Author Topic: (( Old and New ))  (Read 1349 times)

John Koerner

  • Guest
(( Old and New ))
« on: August 18, 2016, 20:28:01 »

L-R: Background: Nikon D500 + 300mm VR II (Photo taken with D810 + 50mm Ai-S f/1.2)
L-R: Foreground: Voigtlander APO 125 f/2.5 Macro, + 3 Nikkors: Ai-S 20mm f/2.8, Ai-S 28mm f/2.8, Ai-S 15mm f/3.5

I am very pleased with the Nikon gear I have acquired since this April.

I no longer use zooms at all, only primes.

I am using the newer-age AF 300mm f/2.8 VR II on my D500 ... and only old school, all-manual lenses on my D810.

It is a satisfying contrast in style, and intent, so I just thought I would share :D

Jack

elsa hoffmann

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3822
  • Cape Town, South Africa
    • Elsa Hoffmann
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2016, 21:59:58 »
Well that 300 is something to lust after..
"You don’t take a photograph – you make it” – Ansel Adams. Thats why I use photoshop.
www.phototourscapetown.com
www.elsa.co.za. www.intimateimages.co.za

Bjørn Rørslett

  • Fierce Bear of the North
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 8248
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2016, 22:05:13 »
These lenses are a nice quartet. Well depicted, too.

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2016, 22:41:02 »
Well that 300 is something to lust after..

I love it :)

It and the 2x TC III are a powerful combo that I am truly enjoying.

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2016, 22:42:20 »
These lenses are a nice quartet. Well depicted, too.

Thank you!

David H. Hartman

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1982
  • I Doctor Photographs... :)
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2016, 22:48:18 »
John,

That's a fine collection of lenses!

Dave

The 300/2.8 and 125/2.5 are lenses I lust after... not any time soon I'm afraid.

---

I do not limit myself as a matter of choice to primes. I probably own 90% of the lenses I bought since 1978. Most of these lenses are prime lenses. Probably only 20% of my lenses are zooms.

I sold out of Nikon in 1976 with the intention of starting a new Nikon system with all multi-coated lenses. I think it was November of 1978 when the price on the Nikon F2As settled down that I started my second Nikon system with an F2As and 55/3.5 AI Micro-Nikkor.

Anyway this is just my half penny on the matter.

Dave
Beatniks are out to make it rich
Oh no, must be the season of the witch

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2016, 02:54:59 »
John,

That's a fine collection of lenses!

Thank you sir.



I do not limit myself as a matter of choice to primes. I probably own 90% of the lenses I bought since 1978. Most of these lenses are prime lenses. Probably only 20% of my lenses are zooms.

I sold out of Nikon in 1976 with the intention of starting a new Nikon system with all multi-coated lenses. I think it was November of 1978 when the price on the Nikon F2As settled down that I started my second Nikon system with an F2As and 55/3.5 AI Micro-Nikkor.

Dave I respect your opinion, and appreciate your input, but it all boils down to different strokes.

I don't like zooms compared to the quality I get from primes. (Mostly in regards to fast apertures and bokeh, but at f/11 who cares?)

If I purchase a zoom, it is going to be the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.
My Nikkor Ai-S 15mm f/3.5 all manual is substandard to the rest of my all manual lenses IMO.
The Ai-S 15mm also can't be turned around to act as a macro lens either, for reverse-lens photography, which is the main reason I implement the MF lenses.

I am debating between getting Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF or a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 zoom to replace my Nikkor Ai-S 15mm f/3.5.
Since neither can be reversed, and act as a macro lens, either, then what I am left with is a contest between price, quality, and features for the money.

The Zeiss prime is over $1,100 more expensive than the Nikon zoom, it doesn't offer AF, and if you view the comparison between the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZF and the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 zoom, this all-time-great Nikkor zoom actually edges the Zeiss out in quality a bit too.

Contrary to many reports, the elder Nikkor 14-24 also edges out the brand new Canon 11-24mm as well, for $1,000 less, and not being nearly so cumbersome either.

So, if I am going to purchase a zoom, the Nikkor 14-24mm is going to be the one :)



Anyway this is just my half penny on the matter.
Dave

Appreciate your thoughts, thanks again.

