CGrindahl wrote:
Thanks Gary. After a few years of buying Canon professional lenses at a thousand dollars a pop and more, it was an epiphany to discover I could buy great Nikon glass for less that $200 if I were willing to shoot manual focus. I still shake my head when I think of how much pleasure this collection of lenses is giving me. And, the huge gift is that slowing down to shoot manual focus has motivated me to get out and shoot more. The single AI-s lens that I'm ambivalent about is the 35 f/1.4 which is loved by some but not by all users. Add on top of that the price tag for that particular lens and I'm forced to consider whether it might not make more sense to invest in more expensive glass like the Zeiss ZF 35 f/2. At the moment I don't need to solve that question, though there happens to be a 35 f/1.4 on the board at the moment... ...Show more →
Zeiss. You know it to be true. Why pay the same or more for less than you'll get for the 35/2? You may or may not get a good copy of the 35/1.4. You know you'll get a great lens in the Zeiss.
thedruid wrote:
Be ready to see these "cheap" lens prices go through the roof, that's what happened to all the Contax lenses when Alt users started to put em on Canon DSLR's. Already at KEH the old Nikon MF inventory is about 40% of what it was a while back.
That already happened a long time ago. We are beyond the curve by about 36 months already.
I still have some of my original lenses from the 70's and I have to chuckle at how people have just now discovered the quality of old Nikon glass..............
jhinkey wrote:
Now that everyone is showing their lens portraits, I suppose I should as well:
400/5.6 ED-IF AIS, 300/4.5 ED-IF AIS, 200/4 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 105/2.5 AIS, 50/1.2 AIS, 28/2 AI, missing is my 16/3.5 AI'd
AWOL is my 24/2.8 AIS - this lens will be leaving soon (un-impressive).
- John
Yes, indeed. My guess those big guns aren't quite as inexpensive as the smaller lenses, though I've not been comparing prices on them. I'm curious John, about your experience with the 135 f/2 AI-s, which gets mixed reviews. It is a focal length that when shooting Canon was an all time favorite. In fact, it is one of five Canon lenses I still own. Do you enjoy shooting with that lens?
CGrindahl wrote:
Yes, indeed. My guess those big guns aren't quite as inexpensive as the smaller lenses, though I've not been comparing prices on them. I'm curious John, about your experience with the 135 f/2 AI-s, which gets mixed reviews. It is a focal length that when shooting Canon was an all time favorite. In fact, it is one of five Canon lenses I still own. Do you enjoy shooting with that lens?
Looking at that photo I thought of Seattle, which I confirmed by checking your website John. I lived in Seattle for a couple of years, first on Capitol HIll and then Queen Anne Hill before settling in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'll likely make a visit sometime later this year to visit my brother-in-law who recently moved to Edmonds. I won't tell you how long it has been since I left, but it could very well have been around the time you were born.
I see you're as diligent as most photographers looking for deals on gear. I haven't found anything worth buying at my local camera store but I've definitely bought on craigslist, E-Bay, Photo.net, DGrin, POTN and here. I've visited the Nikonians a few times though I've only recently come over to Nikon, so there seemed to be no need in the past to try out other websites.
Thanks for the overview of the 135. With the 105 and 180, together with a lovely Sigma 150, it might be a bit indulgent to add that length. As much as I loved the 135L, in truth, I didn't shoot with it that often. I used it primarily for street shooting with diminished frequency after I'd bought the 70-200 f/2.8L. If I do lean into that range again, however, I'd likely go with the AI-s rather than the DC. I'm still experiencing a bit of sticker shock when I view prices for Nikon lenses. I picked up the 135L at this site in perfect condition for about four hundred dollars less than a comparable Nikon lens. I can't believe for a moment the Nikon lens is superior to that Canon lens...
CGrindahl wrote:
Looking at that photo I thought of Seattle, which I confirmed by checking your website John.
Yes, we're lucky enough to live in West Seattle 5 minutes from The Sound. Plus my twin daughter's favorite playground is Whale Tale, just a block from Alki beach so I get to take very nice test shots from time to time. I don't have a lot of time to get out an take photos so I like to take good quality stuff with me.
I too have a 180mm (180/2.8 AF), so I'm pretty well covered from 105 through 200mm. Heck, I'm well covered from 16mm on up to 400mm if you include all my lenses.
I purposely started trying out AIS glass, both primes and zooms to find some of the reported (and not reported) gems on digital bodies. I think at this point I'm about done except for a decent full frame 24mm fast small-ish prime for when I switch to a FX body (I like wides and hate large lenses). I have yet to find an AIS zoom that I like on digital - just too many compromises/issues. The 35-70 AI is the only AIS zoom I still have and I still need to shoot it after having all the dust/grime cleaned out of the inner lens elements (it had terrible flare issues, but seemed to have really great image rendition).
