NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on March 26, 2016, 21:42:51
-
Hi.
I made a post or two here awhile back and have just switched from Canon to Nikon. Seems like there is an almost cult-like following for elder Nikon lenses.
With that said, in today's fast-paced world of auto-this, and auto-that, button-pushing quickness ... I found it refreshing that Nikon still made old-school, 100% manual lenses ... which don't seem to be talked about much. What makes it even more astonishing to me is that, by most accounts, these old-school fully-manual lenses still perform better than every "fully-automatic" equivalent that Nikon makes. Because of this, I have purchased the following lenses:
- Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36976-USA/Nikon_1435_NIKKOR_Normal_50mm_f_1_2.html)
- Nikon NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36949-USA/Nikon_1429_Wide_Angle_35mm_f_1_4.html)
- Nikon NIKKOR 28mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36925-USA/Nikon_1420_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2_8.html)
- Nikon NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36905-USA/Nikon_1415_Super_Wide_Angle_20mm.html)
These lenses are ridiculously-inexpensive, I guess because so many people gravitate to "fully-auto" lenses these days, so I am curious to know others' experience with these lenses.
Another nice thing about these lenses is their manual-aperture, which allows them to be reverse-mounted and serve as macro lenses, still retaining total aperture control (whereas auto lenses lose this control, when reversed), making each of these gems (essentially) "2 lenses in 1," and a bargain for what you get :D
Jack
-
Great line-up for manual focus Nikkors. There are also many discontinued Nikkor lenses that can be bought in EX+to Mint condition for great prices. The 85/2, 135/2.8, and 200/4 Ai and Ais series would fill in the longer focal lengths for you...
-
Anyone familiar with the Nikon Df and the lore surrounding this camera will be well versed in what MF lenses work the best. There is no need to buy factory new lenses as the second-hand market is immense and many alternatives are easy to get hold of. If one has the patience, the more scarce gems of the manual-lens era also can be sourced.
The synergetic MF Nikkor is the legendary 105 mm f/2.5. Select the version that best suits its intended use. personally I favour the AI, but the early "Sonnar" has many followers as well.
Virtually all of these Nikkors can be CPU-modified to further enhance their versatility with newer cameras.
-
An example of basic kit alternatives for the Nikon Df. Do note the CPU contacts.
-
Great line-up for manual focus Nikkors. There are also many discontinued Nikkor lenses that can be bought in EX+to Mint condition for great prices. The 85/2, 135/2.8, and 200/4 Ai and Ais series would fill in the longer focal lengths for you...
Thank you.
Interesting :)
-
Anyone familiar with the Nikon Df and the lore surrounding this camera will be well versed in what MF lenses work the best.
Well, seeing as I just switched systems, that would exclude me :D
-
We do our best to enlighten you, then ...
-
We do our best to enlighten you, then ...
Thank you!
-
Some stuff can be seen in the 'Reviews' section. Or you can just ask, lots of knowledgeable members here to help you find your way through the Nikkor jungle. Never kept tally of their total number, but with all the versions thrown in, there must be hundreds of them.
Roland Vink's site is an excellent starting point to acquaint yourself with the myriad of Nikkors
http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html
-
There is no need to buy factory new lenses as the second-hand market is immense and many alternatives are easy to get hold of. If one has the patience, the more scarce gems of the manual-lens era also can be sourced.
Well, there is a need. I work a lot of hours and don't have the time to troll eBay for obscure lenses. (In fact, I created this thread to "mine for ideas," so I appreciate the responses.)
One thing I did find, for example, is a slightly opposing view.
For example, the revered Noct Nikkor 58 (priced at $3,000 used) was actually considered less desirable overall in this review (http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_noct-nikkor_58mm.html) as the ordinary Nikon NIKKOR 50mm f/1.2 in this review (http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_nikkor_50mm_1.2.html) (same reviewer).
Maybe the Noct has a couple of peculiar qualities that distinguish it ... but is it really worth a $2,400 price difference? (Doesn't seem so, based on these review.)
I would rather pay $700 for a brand-new, untouched, literally mint 50mm f/1.2 lens ... that is better than any other elder lens except (maybe) the Noct ... than spend hours online (time = money) saving a couple-hundred for a used iteration.
