DeltaSigma wrote:
Leighton - One thing the 135/2.8 AI-S has going for it that is a nice compact unit.
If I was shooting color then I would always reach for the 105/2.5 rather than the 135 but the 105 does not do IR well.
I wanted a more compressed perspective of the London skyline since I have shot it many times before with 24mm and 50mm lenses. The mild telephoto reach meant I had to resort to some panos.
One thing that was very noticable on my photo walk was the lack of people touting mirrorless/dslr cameras.
The ever changing 'Square Mile' financial district.
So, another Friday, another Cruising grand. This time I took the 18mm 1:4 ai, and the 55mm 1.2, not just any 55mm 1.2 but one of the very first serial numbers 970XXX. These are not super sharp at 1.2 but create beautiful rendering without all that ugly haze other 1.2 lenses show.
rafaelcasd wrote:
So, another Friday, another Cruising grand. This time I took the 18mm 1:4 ai, and the 55mm 1.2, not just any 55mm 1.2 but one of the very first serial numbers 970XXX. These are not super sharp at 1.2 but create beautiful rendering without all that ugly haze other 1.2 lenses show.
I bought a pre-AI 135mm f/2.8 a few years ago with the 4/4 formula.
I wasn't expecting much, especially because I don't use the range 50-200mm, but I was quite impressed with the results.
Subsequently I bought an AF, a f/3.5 and a f/2, so I am surprised at the poor reports coming from users of the f/2.8 posted lately.
I see there are a number of optical revisions that might account for some variations, and I have confined my explorations to the visible spectrum.
I have a 58mm Leitz "Rot Dunkle", literally dark red, passing around 690nm, comparable to Wratten 87 so I might explore the old f/2.8's performance in near IR.
It is not a favorite focal length but it would be interesting to see what it does on a modern sensor.
