From those samples, it looks like the Nikkor is sharper, or my long lens technique is worse than Thor's, or Thor's PP technique is better than mine, or all of the above.
Here is another sample, although it's not what one would typically use this lens for. Heavy sharpening and moderate contrast boost applied.
I had 2 nice, sharp mirror lenses that I converted to EF mount and sold. I used Sunny f/16 rule for exposure and LiveView 10x for MF help, on a tirpod, remote switch. The blur tool in Photoshop can help any dognuts.
Navyblue wrote:
From those samples, it looks like the Nikkor is sharper, or my long lens technique is worse than Thor's, or Thor's PP technique is better than mine, or all of the above.
Here is another sample, although it's not what one would typically use this lens for. Heavy sharpening and moderate contrast boost applied.
... or I have more contrasty light to deal with. The above are all shot at or just after midday near Bangkok, with tropical, very contrasty sunlight. This is one of the reasons why I use this lens; there's to much contrast in lighting like that. But the Nikkor is undoubtedly good, and possibly better than the Samyang. It's also bigger and heavier.
Dpic_arctic wrote:
I was just wondering- why do mirror lenses have that "dot" on the front element?
That is the second mirror. The light is reflected from the rear mirror, the one with the doughnut shape, forward to the "dot", and then back towards the film or sensor, where there are usually a few lens elements as well, and on some lenses (like the Nikkor) a replaceable filter.
Navyblue wrote:
From those samples, it looks like the Nikkor is sharper, or my long lens technique is worse than Thor's, or Thor's PP technique is better than mine, or all of the above.
It's also possible that your secondary mirror is misaligned. You might like to take a look at the test on this page and see if yours needs adjustment.
