No more pics to post this morning, but a question about MFNG. Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
I'm not actively looking for another lens but here's the thing. Every morning before we head out for anything recreational we ask the question "What lens(es) should I carry today?" Of course the answer depends on what we expect to see. I usually end up carrying at least two. Sometimes I guess right. Of course too, putting a shorter lens on the camera guarantees that we'll see interesting birds, putting a longer lens on it guarantees that we won't. With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought.
Jupiter occultation early today in suburban Maryland ~5.30am. It was quite a spectacle watching 3 of the Galilean moons precede Jupiter in peeking out from behind our moon, on the Nikon ZR 4" screen, as the occultation ended. From bottom, the moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto (per the Internets). Image is cropped down.
This is sounding like you need a zoom lens or two...
jimmuller wrote:
No more pics to post this morning, but a question about MFNG. Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
I'm not actively looking for another lens but here's the thing. Every morning before we head out for anything recreational we ask the question "What lens(es) should I carry today?" Of course the answer depends on what we expect to see. I usually end up carrying at least two. Sometimes I guess right. Of course too, putting a shorter lens on the camera guarantees that we'll see interesting birds, putting a longer lens on it guarantees that we won't. With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought....Show more →
jimmuller wrote:
No more pics to post this morning, but a question about MFNG. Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
I'm not actively looking for another lens but here's the thing. Every morning before we head out for anything recreational we ask the question "What lens(es) should I carry today?" Of course the answer depends on what we expect to see. I usually end up carrying at least two. Sometimes I guess right. Of course too, putting a shorter lens on the camera guarantees that we'll see interesting birds, putting a longer lens on it guarantees that we won't. With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought....Show more →
Jim, the 35-200 3.5-4.5 AI-S Nikkor should cover a pretty good range without being too heavy to carry around. Haven't looked at prices recently but I don't think it will lighten your wallet too much
Jupiter occultation early today in suburban Maryland ~5.30am. It was quite a spectacle watching 3 of the Galilean moons precede Jupiter in peeking out from behind our moon, on the Nikon ZR 4" screen, as the occultation ended. From bottom, the moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto (per the Internets). Image is cropped down.
Jupiter occultation early today in suburban Maryland ~5.30am. It was quite a spectacle watching 3 of the Galilean moons precede Jupiter in peeking out from behind our moon, on the Nikon ZR 4" screen, as the occultation ended. From bottom, the moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto (per the Internets). Image is cropped down.
jimmuller wrote:
No more pics to post this morning, but a question about MFNG. Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
I'm not actively looking for another lens but here's the thing. Every morning before we head out for anything recreational we ask the question "What lens(es) should I carry today?" Of course the answer depends on what we expect to see. I usually end up carrying at least two. Sometimes I guess right. Of course too, putting a shorter lens on the camera guarantees that we'll see interesting birds, putting a longer lens on it guarantees that we won't. With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought....Show more →
I've owned a bunch of zoom lenses, and ended up becoming a prime lens snob. The one that turned me around was the Zoom Nikkor AI-S 25-50mm f4.0. It was really sharp at every focal length. Not very big - about the size of the 24mm f2.8 ais stacked on top of any 50mm Nikkor. I sold it to someone here. - because I felt guilty not using it enough.
Nikon has made a bunch of all-in-one zoom lenses - aka "grandpa lenses" (that's what I call them) I have used many of them, and most of them have been really good. I just bought an af-d version a couple days ago, because I am a grandpa I guess. Hoping it isn't too heavy, and as sharp as the 25-50mm.
James Markus wrote:
I've owned a bunch of zoom lenses, and ended up becoming a prime lens snob. The one that turned me around was the Zoom Nikkor AI-S 25-50mm f4.0. It was really sharp at every focal length. Not very big - about the size of the 24mm f2.8 ais stacked on top of any 50mm Nikkor. I sold it to someone here. - because I felt guilty not using it enough.
Nikon has made a bunch of all-in-one zoom lenses - aka "grandpa lenses" (that's what I call them) I have used many of them, and most of them have been really good. I just bought an af-d version a couple days ago, because I am a grandpa I guess. Hoping it isn't too heavy, and as sharp as the 25-50mm....Show more →
James Markus wrote:
I've owned a bunch of zoom lenses, and ended up becoming a prime lens snob. The one that turned me around was the Zoom Nikkor AI-S 25-50mm f4.0. It was really sharp at every focal length. Not very big - about the size of the 24mm f2.8 ais stacked on top of any 50mm Nikkor. I sold it to someone here. - because I felt guilty not using it enough.