I'm kind of new here at fredmiranda and so far I like the folks that inhabit this forum!
jhinkey wrote:
...I'm kind of new here at fredmiranda and so far I like the folks that inhabit this forum!
John
I've been here quite awhile but for many years my attention was focused on the Buy and Sell board where I found much of the gear in my kit. I'd peruse a number of forums and learned a great deal. I also discovered that some very nice folks hang out on FM, grownups actually, with whom one can have a conversation without needing to resort to nastiness to make a point. Gradually, over time, I began to comment occasionally on other boards, though it really has been since beginning to build a Nikon kit that I started sharing photos. That is likely in part because I created an account with Picasa that makes so easy the sharing of images.
I wonder whether you've come across Trenchmonkey's thread about the 75-150 f/3.5 E lens. A friend long ago told me about this lens and it appears to be one of the gems that works quite well on digital cameras. Will (Trenchmonkey) is quite delighted with the lens and the photos he shares suggest it is a winner. That lens can be found for less than a hundred bucks...
CGrindahl wrote:
I wonder whether you've come across Trenchmonkey's thread about the 75-150 f/3.5 E lens. A friend long ago told me about this lens and it appears to be one of the gems that works quite well on digital cameras. Will (Trenchmonkey) is quite delighted with the lens and the photos he shares suggest it is a winner. That lens can be found for less than a hundred bucks...
You can find decent 75-150 E's for $40-50 quite often on Ebay. Most of them have loose zoom rings, but one piece of electrical tape fixes that.
I just purchased a 50/1.2 off FM, and it's been on the D700 ever since. I agree with others, F/2 is the sweet spot for this lens. But it is definitely usable wide open.
Zichar wrote:
Just noticed this thread - the 50mm f1.2 absolutely needs the hood, does it?
Depends on what you're shooting. I inadvertently put a very small hood that belongs on the 28 f/2.8 on the 50 f/1.2 and didn't seem to have a problem with daylight shooting. I love to use the lens at night, so a hood hardly matters. Of course, if you can afford the lens you can afford the hood, the HS-12.
Congrats EDL... you might want to drop a name on the board or add it to your profile so we have a proper name to use. Mine is listed in my profile... Curtis.
I saw that listing. It looks like a beautiful copy of the lens. And you're absolutely right, the lens does fine wide open. I shot this wide open a couple of nights ago. I've been using the lens for street photography at night. Coupled with the D700 is it a great lowlight lens.
Thanks for the info Curtis
Thought the hood was necessary to decrease the chance of veiling flare and loss of contrast which tends to happen on older lenses
Buying the hood isn't the problem, finding a place for it in my Domke is! I also prefer the smaller profile that primes give me
Zichar wrote:
Thanks for the info Curtis
Thought the hood was necessary to decrease the chance of veiling flare and loss of contrast which tends to happen on older lenses
Buying the hood isn't the problem, finding a place for it in my Domke is! I also prefer the smaller profile that primes give me
-Z
Ain't it the truth... unlike the newer hoods that reverse back on the lens for more compact storing, these older lenses have metal hoods that screw or snap on and can't be reversed. BUT, in my mind that only adds to the beautiful precision of these lenses. I'm finding myself wanting to comment on threads in which members are considering this or that D or G lens, telling them "wait a minute, the really gorgeous Nikon lenses are manual focus AI and AI-s lenses!" But I keep my mouth shut, except where others who enjoy using these exquisite lenses hang out.
Here is what the hood looks like mounted on the lens... a quick snap.
The Nikon website has the HR-2 rubber hood under its accessories ;p
I have the pancake 50mm f1.8 AIs, which size appeals to me a great deal
Will hunt for a copy of the f1.2
Zichar wrote:
The Nikon website has the HR-2 rubber hood under its accessories ;p
I have the pancake 50mm f1.8 AIs, which size appeals to me a great deal
Will hunt for a copy of the f1.2
Yes, and they also make some lenses out of plastic. Forgive me, but I'm with the person who reviewed this lens on B&H who spoke of it as a "jewel." I feel that way about all of these older manual focus lenses. I understand the world has changed and for the working photographer who is interested only in the image he or she can capture, the fine points of craftsmanship and aesthetics are irrelevant. I'm not a collector, but I AM a fan of good design and fine execution of that design, whether in a lens, a building or an automobile. I can't afford a Maserati but I can afford an AI-s lens. I will certainly continue to appreciate the fine quality of its design as I shoot with it and you won't find a rubber hood settled above its front element...
CGrindahl wrote:
Excuse me... putting a rubber hood on this lens is sacrilege.
Maybe so,but they are quite convenient because of their ability to collapse especially for traveling...for sure,your not going to get the optimized hood for the lens,but it's better then no hood...but without a doubt the hood designed for the lens is the preferable way to go...especially when shooting wide open with wider lenses like ultra-wides where mechanical vignetting can be a problem for non-optimized hoods....obviously stopped down the lens negates this problem.
