Yeah - I agree mawz. Don't get me wrong though - I LOVE getting a really good performing lens for super cheap. There is a certain satisfaction with getting good results on the cheap. However, I wouldn't buy a (perhaps) lesser performing lens just to save $100. I think if one can can find good lenses which meet personal needs/wants, for cheap, that is the ideal situation.
I think Nikon's best bargains are in the lenses where the specs, performance, and price would be difficult to replicate without spending a lot more or going through major pains to adapt/convert. 28/PC, 135/2, 180/2.8, 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/4.5. The 35/1.4 probably belongs on that list, but it's got more competition now at roughly the same price point regardless of the mount you shoot. They're all strong performers and all relatively inexpensive.
I'd add the 28/2.8 AI-S (unmatched for close-focus performance in a 28 and still one of the best options at infinity short of the Distagon or Elmarit-R V2) and 105/2.5 (The unZeiss) to that list. Both are world-class optics available for reasonable prices that rival the best in their classes. And neither have a good cheaper option (the OM 28/3.5 is arguable, it's excellent but the Nikkor has it beat in speed, MFD and flare resistance while being as good or better at infinity. The best argument for the OM is its bargain basement pricing, there's nothing even close for the sub-$100 price it typically sells for).
Gary Clennan wrote:
However, I wouldn't buy a (perhaps) lesser performing lens just to save $100. I think if one can can find good lenses which meet personal needs/wants, for cheap, that is the ideal situation.
true, other than the 105/2.5 though, the cheap nikkors don't seem to stand out from the pack. when you get to the expensive lenses there certainly are some standouts though.
edit: oh yeah, forgot about the 28/2.8 ais. it seems to be best close up and only average at infinity though.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Price is really not a big decision factor as most of these lenses (generally speaking) are quite inexpensive... A hundred bucks here or there is not worth fussing over if you are getting a good lens.
maybe to you...
I have two Nikon lenses. The 55mm f3.5 micro nikor AI and the 105mm f1.8 AI-s. both are really sharp. unfortunately for me I have been unsuccessfully trying to move them along so I can buy a gw690 ii or iii. apparently this weekend no one thinks a 55/3.5 is worth ~100 dollars because I havent had any interest.
well, this is an image thread so Ill post some shots instead of QQing only.
redisburning - those two are really good lenses. I have used both with great results. You will sell them but it may take a while.... Maybe try GetDPI? I have had good luck selling older stuff there.
cputeq wrote:
And that's why I tried to word my rebuttal fairly neutrally - it seemed to me this thread had been created for Nikkor lenses on Nikon cameras, whatever the type. It's quite possible I misunderstood the direction of the thread.
I am not sure why you had that impression. Bif doesn't own a Nikon camera, to my knowledge, but shoots on MFT.
Thanks man! Yeah, the 105/2.8 on the GH2 is kinda nice that way. I can't wait till the OM-D drops to around $500 or so... So I can squash the motion blur as well!
At least I assume the OM-D's IS will work at 1/100s ~ 1/1000s - not really sure.
I borrowed a Nikkor 10.5cm f/2.5 LTM a few months ago to try on the M9. Very nice lens! Super long focus throw, so rangefinder focusing with it was actually pretty accurate at farther distances. Also very nice rendering, with strong global contrast and not necessarily brutal sharpness, especially at closer distances where there seems to be a touch of SA. My understanding is it's a Sonnar design and the early F mount version was only subtly modified to allow mirror clearance. At some later point the F version was optically revised...
Minimum focusing distance is about 1m with that lens. The top image of the plant is likely at minimum distance. The rope was photographed at a dock, so might be larger in real life than you are visualizing. I think I was shooting down on it from standing position, so around 1.5m or so.
)