James Markus wrote:
It is funny how you can get impressions on some gear that are not based on anything substantial. I was sure my 1995 era 180mm f2.8 AF (new) was much sharper than my 1971 era Nikkor-P 180mm f2.8 ai'd - I was wrong. Even with different numbers of lenses, groupings, and coatings - the image quallity is almost identical. Subject portrait shot with the D850 paired with the Nikkor-PC Shift 28mm f3.5 ais - no sharpening has been applied.
saph wrote:
Jim the first comparison the Nikkor-P wins out slightly. I really like the Nikkor-P 180 lens, it has sweet character in its bokeh.
The main improvement in lenses, I believe, was not in sharpness but in getting rid of chromatic aberrations, the reason for the "ED" glass. Newer Nikon digital cameras, starting with the D3, do a great job of getting rid of chromatic aberration - making old lenses as good as newer ones.
The other advantage of newer lenses is making sharpness more even across the frame, but for most shots with lenses like the 180mm 2.8 P the corners don't matter.
I once posted a comparison of the 300mm 4.5s - The H, the EDIF, the 50-300mm ED 4.5, and the K ai not IF. The best was the last but the only difference I could detect on a D810 was a color fringe around bright highlights for all but the K.
And the older lenses create a more appealing image for my taste.
Even rangefinder wide lenses are as good as current ones in the central area, it is the corners where you see the difference.
mp356 wrote:
Following hot on the tail of the SR-71 at the Hazy is the space shuttle Discovery. Thanks for looking.
Scott
Scott, I always like that last perspective of Discovery. I have taken that with the 28 3.5 PC more than once, and have a black and white 8X10 framed on a wall. The recent couple of times I have been there, there seems to be people getting in the way of my frame, glad you got a relatively uncrowded shot!
Rafael, That is all true. CA is more pronounced in the Nikkor-P, and I noticed slight color differences. It is strange how I ended up with the AF 180. I was shooting a wedding and growing really resentful how heavy 22 elements in the 70-200 f2.8 afs vr was over a long period of time. When I found the 180 af I sold the zoom almost immediately - same bokeh and excellent sharpness, lighter, less expensive - etc.
So, I keep trying to pare down my collection by eliminating duplicate focal lengths, and I get stymied at every turn - BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE GOOD! Lenses I bought "just because" (specs, price, etc) perform really well. I picked up a 28-70 f3.5 polycarbonate zoom about 15 years ago for $45, because my 35-70 f2.8 afd wasn't wide enough. It feels almost like an empty pop can, but it shoots great. I'm going to have to come up with some other criteria to get rid of some of these lenses - grrrr
rafaelcasd wrote:
The main improvement in lenses, I believe, was not in sharpness but in getting rid of chromatic aberrations, the reason for the "ED" glass. Newer Nikon digital cameras, starting with the D3, do a great job of getting rid of chromatic aberration - making old lenses as good as newer ones.
The other advantage of newer lenses is making sharpness more even across the frame, but for most shots with lenses like the 180mm 2.8 P the corners don't matter.
I once posted a comparison of the 300mm 4.5s - The H, the EDIF, the 50-300mm ED 4.5, and the K ai not IF. The best was the last but the only difference I could detect on a D810 was a color fringe around bright highlights for all but the K.
And the older lenses create a more appealing image for my taste.
Even rangefinder wide lenses are as good as current ones in the central area, it is the corners where you see the difference....Show more →
James Markus wrote:
Rafael, That is all true. CA is more pronounced in the Nikkor-P, and I noticed slight color differences. It is strange how I ended up with the AF 180. I was shooting a wedding and growing really resentful how heavy 22 elements in the 70-200 f2.8 afs vr was over a long period of time. When I found the 180 af I sold the zoom almost immediately - same bokeh and excellent sharpness, lighter, less expensive - etc.
So, I keep trying to pare down my collection by eliminating duplicate focal lengths, and I get stymied at every turn - BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE GOOD! Lenses I bought "just because" (specs, price, etc) perform really well. I picked up a 28-70 f3.5 polycarbonate zoom about 15 years ago for $45, because my 35-70 f2.8 afd wasn't wide enough. It feels almost like an empty pop can, but it shoots great. I'm going to have to come up with some other criteria to get rid of some of these lenses - grrrr
James,
Case in point, Here are two Z7 45.7MP samples, full size in Flicker, from the six element 3.5cm 1:2.5 rangefinder and the nine element 35mm 1.4 N Thorium lens, which I find sharper than the ais version. This is at 1:11 for best sharpness across the frame from both.
Different hour, slightly different location, I cannot tell which lens is better. If anything the RF lens image looks better but it is likely the earlier hour brighter light providing contrast.
At bigger apertures the edges of the 1.4 will be better. On film the 2.5 RF has an excellent reputation, with digital sensor filters it suffers some on the corners.
saph wrote:
The Junkers Ju-52 tri-motor, with an interesting nickname, Tante Ju or Auntie Ju. This plane had a long history, before, during and after WWII.
Ok Samy, I have to put my vacation times in in November for the following year, so I do need plenty of heads up, as getting time off spontaneously is very difficult (unless I call off...)
Most people zoom back to the fourth building where the R&D and Presidential galleries are.
saph wrote:
Scott and Rafael have really cool wide angle views of the power end of the Blackbird. Hmmm maybe the 15 5.6 QD may be an interesting choice next time at an air museum. The Dayton museum sounds very interesting but huge. Ray and Laura, if I ever do plan to do the drive there, will let you know beforehand.
Victoria Street is perhaps the most colorful area in Edinburgh which s full of shops including an authorized Harry Potter store. It is not a super easy place to photograph as the sun's angle over the narrow street has to be just right for the colors to pop.
Great pub with St. Giles Cathedral in clear view from the outdoor seating. Victoria Street is a five minute walk for here. It was a frequent stop for yours truly.
serge07 wrote:
Scott, excellent photographs of Discovery.
Victoria Street is perhaps the most colorful area in Edinburgh which s full of shops including an authorized Harry Potter store. It is not a super easy place to photograph as the sun's angle over the narrow street has to be just right for the colors to pop.
Ah, Edinburgh and Deacon Brodie's Tavern. Brings back great memories from the time I was a student there.
Some of my friends lived in student accomodation at the top of the Royal Mile, about 300 yards up the hill from the pub.
Deacon Brodie's was frequented often......
You did well with the sun and colour on Victoria Street. Parked cars are a nuisance.
serge07 wrote:
Scott, excellent photographs of Discovery.
Victoria Street is perhaps the most colorful area in Edinburgh which s full of shops including an authorized Harry Potter store. It is not a super easy place to photograph as the sun's angle over the narrow street has to be just right for the colors to pop.
This weekend I had the 105/4 K PN-1 on the Df and the 20/4 K on the F2. I shot the 105/2.5 last week and I think I like the 105/4 better. I believe it is the last of the manual focus Nikkor sonnars? Its dirty cheap and mucho good. Talk about sharp and 3D effects. Here soon I may try to compare them in people pictures.
A note concerning the F2 and 20/4. I have an E screen in my F2 and with this lens it sucks so I used the scale on the lens. Shooting mansions alongside of Swan Lake. I need a R screen to have a split rangefinder. I'd like such a screen for the Df too.