Jack

Frank Fremerey

  • engineering art
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 10270
  • Bonn, Germany
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2016, 08:34:03 »
I love the picture and its content.

You should try the MF optics on the D500. The ground glass is perfect for MF
You are out there. You and your camera. You can shoot or not shoot as you please. Discover the world, Your world. Show it to us. Or we might never see it.

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 4823
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2016, 08:44:45 »
Very nice set of gear.

The 15mm 3,5 has less geometrical distortion than the 14-24mm AFS 2.8 - I still shoot the 14mm AF-D 2.8 since it's also very nice for IR and I use the lens profile in ACR.

The Zeiss 15mm 2.8 is affordable in UK eBay shops for us in the EU.
Erik Lund

MFloyd

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1216
  • My quest for the "perfect" speed blur
    • Adobe Portfolio
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2016, 11:06:35 »
Nice family picture 👍  One day I should do the same. In the meantime, we only share one common lens: the fantastic 300mm f/2.8 ...
Γνῶθι σεαυτόν

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2016, 14:14:11 »
I love the picture and its content.

You should try the MF optics on the D500. The ground glass is perfect for MF

The only times I have put the MF lenses on my D500, so far, have been in reversed-macro applications where the light was such that my D810's elder LCD screen was too dark and grainy to see see enough detail. But the results, as you say, were excellent.

I plan on sending my D810 down the river as soon as the D900 comes out, as it will likely have a much better LCD which (to me) is critical for high-mag macro work.

The files of the D810, compared to the D500, when I have time to adjust and do not need the speed, are much better.

I could not imagine going back to just "one" camera, and I would not want to be without either. I love them both for what each was meant to do.

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2016, 14:40:52 »
Very nice set of gear.

The 15mm 3,5 has less geometrical distortion than the 14-24mm AFS 2.8 - I still shoot the 14mm AF-D 2.8 since it's also very nice for IR and I use the lens profile in ACR.

The Zeiss 15mm 2.8 is affordable in UK eBay shops for us in the EU.


Thanks, I am enjoying the growing collection :)

My biggest problem with the 15mm Ai-S is the tiny focus throw and the severe chromatic aberration.

Also, because the D810 has such a small viewfinder, and because the angle is so wide at 15mm, the minimal focus throw (50°) makes it very difficult to nail the focus (even using Live View) with this lens. As such, I have come out with a lot of blurry images that "looked sharp" in my viewfinder but came out blurry, ultimately.

A recent purchase of a DK-17M for both cameras has been helpful in this regard, but my thinking is it would be beneficial just to have AF and let the lens achieve the perfect focus, and save me the hassle of doing so.

The main reason I got these Nikkor Ai-S MF lenses is because they can be reversed and used for macro, while still giving me manual control over the aperture (which AF lenses can't do). I have since grown to love the Ai-S manual lenses in general, the way they feel and operate, compared to the plasticky, crappy-feeling AF lenses. The 15mm lacks the reverse-versatility of my other Ai-S lenses and it provides problems that my others don't seem to provide (ghosting, flare, CA, difficulty to focus perfectly).

The Zeiss is a beautiful instrument, but I am not sure I really want a $3000 lens hanging from my hip as I push my way through the brush on a hike. It is also pretty heavy (820+ g), while the 14-24 is heavier still (@ 997g).

The 14-24 would provide an advantage in AF, but at the cost of $2K and extra weight.

The thing I like about the 15mm is just its look, and feel, and the fact it only weighs 630g. Although it wasn't exactly "cheap," I found a near-mint copy (box, filters, everything) for $999. I am not as worried to let it free-hang on a camera-holster from my hip as I hike ... carrying my tripod + long glass over my shoulder.

I am going to continue to try it out, adjusting myself to its strengths and weaknesses, before I make a final decision, one way or the other.

John Koerner

  • Guest
Re: (( Old and New ))
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2016, 14:46:48 »
Nice family picture 👍  One day I should do the same. In the meantime, we only share one common lens: the fantastic 300mm f/2.8 ...

Thank you :)

The 300 VR II is indeed a fantastic lens.

It, literally, has been a game-changer for me.

My entire approach to nature photography now revolves around it and its incredible quality + versatility.