mshi wrote:
Kittyk, what size of Mamiya hood you're talking about? Do you mean Mamiya 67mm Screw-In Rubber Wide Angle Lens Hood for the 645 55mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter & 80mm f/2.8 Leaf Shutter Lenses? If so, can you mount 77mm filter on the ring of the Mamiya hood? Thanks.
No, i will put 77mm mamiya rubber lens hood on it with 67-77 adapter. The 67mm rubber hood i have have 67 filter thread on...?
to other 35G owners:
when i bought the lens, glass was perfect, but now (after few cold/hot changes?) i see already some 3 specks on the front glass. very little silver dots...? I didnt touched the lens anyhow and it was definitely not there. Also is not removable by any "force" or liquid cleaner. Anybody seeing it?
Holy COW! Maybe I will re-consider an M9 and 35 lux, that is just stupid big.
Hey, if you can afford it and don't need the AF, go for it. I'd love that combo.
Kittyk wrote:
2) 35G is not replacement for 35f2. It's AF speed is sad, it hunts in low light, my copy needed AF microadjust something what i've never needed before. Actually i put a duct tape over my A/M-M switch and left it in manual mode. I am grown up on film camera and in hand i nail focus most of the time without needing to fight with bad placed AF sensors on FX cameras. I will keep f2 for documentary on one body, and alter 35G, 14-24, 24G, 24PCE and 85D on second body.
I totally agree with the rest of your points, but I didn't find the AF bad whatsoever. Better than my f/2.8 zooms, in terms of lock-on, though definitely slower. And there's no way you're nailing it at f/1.4 manually, you can only even see the DOF down to 2.8 with the stock screen.
I used it all weekend and love it -- for work it's great! And if you don't mind the size it's a no brainer, though it still bums me out. I feared using my AI-S wide open but the AF-S is a no-brainer.
oh yes i can, i have been using f1.9 lens on MF camera and f1.4 on film cameras for ages
it sure need some practice but it certainly is possible. I have close to 90% keepers even with such new (for me) lens as 35G.
For dance shots i use AF-C mode and single point, often not cross point, because i don't see anything so i cannot focus manually. 35G cannot keep up because it is slow and refocuses often. 35f2 worked for me good for 3 years i started to shoot night parties (at weddings), believe it or not. Even if it would hold focus better, the speed is all what matters. Dancing people at 1/250 at f2 means it needs to focus FAST, or else you end up with sharp shoulders and blured face. I dont like that :-)
Anyone has access to both Zeiss Distagon 2/35 Nikon mount and Nikon 35G? If so, can you please explain what you have observed from f/2 and smaller of both lenses? Thank you.
domdog31 wrote:
Pete - again awesome samples. I went for the Sigma 85 for the 35/85 combo and am happy as well!
Here are two from today -
1. f/1.4 SOOC
2. f/2.8 SOOC
now what we want is 35G PC-E. What i love on 24PCE is that i dont need to crouch down to get level with wide angle portraits. I am making the same "lazy" composition mistakes as in pics above far too often (cut hands, empty above head, typical issues with wide angle portraits) :-(
Kittyk wrote:
now what we want is 35G PC-E. What i love on 24PCE is that i dont need to crouch down to get level with wide angle portraits. I am making the same "lazy" composition mistakes as in pics above far too often (cut hands, empty above head, typical issues with wide angle portraits) :-(
lol if this is a nice way of saying the pics suck, thanks! I am not as technical as you so things like that do not bother me as much.
no it definitely was not meant to be rude, especially for something which cannot be considered paid shoot. you should see some mine candid shots.
it was meant as "sigh" because one thing i love on MF system is, that you can drop lens to level without needing to go to knees or having shift lens.
Problem with wide angle portrait is, that when you are (about) as high as your subject, you will have their head in middle of frame vertically which makes usually no sense. you can tilt camera, but then you get distortion, so basically each time (sure that is just general suggestion, there are no rules in art) you want to shoot head level wide angle portrait, you need to go to knees so you get their head in upper part of the frame.
With tele lens it is not so pronounced because they do not compress background so much and tilting of camera is not so severe as you stay further back.
Shift lens (such as 24PC-E) allows you to drop the lens down and therefor shoot head level pics without going to knees or tilting camera. :-)
Kittyk wrote:
no it definitely was not meant to be rude, especially for something which cannot be considered paid shoot. you should see some mine candid shots.
it was meant as "sigh" because one thing i love on MF system is, that you can drop lens to level without needing to go to knees or having shift lens.
Problem with wide angle portrait is, that when you are (about) as high as your subject, you will have their head in middle of frame vertically which makes usually no sense. you can tilt camera, but then you get distortion, so basically each time (sure that is just general suggestion, there are no rules in art) you want to shoot head level wide angle portrait, you need to go to knees so you get their head in upper part of the frame.
With tele lens it is not so pronounced because they do not compress background so much and tilting of camera is not so severe as you stay further back.
Shift lens (such as 24PC-E) allows you to drop the lens down and therefor shoot head level pics without going to knees or tilting camera. :-)
