mawz Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
gyoung143 wrote:
I dont think the 'long nose' 1.8 is a different design to the pancake or af? I've never heard anyone say that before.
I've had a pancake and an af for nearly 30 years and they perform identically, and have lasted well so I don't think there's anything wrong with the build quality. I've used a 'long nose' in the past and I don't remember any noticeable difference. They are not nice at 1.8, but excellent stopped down to 2.8 at least.
I have a friends 50/2 Nikkor H to try at the moment. But the micro 55/3.5 is really good as long as you're close, and I would expect the Planar to be better, as my Leica Summicron and Summilux were when I tried them.
Gerry ...Show more →
While both the Long Nose and the Series E designs are 6/5 designs, they do perform quite differently, with the Long Nose performing more like the 50/2 than the pancake. The most noticeable difference is in how close groups' 3 and 4 are to the aperture, which was reduced for the pancake variant over the 50/2 and Long-Nose designs.
The same optical design was used from the Series E through the AF-D, with differing barrel designs. All the pancakes are included in this. I've owned all these lenses and the difference between the Long Nose and the pancakes at wide apertures was quite noticeable.
The following story tells the tale of the Series E and pancake AI-S design, the Long Nose is not covered by that as it's a separate design
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0060/index.htm
Edited on Jul 18, 2019 at 02:44 PM · View previous versions
|