James Markus wrote:
I just want to state that my comparison is only for the two copies of 55mm micro lenses I have, and I don't think it speaks to the model differences. There is variably in lenses within the same model, and that kind of is what put me on this test. People here like Scott get amazingly sharp images using the f3.5 as a normal lens. My copy can not produce a sharp non macro image. I have the 50mm f1.2, and the afd 1.4 which are sharp - so I don't need another sharp normal lens. But my f3.5 is not the same as Scott's. However, it is great at macro which is what it was intended to be used....Show more →
Ah, understood-- makes good sense. Will run some tests, but anecdotally my f/3.5 copy is very sharp indeed as a normal lens. Been able to really crop in on the D850 maintaining sharpness, even when shooting an event with it (although it was less than ideal for this) a couple of weeks ago. Sort of amazing, given that I had written these lenses off a number of years ago; they were in my dad's closet covered in mold. They cleaned up, even according to the professional technician who serviced them, miraculously well.
MontanaKid wrote:
Just listed a pristine copy of the first Nikon 50mm f1.8 Ais lens originally intended for the Japanese market only.
From "Evaluations By Bjørn Rørslett":
"The earliest AIS version of the 50/1.8 delivers a truly stellar performance on the D2X. The field is admirably flat, too. There is nothing more to be said here. As perfect a lens as anyone could imagine. What a shining little star this lens proved itself to be."
James Markus wrote:
Jose, A small question. Is the gear in those photos on a rosewood table? If so - I would love to see the color versions of those shots.
Jim
Jose,
I guess my son purchasing an almost century old 5 octave rosewood xylorimba (sometimes referred to as xylo-marimba) has got me seeing rosewood everywhere.
Jim
asiostygius wrote:
Oh, no Jim, it is not; at most a cheap imitation
Here is a odd macro combo I tried tonight. Nikkor 105mm f1.8 ais for sharpness & bokeh, TC-200 for longer focal length, 20mm tube for closer focusing, and a EOS - F adapter. It is a very nice working distance like the 200mm f4 ais micro, but brighter and easier to focus - plus it worked better than I expected.
I purchased a Lee Big Stopper (10 stop) ND filter to add to my basic Lee filter kit.
It looks like a mid-day scene but this image was taken shortly after sunrise.
MontanaKid wrote:
Just listed a pristine copy of the first Nikon 50mm f1.8 Ais lens originally intended for the Japanese market only.
From "Evaluations By Bjørn Rørslett":
"The earliest AIS version of the 50/1.8 delivers a truly stellar performance on the D2X. The field is admirably flat, too. There is nothing more to be said here. As perfect a lens as anyone could imagine. What a shining little star this lens proved itself to be."
Andy, That 2nd image is very similiar to the angle I shot Mount Warning in 2007. We were at the lighthouse to watch the sunrise. My brother-in-law said it was the "first part of Australia to be kissed by the sun each morning". I was using AF lenses that day.
Lee Big Stopper in action, smoothing out the tide as it flowed back towards the sea.
Ancient Oak trees coming down to the water's edge. I have often seen Kingfishers here - but not on this occasion.
So much fun to view through all the pages with shots from all over the world. It's pure pleasure!
I have been abscent both on this forum and I have only picked up the camera very few times since last time....must have been sometime early spring.
Have mostly been working and working and more working. Finally I'm off work. 4 weeks of vacay!!
I loaded up 250 shots to the computer yesterday and perhaps I'll process and upload some tonight or tomorrow.
Hope all is well with all of you! See you soon.
/Kristian
Jim Jay. That is a reminder of the past impressions of Bjørn Rørslett that I haven't seen in quite awhile (15 years?). He seemed to stop reviews at the D1X - D2X Nikon Camera era - both crop frame sensors & the D3 FX sensor. His opinions seem to be accurate in most cases, but I have found variability within some Nikon lens.
I find his assessments useful since I have a pile of old lenses I bought when there were no modern lenses available in my preferred 24 to 35mm range, and never got rid of them. Some he rates poor I rate higher for their pictorial capabilities like the fast 35, 50 and 55mm that go through wild transformations as you stop them down from wide open to f4.
One I have is by far the worst, the 43-86mm. Can anyone else put forth a nomination in the bottom of the barrel category?
Jay, I have had it in my mind to get hold of the 43-86 just to check out its universally bad reputation It may be next on the list
The first two lenses I had were the Nikon 18-55 and 28-200, which came as a package with the D50, my first Nikon which unknowingly at that time put me on a path towards this thread. I was really excited to get my first telephoto lens, until I started to realize the images at the long end were less than stellar. I moved up to the 70-300 G, which was not hugely better. In my quest for telephoto/birding bliss at that time one of the worst I tried was the Sigma 150-500 (Bigma) which was reasonable only out to 300mm or so.
I think once I happened upon the first manual lens, the 135 2.8 series E, and then showed up at this thread I can not remember any poor performer.
HCE HCE wrote:
Jim Jay. That is a reminder of the past impressions of Bjørn Rørslett that I haven't seen in quite awhile (15 years?). He seemed to stop reviews at the D1X - D2X Nikon Camera era - both crop frame sensors & the D3 FX sensor. His opinions seem to be accurate in most cases, but I have found variability within some Nikon lens.
I find his assessments useful since I have a pile of old lenses I bought when there were no modern lenses available in my preferred 24 to 35mm range, and never got rid of them. Some he rates poor I rate higher for their pictorial capabilities like the fast 35, 50 and 55mm that go through wild transformations as you stop them down from wide open to f4.
One I have is by far the worst, the 43-86mm. Can anyone else put forth a nomination in the bottom of the barrel category?
Jay, I love the image and the colour but is this an optical illusion or is the building actually wider at the top than the bottom?
I have the 28 3.6 PC lens and I find that it is easy to "overdo' the PC. In this image, unless the curved parts of the building actually extend beyond the vertical, it looks to my old eyes to be a bit top heavy. Also the distance between the edge of the image and the walls is smaller at the top than the bottom.
Maybe also because we actually see converging verticals any optical correction looks a bit odd.
Oosty wrote:
Jay, I love the image and the colour but is this an optical illusion or is the building actually wider at the top than the bottom?
I have the 28 3.6 PC lens and I find that it is easy to "overdo' the PC. In this image, unless the curved parts of the building actually extend beyond the vertical, it looks to my old eyes to be a bit top heavy. Also the distance between the edge of the image and the walls is smaller at the top than the bottom.
Maybe also because we actually see converging verticals any optical correction looks a bit odd.
You are preaching to the choir, look back through this thread and you will see numerous examples of PC mis-applied!
In this case it is intentional, the looming effect is perhaps a failed attempt to menace the viewer, I find this sort of paint job obnoxious and was trying to playfully present the image.
Another example you will see often is a shot of a view from a cliff or shore that omits foreground, leaving the viewer with no place to stand.
, and it's already gone.
