The last pages are killing me, can you please stop posting all those beautiful shots?? Sorry, just kidding. Please keep em coming, it's such a joy to follow......
But I'm so frustrated, I dont have enough time to take photos nor to process the ones I got waiting on the HD 😡
I hope to get some more time soon...
For those who asked about my 24mm f2 vs f2.8 test -
I don't know if I upload a down scaled photo to Flickr just what you'll see. My jpeg files from these tests are 13 - 14 MB and I would gladly share them if someone really wants to see them and can figure out a site for files of that size. However, here's my recap after looking at them again just now.
The test: Not terribly scientific and not the level of discernment that you get with Fred M's comparisons. Both were shot on a Nikon Df (16MP). My f2 is an AIS and I don't recall if Jack's f2.8 was AI or AIS. My test site is a reservoir nearby. there was foliage in the foreground approx 10-15 ft away for both the lower left and lower right hand corners. Upper left were some trees a little farther away. In the right hand corner, a ridgeline at essentially infinity. In the center, a mountain peak, also at infinity. Photos were take on a tripod with a 10s delay. Each lens was focused at infinity (hard stop). Photos were taken at f5.6, 8, 11 and 16. Each test done within minutes of each other on the same day. Minimal processing was done. One other note. My f2 was tested prior to professional cleaning. I think Jack's 2.8 had been cleaned. Also, this is jus a N=1 test
Here are my conclusions:
In the corners, the f2 was sharper than the f2.8, but the difference diminished with increasing f stop. Neither lens gave tack sharp corners at f5.6 - but this area isn't large. By f11, the corners of the f2 was very nearly sharp. F16 did not provide much sharper results. By f16, the f2.8 gave similar results to the f2.
I found at infinity (the mountain peak) was ever so slightly sharper/better contrast (?) at all f stops with the f2.8 lens.
Really, I didn't find much of a difference between the two lenses, except at lower f stops in a small section of the corner.
I did a similar set with Jack's 28mm f2 vs f2.8.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me with any questions, etc.
graytrekker wrote:
For those who asked about my 24mm f2 vs f2.8 test -
I don't know if I upload a down scaled photo to Flickr just what you'll see. My jpeg files from these tests are 13 - 14 MB and I would gladly share them if someone really wants to see them and can figure out a site for files of that size. However, here's my recap after looking at them again just now.
The test: Not terribly scientific and not the level of discernment that you get with Fred M's comparisons. Both were shot on a Nikon Df (16MP). My f2 is an AIS and I don't recall if Jack's f2.8 was AI or AIS. My test site is a reservoir nearby. there was foliage in the foreground approx 10-15 ft away for both the lower left and lower right hand corners. Upper left were some trees a little farther away. In the right hand corner, a ridgeline at essentially infinity. In the center, a mountain peak, also at infinity. Photos were take on a tripod with a 10s delay. Each lens was focused at infinity (hard stop). Photos were taken at f5.6, 8, 11 and 16. Each test done within minutes of each other on the same day. Minimal processing was done. One other note. My f2 was tested prior to professional cleaning. I think Jack's 2.8 had been cleaned. Also, this is jus a N=1 test
Here are my conclusions:
In the corners, the f2 was sharper than the f2.8, but the difference diminished with increasing f stop. Neither lens gave tack sharp corners at f5.6 - but this area isn't large. By f11, the corners of the f2 was very nearly sharp. F16 did not provide much sharper results. By f16, the f2.8 gave similar results to the f2.
I found at infinity (the mountain peak) was ever so slightly sharper/better contrast (?) at all f stops with the f2.8 lens.
Really, I didn't find much of a difference between the two lenses, except at lower f stops in a small section of the corner.
I did a similar set with Jack's 28mm f2 vs f2.8.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me with any questions, etc.
Abandoned old boat left to rot in a dark corner of the estuary.
It probably allows the owner to keep the mooring rights - which will be way more valuable that the boat given there will be a very long waiting list to get a mooring anywhere on the south west coast - particulary Salcombe.
DeltaSigma wrote:
Abandoned old boat left to rot in a dark corner of the estuary.
It probably allows the owner to keep the mooring rights - which will be way more valuable that the boat given there will be a very long waiting list to get a mooring anywhere on the south west coast - particulary Salcombe.
graytrekker wrote:
For those who asked about my 24mm f2 vs f2.8 test -
I don't know if I upload a down scaled photo to Flickr just what you'll see. My jpeg files from these tests are 13 - 14 MB and I would gladly share them if someone really wants to see them and can figure out a site for files of that size. However, here's my recap after looking at them again just now.
The test: Not terribly scientific and not the level of discernment that you get with Fred M's comparisons. Both were shot on a Nikon Df (16MP). My f2 is an AIS and I don't recall if Jack's f2.8 was AI or AIS. My test site is a reservoir nearby. there was foliage in the foreground approx 10-15 ft away for both the lower left and lower right hand corners. Upper left were some trees a little farther away. In the right hand corner, a ridgeline at essentially infinity. In the center, a mountain peak, also at infinity. Photos were take on a tripod with a 10s delay. Each lens was focused at infinity (hard stop). Photos were taken at f5.6, 8, 11 and 16. Each test done within minutes of each other on the same day. Minimal processing was done. One other note. My f2 was tested prior to professional cleaning. I think Jack's 2.8 had been cleaned. Also, this is jus a N=1 test
Here are my conclusions:
In the corners, the f2 was sharper than the f2.8, but the difference diminished with increasing f stop. Neither lens gave tack sharp corners at f5.6 - but this area isn't large. By f11, the corners of the f2 was very nearly sharp. F16 did not provide much sharper results. By f16, the f2.8 gave similar results to the f2.
