I feel I owe each of you a personal, specific reply. Thank you for the suggestions.
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.
I'm guessing that "turned me around" means no longer a prime lens snob. Right? It's usually tough to make an anything-snob not be, so that 25-50mm must be a good one! That's not a focal range I would use much unfortunately.
---------------------------------------------
grantgoodes wrote:
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. ...
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.
Hmm. Lots of suggestions. Thanks. Looking them up will be fun, even if they aren't my cup of tea.
---------------------------------------------
pbraymond wrote:
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.
Sincerely,
Lens-Pusher #12.
Thanks, L-P #12. 80-200mm sounds interesting as do some of the other suggestions mentiioned.
If someone offered me a cheap electric thingamabob I'd say thanks and then wonder what I'd do with it. I don't actually need a thingamabob, now do I?
We had an interesting experience yesterday while walking down the Cadillac Mt South Ridge Trail. Extremely windy, a gust could knock you over if you weren't careful. We met two younger fellows coming up. 20's? 30's? Dunno', at my age they all look alike to me. One was carrying a Canon a bit smaller than my Z5ii. His lens was maybe a 50mm (he described it as "ordinary"). He stopped and said "I have to ask, what kind of lens is that?" I said "That is a Nikon 200mm f/4 manual-focus from the early 1970's." He said it looked interesting and we talked cameras for a while. His Canon was a DSLR, I forget what model, they all sound alike to me. He said his friends give him grief for taking a DSLR to sporting events, but then someone had sold it to him for $15! Hard to argue with a bargain like that.
The noteworthy thing is that the 200mm's appearance is what got his attention. Maybe the length and the knurled focus ring that looks so different from new ones. This is the second time someone has stopped us on that same trail and asked about it. On our previous trip it was a pretty college/grad-school age maiden taking a photography course. (I'll take that kind of attention any day. ) And lots of people ask what kinds of pics I'm trying to take.
All the while I'm thinkin' if you like what it looks like you should see some of the pics it has taken. I got some yesterday of what I believe was an immature bald eagle based on wingspan, wing aspect ratio, splayed wing feathers and color, beat speed and apparent power. No white head or tail feathers though. Unfortunately the shots were all edge-on and not interesting enough to post.
jimmuller wrote:
The noteworthy thing is that the 200mm's appearance is what got his attention. Maybe the length and the knurled focus ring that looks so different from new ones. This is the second time someone has stopped us on that same trail and asked about it. On our previous trip it was a pretty college/grad-school age maiden taking a photography course. (I'll take that kind of attention any day. ) And lots of people ask what kinds of pics I'm trying to take.
I've had similar experiences with my Df plus any of my prime MF Nikkors: The retro-styling of the Df, coupled with what is obviously not a modern AF zoom lens, seems to confuse and interest people. And aside from my early Sonnar 105/2.5P (which has the knurled focus ring like your 200mm), all my MF Nikkors are AiS, so not _that_ old-fashioned.
However, the camera that _really_ embodies this effect is my Plaubel Makina 670, which though recognizably a camera is so far off the scale that it might as well be alien technology.
jimmuller wrote:
Thanks, L-P #12. 80-200mm sounds interesting as do some of the other suggestions mentioned.
If you're leaning towards an 80~200 "ish" lens, there are several good Nikkor options:
80~200/4.5N (Ai)
80~200/4 (AiS)
80~200/2.8 ED
70~210/4 E
The first 80~200/4.5 was released in both non-Ai and Ai versions, and then came out with an improved optical design which is referred to as the N or "New" version This later N/Ai version (easily identified by the presence of a square baffle for the rear-element) is considered by many to be the best 80~200 MF lens made by Nikon, sharper even than the later AiS version. The AiS version changed the optical design yet again, becoming f/4 and improves the minimum focus distance from 1.8m to 1.2m.
If you don't mind a VERY large lens, there's also the 80~200/2.8 ED, which came in an Ai version and an improved optical design in the AiS version. It was a very lust-worthy (and expensive!) zoom in the day, but of course has been surpassed by a lot of optical design improvements in later AF versions. You can sometimes find one of these for quite reasonable prices now, but it is a _large_ chunk of glass (1.9kg for the AiS version), and the close-focus of 2.5m isn't very "close".
Finally, there's the series-E version, which has a slightly bigger zoom range, and is of course pretty inexpensive used. It suffers from inferior lens coating and cheaper mechanics, so personally I would steer away from it.
"Back in the day", the consensus was that the 80~200/4.5N (Ai) was the sharpest of all, and the best one to look for.
jimmuller wrote:
I feel I owe each of you a personal, specific reply. Thank you for the suggestions.
I'm guessing that "turned me around" means no longer a prime lens snob. Right? It's usually tough to make an anything-snob not be, so that 25-50mm must be a good one! That's not a focal range I would use much unfortunately.
It is based on the grass is always greener on the prime side - then the zoom side - then the prime side. I generally believe primes have better IQ, and consistency - but I have had zooms that could produce prime IQ less often than a prime. The prime that pushed me back towards primes is the af 180mm f2.8 crinkle finish. Zoom with your feet or with the lens - the later is becoming more attractive as I age (two new, to me, reasonably priced af 's coming today). Hope you find the one that fits your needs.
Here is a 25-50 ais example. Looks like a prime - doncha think?
James Markus wrote:
The prime that pushed me back towards primes is the af 180mm f2.8 crinkle finish. Zoom with your feet or with the lens - the later is becoming more attractive as I age (two new, to me, reasonably priced af 's coming today).
The 180/2.8D IF-ED is indeed a lovely piece of kit. I've had a pro-abused copy of the 180/2.8 ED since the 80's, and as good as that lens was, the AF-D is better, focuses 30cm closer, _and_ is lighter. Since the AF-D is an IF lens it does have some optical artifacts due to that design, and I wish the manual-focus was a little more damped, but those are niggles in an otherwise amazing lens that can be picked up for a couple of hundred bucks. I tried an 80~200/2.8D, and just didn't find the ability to zoom offset the increased size/weight. I'm still in my zoom-with-your-feet years though..
jimmuller wrote:
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.
I've got four of the 35-200's (I suspect the world's largest collection ). Three are later serials and optically quite nice. None are great at 35, but they get better the longer you zoom. The older serial one is noticeably different, I guess because of coatings. Much warmer rendering, and a bit softer in general. One has an issue where it can't quite focus to infinity. Not sure what's up with that one, but maybe one day I'll figure it out. Or not. But I'm a big fan of the 35-200 as its just so versatile. It's quirky in that it has like a 5 foot MFD, so you have to use its rear macro ring to focus closer on what are otherwise normal-distance subjects.
The 75-150 Series E gets a lot of love for good reason, too. Sharp, small, light, useful MFD, and cheap. Nice bokeh, too.
Also have the 180 ED Ai-S. It's optically excellent, but not as versatile as the 35-200 or 75-150 for me.
These are a few 35-200's across different sensors/film that were already in my Flickr, just to show the flexibility. I can put up some 75-150 images later.
) And lots of people ask what kinds of pics I'm trying to take.
). Three are later serials and optically quite nice. None are great at 35, but they get better the longer you zoom. The older serial one is noticeably different, I guess because of coatings. Much warmer rendering, and a bit softer in general. One has an issue where it can't quite focus to infinity. Not sure what's up with that one, but maybe one day I'll figure it out. Or not. But I'm a big fan of the 35-200 as its just so versatile. It's quirky in that it has like a 5 foot MFD, so you have to use its rear macro ring to focus closer on what are otherwise normal-distance subjects.
