Jay - that is just a wonderful lens. Every time you post a picture from it I find myself just gawking at your post.
Do you actually use the PC part of this lens much? For example, this photo - did you use it there?
I got new toy this week - the "lowly" 24mm Nikkor-NC Auto, f2.8. Its rather humbling to post this after one from Jay's 24 PC-E. I am hoping it has some "rendering redemption". Anyway - first photos with it on Rock Creek - a blue ribbon trout stream 20-some miles east of Missoula.
Thanks for the kind words Doug, I just corrected my post as I used the 45mm PC-E in this instance. There was no perspective or focal plane alteration, all the swings and tilts were 0.
graytrekker wrote:
I got new toy this week - the "lowly" 24mm Nikkor-NC Auto, f2.8. Its rather humbling to post this after one from Jay's 24 PC-E. I am hoping it has some "rendering redemption". Anyway - first photos with it on Rock Creek - a blue ribbon trout stream 20-some miles east of Missoula.
Nice low angle composition in the stream Doug. I have owned several versions of the Nikon 24 manual focus lenses since joining this thread and all of them seem pretty good.
Random question, I figure this group is as likely to know as anybody... good source to have Non AI lenses converted to AI? Have a few I might like to send out to be done cleanly, namely the 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. Don’t want to take a file to them!
Mathieu18 wrote:
Random question, I figure this group is as likely to know as anybody... good source to have Non AI lenses converted to AI? Have a few I might like to send out to be done cleanly, namely the 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. Don’t want to take a file to them!
Wanted to share som pics from recent photographic activity....but...
A few weeks ago I had to change my password on flickr and lost the note I wrote it down on, so I can no longer access it. When clicking the forgot password icon yahoo only refers to my yahoo email adress which is also connected to my flickr account. I guess I could contact flickr and have them help me of course. But I also wanted to see what kind of options there are for sharing photos here. Perhaps from another platform than flickr? Any thoughts?
Mathieu18 wrote:
Random question, I figure this group is as likely to know as anybody... good source to have Non AI lenses converted to AI? Have a few I might like to send out to be done cleanly, namely the 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. Don’t want to take a file to them!
Mathieu18 wrote:
Random question, I figure this group is as likely to know as anybody... good source to have Non AI lenses converted to AI? Have a few I might like to send out to be done cleanly, namely the 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. Don’t want to take a file to them!
As others have said. John White. I have had 2 done by him.
mp356 wrote:
Nice low angle composition in the stream Doug. I have owned several versions of the Nikon 24 manual focus lenses since joining this thread and all of them seem pretty good.
Thanks, Scott.
I have read several opinions that the vintage 24s aren't that good. However, I think they do OK when stopped down, which one would normally do when using it for landscapes, etc. The 28s generally have a better reputation. I think my tests earlier this month bore that all out.
Wide open, though, is another story - and this is where the real weakness is. Early this morning (4am) I happened to go out and test my 2 24s for astro with my Df. I had the Df set for long exposure NR and High ISO NR at "NORM". ISO was set at 3200, both lenses were set to f2.8 and an exposure time of 20 sec, lens was focused at hard infinity. I was pointed east, with just the lower stars of Cassiopeia showing at the top and the Pleiades cluster low to the right of some trees. Here are RAWs run through Lightroom without any processing and outputted as jpegs:
As you can see, the f2.8 lens does a slightly better job with the stars on the periphery. (you may need to enlarge these).
Some of the stars on the f2 crop look more like butterflies or birds than pinpoint sources of light. (is this what is called "coma"?).
I could stop the lenses down, but then I would have to stack multiple exposures.
Yes Kevin, I've thought about that. Perhaps that's the best way to go. I tried to upload directly from my Google Photo cloud, but couldn't manage to get the right type of URL. I guess it's not doable to go through Google Photo..
So I guess I'm leaning towards a new Flickr account.
I have read several opinions that the vintage 24s aren't that good. However, I think they do OK when stopped down, which one would normally do when using it for landscapes, etc. The 28s generally have a better reputation. I think my tests earlier this month bore that all out.
Wide open, though, is another story - and this is where the real weakness is. Early this morning (4am) I happened to go out and test my 2 24s for astro with my Df. I had the Df set for long exposure NR and High ISO NR at "NORM". ISO was set at 3200, both lenses were set to f2.8 and an exposure time of 20 sec, lens was focused at hard infinity. I was pointed east, with just the lower stars of Cassiopeia showing at the top and the Pleiades cluster low to the right of some trees. Here are RAWs run through Lightroom without any processing and outputted as jpegs:
As you can see, the f2.8 lens does a slightly better job with the stars on the periphery. (you may need to enlarge these).
Some of the stars on the f2 crop look more like butterflies or birds than pinpoint sources of light. (is this what is called "coma"?).
I could stop the lenses down, but then I would have to stack multiple exposures.
Interesting comparison Doug. The NC seems to do a better job than the 2.0 ais-version, even stopped down to 2.8. I've been shooting a few star shorts with both the N.C version and the older N-version with less coma than the 2.0. The NC version I have now is one of my all-time 24-favourites, I use it a lot. I'm not sure I could see much of a difference between the N and the N.C though.
bobbelbob wrote:
Yes Kevin, I've thought about that. Perhaps that's the best way to go. I tried to upload directly from my Google Photo cloud, but couldn't manage to get the right type of URL. I guess it's not doable to go through Google Photo..
So I guess I'm leaning towards a new Flickr account.
Kristian
I have always used sites that exist specifically for posting to forums. I used and liked Photobucket until they jacked up the rates from r ad free, so I switched to imgbb.com. There are a few out there similar.
Max Power wrote:
I have always used sites that exist specifically for posting to forums. I used and liked Photobucket until they jacked up the rates from r ad free, so I switched to imgbb.com. There are a few out there similar.
Doug I think you could safely call your seagulls tangential astigmatism, and it is probably oblique spherical and a bunch of other blurring due to the compound nature of the lens design. Generally coma is seen as a comet-like saggital deformation of stars.
The 28mm f/2 AI gives similar results, severe distortion and vignetting. It might be interesting to see which among these excels in these areas.
I should have tried this when I had all those lenses from Jack.
I ended up getting the non-AI 24 (f2.8) and the non-AI 28 (f2).
I can check the 28 soon
thx - D
Got to love the sky shots Doug. Way too much ambient light here in the south east to see that many stars.
Peter loving the trackside shots!
Here is a shot, well a 13 shot pano of Glacier Bay where I got lucky enough to have a seagull fly through. Somewhere I heard (maybe Mythbusters) that the blue tint of a glacier could not be captured on film. I think the NOCT and the Z6 busted that myth.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Random question, I figure this group is as likely to know as anybody... good source to have Non AI lenses converted to AI? Have a few I might like to send out to be done cleanly, namely the 24/2.8 and 105/2.5. Don’t want to take a file to them!