I found at infinity (the mountain peak) was ever so slightly sharper/better contrast (?) at all f stops with the f2.8 lens.
Really, I didn't find much of a difference between the two lenses, except at lower f stops in a small section of the corner.
I did a similar set with Jack's 28mm f2 vs f2.8.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me with any questions, etc.
Cheers
Doug...Show more →
Thank you, I will re-visit the tests I did of my 24s etc when I can get to the PC this afternoon, and see how they correlate to your findings.
bobbelbob wrote:
The last pages are killing me, can you please stop posting all those beautiful shots?? Sorry, just kidding. Please keep em coming, it's such a joy to follow......
But I'm so frustrated, I dont have enough time to take photos nor to process the ones I got waiting on the HD 😡
I hope to get some more time soon...
DeltaSigma wrote:
Abandoned old boat left to rot in a dark corner of the estuary.
It probably allows the owner to keep the mooring rights - which will be way more valuable that the boat given there will be a very long waiting list to get a mooring anywhere on the south west coast - particulary Salcombe.
NightOwl Cat wrote
I hear you, Kristian. Same boat here.
But I'm so frustrated, I dont have enough time to take photos nor to process the ones I got waiting on the HD 😡
I hope to get some more time soon...
Take care everyone!
Kristian
I am kind of in the same place, just don't have the courage to wander about in SoCal taking photos. At least this time game me an opportunity to roundup my SLR lens collection and venture into the RF lens dark side!
graytrekker wrote:
For those who asked about my 24mm f2 vs f2.8 test -
I don't know if I upload a down scaled photo to Flickr just what you'll see. My jpeg files from these tests are 13 - 14 MB and I would gladly share them if someone really wants to see them and can figure out a site for files of that size. However, here's my recap after looking at them again just now.
The test: Not terribly scientific and not the level of discernment that you get with Fred M's comparisons. Both were shot on a Nikon Df (16MP). My f2 is an AIS and I don't recall if Jack's f2.8 was AI or AIS. My test site is a reservoir nearby. there was foliage in the foreground approx 10-15 ft away for both the lower left and lower right hand corners. Upper left were some trees a little farther away. In the right hand corner, a ridgeline at essentially infinity. In the center, a mountain peak, also at infinity. Photos were take on a tripod with a 10s delay. Each lens was focused at infinity (hard stop). Photos were taken at f5.6, 8, 11 and 16. Each test done within minutes of each other on the same day. Minimal processing was done. One other note. My f2 was tested prior to professional cleaning. I think Jack's 2.8 had been cleaned. Also, this is jus a N=1 test
Here are my conclusions:
In the corners, the f2 was sharper than the f2.8, but the difference diminished with increasing f stop. Neither lens gave tack sharp corners at f5.6 - but this area isn't large. By f11, the corners of the f2 was very nearly sharp. F16 did not provide much sharper results. By f16, the f2.8 gave similar results to the f2.
I found at infinity (the mountain peak) was ever so slightly sharper/better contrast (?) at all f stops with the f2.8 lens.
Really, I didn't find much of a difference between the two lenses, except at lower f stops in a small section of the corner.
I did a similar set with Jack's 28mm f2 vs f2.8.
I hope this helps. Please feel free to PM me with any questions, etc.
Had a good look at my 'tests', not as formal as yours but broadly similar outcomes regarding the 2.8 24 AF, so it doesn't seem I had a dud. Tests were on a D7000 originally, and then on Sony Nex 6 and A7. The Sigma 24 was a little sharper at the edges at 2.8 to 5.6 than both the Nikkor 24/2.8, and also incidentally an Elmarit 21/2.8 aspheric on the A7. On the D7000 the Tamron 17-50 2.8 zoom was sharper than any of them at the wider apertures, and so was an old Tokina 17mm RMC.
I think I'll continue to look for a good AiS 20mm/2.8 which looks a better bet.
rafaelcasd wrote:
George,
This Nikkor Rangefinder Collection is a labor of love, very commendable as I now know it takes a lot of work, Thanks for sharing it.
Thanks Rafael. It is definitely an enjoyable journey. Plus they are so easy to work on (relative to F mount). I can take a chance on them knowing unless it is something severe like separation or being scratched, I can probably get them back in great shape.
A commemoration of the peak of the Spanish empire. It says "of others one" and "plus ultra" this is where the $ symbol came from. A banner around a pillar of Hercules.
HCE HCE wrote:
In these troubled times I am meditating with micros.
Actually while it looks complicated it simplifies the number of wires by using a fan-less I5 with a lot of USB ports.
I am using an Arduino driving a 17:1 gearhead stepper. This AF system can be used on virtually any lens including manual focus by changing a few parameters.
The guide scope is the ancient 300mm f/4 Takumar seen on the right in the previous set.
I am particularly pleased that I have an Arca Swiss mounting for the stepper.
Now I can sit in my warm room and do everything via WiFi.
Been getting marvelous results including 600mm shots of Andromeda, need to stack and share.
Samy Your light leak is surely the flexible bit on the hinge of your film holder and not the bellows.
Here are a couple with the 2500mm f/8 mounted. There are still lot's of wires but with the mini pc mounted on the OTA there are far less that would get snagged once my power distribution is completed and shorter USBs arrive.
Here the guide camera is mounted ahead of the cold camera on a home made off-axis guider....Show more →
Doug, that's a heck of a sunrise over Montana, well worth rising early for! Anything with the peak cottonwoods?
Colin, the seaside sunset pano is a great follow up! Love settings like these with rising terrain at the oceanside.
Scott, nice to see that the "new" bridge at Letchworth is picturesque too.
Have not been around much or shot much until late last month, good to catch up on the banter a little bit, and to see some new faces. Like some here, the lack of picture-taking activity has caused some gear lust but fortunately have been able to resist.
