foot (although this one is handheld)









saph
Registered: Jun 10, 2012
Total Posts: 3699
Country: United States

Georg, fun work with the WA + extension tube. Never think of using an extension tube with such a short fl. All the work here gives me ideas. I need to try something like that with the 35 1.4N to get closer to flowers or such.

Scott, very nice day lillies, and superb background!



saph
Registered: Jun 10, 2012
Total Posts: 3699
Country: United States

A couple more with the 13.5cm 3.5Q, these are all without any extension tubes:

f/4:






Some tiny flower bokeh, this one is wide open at f/3.5:






And a crop of part of the flowering branch with a beetle helping itself to the pollen:






kwoodard
Registered: Aug 04, 2012
Total Posts: 4683
Country: United States

Samy, love the shots with the Q... I love it's bokeh...



1       2       3              2847      
2848
       2849              5890       5891       end