Nikon has made a bunch of all-in-one zoom lenses - aka "grandpa lenses" (that's what I call them) I have used many of them, and most of them have been really good. I just bought an af-d version a couple days ago, because I am a grandpa I guess. Hoping it isn't too heavy, and as sharp as the 25-50mm....Show more →
I am on the same quest of a manual zoom that would make me happy. So far I failed. Only the 28-70 3,5-4,5 AF has been worth of consideration. I did bought a 25-50 f4 but I am afraid it is decentered so I do not have a good understanding of the qualities of this optic.
The cheap 24-50 3,3/4,5 AF I also bought is at least as good and less cumbersome than the 25-50, until I find a good copy.
jimmuller wrote:
Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought....Show more →
Jim, I'm _sure_ you're going to get lots of suggestions from the "lens pushers" on this thread, but as a fellow Prime-monagamist, I can give you my 2c. Nikon made a number of really nice moderate zooms in the 80's when lens design technology got good enough, and market demand for zooms started to grow. My personal opinion is the moderate zoom-range (something like 2x) and fixed-aperture designs are the ones to look for. The only Zoom-Nikkor I actually own is the renowned 75~150/3.5E, which really does live up to its reputation, and is normally quite a bargain. It's not that much bigger than a 135/2.8, and gives you the flexibility of covering off the entire portrait-range. There's also the 50~135/3.5 with a slightly wider-range down to a normal focal-length, and AiS build-quality. For the longer range, if you want to go beyond the standard 80~200/70~210 zooms zooms, there's the 100~300/5.6 AiS. And for the wider end, there's the original 25~50/4, and the more compact 28~50/3.5, both of which have their fans.
I will say this, all of the above-mentioned lenses have been highlighted by posters here with excellent photos, seem to be available for decent prices these days, and have often tempted me into more GAS.
jimmuller wrote:
No more pics to post this morning, but a question about MFNG. Are there recommended Nikon MF zooms, presumably F-mount? (I had a Vivitar zoom long ago. It wasn't very good and I didn't use it much.)
I'm not actively looking for another lens but here's the thing. Every morning before we head out for anything recreational we ask the question "What lens(es) should I carry today?" Of course the answer depends on what we expect to see. I usually end up carrying at least two. Sometimes I guess right. Of course too, putting a shorter lens on the camera guarantees that we'll see interesting birds, putting a longer lens on it guarantees that we won't. With a zoom I wouldn't have to swap lenses so often. And having both longer and short FL's available would guarantee that we won't see anything!
The downside might be that IQ isn't as good. And it might be just as heavy as two primes. And it still might not cover the ideal FL range. I have no idea what range I'd want, especially as it would be redundant to the primes I have now. So the only benefit would be not having to swap lenses as often. And my wallet wouldn't be as heavy. So, nevermind. It's just a whimsical thought....Show more →
Jim,
Personal experience, and I would think they are all pretty usable especially if handholding where we lose some sharpness anyway. Bokeh is what it is (variable by distance) and flare is somewhat worse than the primes in my experience:
1. Still using 25-50, 75-150 and 50-135.
2. Had a 28-50, foolishly sold it. Great pairing with the 75-150, small, light, 52mm filter thread.
3. Someone here loaned me a 35-200, great range, good performance, was not as good overall as the three lenses in #1 above but it seems to fit your preferred shooting focal lengths. I never did get around to buying one.
Don't have personal experience with the rest but I think there's been good reports on the 80-200 f4.5 here, and a few have the 35-105 I think. I don't recall seeing anything form the 28-85 posted before but that would seem to be a nice range to have in a zoom.
Been very busy with everyday life and a new job, but I had to try my new Micro-Nikkor 105mm F4.0 , my mother at the hospital (she is fine now), Zf, B/Win camera.
I thank all of you for your input on zooms. I checked into that 35-200 (or was it 50-338 or 22-476 or 10-1000, I forget) that some of you recommended. Ebay had a bunch of cheap ones. It bot mixed reviews, though it actually got very few reviews. I can check into some of your other suggestions.
The real problem I have is the "usual focal length range" question. I already have 2.8cm, 35mm, 50mm (f/1.4 and f/2.0), 55mm, 105mm, 200mm, 300mm, and 300mm x 1.4. The really good ones are the 200mm, 55mm, and 105mm, and possibly the 300mm without the teleconverter. I don't see that any of those zooms would give me something I don't already have except versatility. I don't really need anything else. That's why it's whimsical.
I also keep wondering if I should get an AF lens to take advantage of the Z5ii's ability. But I'm having so much fun participating in this forum that it's more important than just getting certain pictures. In most cases the shots I really want are easily done with what I have. If I miss one then so be it.
- because I felt guilty not using it enough.