I am thinking that, soon, these old (now, brand-new) lenses may someday be collector's items ???
The synergetic MF Nikkor is the legendary 105 mm f/2.5. Select the version that best suits its intended use. personally I favour the AI, but the early "Sonnar" has many followers as well.
Thanks for the tip!
Virtually all of these Nikkors can be CPU-modified to further enhance their versatility with newer cameras.
I have thought about doing this with a Voigtländer I have ... but I am starting to like the idea of "off the grid" lenses ;D
Jack
-
Some stuff can be seen in the 'Reviews' section. Or you can just ask, lots of knowledgeable members here to help you find your way through the Nikkor jungle. Never kept tally of their total number, but with all the versions thrown in, there must be hundreds of them.
Roland Vink's site is an excellent starting point to acquaint yourself with the myriad of Nikkors
http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html
Thank you ... I had just found that site about 2 hrs ago ... and noticed your own reviews as well ... so thanks for the TIME I know it must have taken to put all that stuff together (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/hatsoff.gif)
Jack
-
...
-
John, manual Nikkors are indeed great!
On the 50mm/1.2, shooting wide open may initially not seem that great with all the spherical aberration but it delivers magical portraits. Well worth the practice to nail the focus. If I had to live with only one lens, this would be it!
As Bjørn R. pointed out, the 105mm is simply fantastic. Most people favor the f/2.5 Ai version with it's rounded blades. The earlier Sonnar is preferred by some for smoother transitions at the cost of less pop. The 105mm f/1.8 Ai-s is top notch if you are interested in a more corrected lens (virtually no field curvature/CA), though many swear by the f/2.5's character. All of the 105mm's are cheap enough to buy a couple, test them, and sell off the one you like least.
-
Of course there always be opposing reviews. People use their lenses differently and seek different approaches to their photographic expressions.
It is also very important to understand many of these older lenses have character and some even are quite temperamental in their behaviour over the aperture and/or focusing range. All of which adds to the enjoyment one can have using such optical items. As a user, you need to invest efforts in learning their behaviour and response. This is as far from 'point and shoot' as you possibly can get.
-
My three favourite manual Nikkors are the 16mm/3,5 rectangular fisheye, the 28mm/2.0 and the 35mm/1,4. The latter has plenty of character but once you get to know it you will fall in love.
-
Don't wanna be rude but wonder why a recent Nikon convert is trying to tell us something we already know??
Most of us here at NG own at least one of the mentioned lenses, its like telling a car owner his car has 4 wheels and a steering wheel ;D ;D
-
Not all wheels are created equal :D
-
Don't wanna be rude but wonder why a recent Nikon convert is trying to tell us something we already know??
I am not "telling" anyone anything, just find it interesting so many don't seem to mention the simple manual lenses.
Most of us here at NG own at least one of the mentioned lenses, its like telling a car owner his car has 4 wheels and a steering wheel ;D ;D
At the risk of being rude back, that is possibly one of the lamest analogies I've ever read, quite frankly.
-
So . . . them lenses . . . ;)
-
Not all wheels are created equal :D
Exactly.
I did not see any simple, all-manual Canon equivalents is all.
I also like macro, and the manual aperture of the Nikon manuals is a bonus IMO ...
-
I am not "telling" anyone anything, just find it interesting so many don't seem to mention the simple manual lenses.
Peruse NG forums and you hardly see anything else discussed....
-
John, manual Nikkors are indeed great!
I am discovering this, thank you :)
On the 50mm/1.2, shooting wide open may initially not seem that great with all the spherical aberration but it delivers magical portraits. Well worth the practice to nail the focus. If I had to live with only one lens, this would be it!
I can see that.
Great as-is, then flip it over, and it's a 1:1 macro lens 8)
As Bjørn R. pointed out, the 105mm is simply fantastic. Most people favor the f/2.5 Ai version with it's rounded blades. The earlier Sonnar is preferred by some for smoother transitions at the cost of less pop. The 105mm f/1.8 Ai-s is top notch if you are interested in a more corrected lens (virtually no field curvature/CA), though many swear by the f/2.5's character. All of the 105mm's are cheap enough to buy a couple, test them, and sell off the one you like least.
I appreciate the info, but 105 is not a focal length that interests me as much ... though 200 and more becomes increasingly so.
Jack
-
... and the 35mm/1,4. The latter has plenty of character but once you get to know it you will fall in love.
I like this quote ;D
-
How could I forget to mention the 105/2.5....
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/765/21312346249_c52ee4a0e1_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ytim2F)nikkor_105_1 (https://flic.kr/p/ytim2F) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
I tend to use the Leica mount version more than the F-Mount version...
My definition of "Old School" tends to be anything pre-1960. The Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5 (Sonnar original) version was designed to be under-corrected for spherical aberration, ie smooth Bokeh. The rangefinder version has a rounded aperture using 10 blades, the F-Mount version has less blades. The optical formula changed in the early 70s.
The F-Mount Ai version is back row, to the right. These can be bought for under $150.
The 200mm F4 Ai and Ais lenses are compact, and can be found for $100 or so. Some threads just started on them. Some samples here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/albums/72157651857276326
200/4 on the Df, at F5.6.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5764/21532836371_469773330f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yNMq4v)DSC_6462 (https://flic.kr/p/yNMq4v) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
100% crop,
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5794/20903014373_44ebbf7f25_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/xR8pVx)DSC_6462-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/xR8pVx) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
-
I did not see any simple, all-manual Canon equivalents is all.
Thats because Canon dropped the FD mount for the EF mount in 1987 rendering all the manual focus FD lenses useless, until the mirrorless cameras appeared that is :)
-
Canon made an FD mount 50mm F1.2 "L" aspheric lens very similar to the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Canon-New-FD-NFD-50mm-F-1-2-1-1-2-L-From-Japan-142-/222062625808?hash=item33b3f6c410:g:ER8AAOSwPc9Wzcev
The Noct-Nikkor could be bought for $800 used when still in production, prices have soared after it was discontinued. The Canon lens is cheap as the FD mount was discontinued.
The Noct-Nikkor was designed to eliminate Coma, and was optimized to provide maximum contrast at 10lp/mm, as per the 1976 announcement of it. I have that article somewhere in a stack of magazines.
I should buy the Canon and convert it to Leica mount. RF Cam made from a cut up tripod leg.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8285061583_e1fa32888b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dC87an)Canon 50/1.4, now RF Coupled (https://flic.kr/p/dC87an) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
You can buy Aspheric manual focus primes in Leica mount made by Cosina, the 35/1.2 Nokton was ~$800, same as the Noct-Nikkor in the early 90s.
-
I prefer a mix of old and new. I all but stopped trading in used equipment in about 1982 due to really stupid trade of a Pentax 6x7 system with two bodies and four lines. I own most of the Nikkors I've bought since 1978.
A few lenses I'll suggest are as follow...
16/2.8 Ais for very low flare and freedom from ghost.
20/3.5 AI or Ais same as above.
28/2.0 AI or Ais same as above.
50/1.8 Ai
55/2.8 Ais
105/2.5 AI or Ais
105/2.8 Ais Micro
135/2.8 AI or Ais
135/3.5 AI or Ais
I could go blind typing on this cell phone but this time is a good start.
Bjørn Rørslett's old site was my gold standard for years. If a lens got a good review there I would almost always like it.
Welcome!
Dave
-
Brian, you see the 50mm f/1.2 Canon FD lens being closer to the Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 lens than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AiS? Have I got that right?
Canon FD lenses are still sufficiently affordable at this point of time that one could purchase a new Sony A7 body and a 50mm f/1.2 lens & an FD adapter and still be financially ahead of a good 58mm Noct-Nikkor on its own. Tantalising.
Canon made an FD mount 50mm F1.2 "L" aspheric lens very similar to the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Canon-New-FD-NFD-50mm-F-1-2-1-1-2-L-From-Japan-142-/222062625808?hash=item33b3f6c410:g:ER8AAOSwPc9Wzcev
The Noct-Nikkor could be bought for $800 used when still in production, prices have soared after it was discontinued. The Canon lens is cheap as the FD mount was discontinued.
The Noct-Nikkor was designed to eliminate Coma, and was optimized to provide maximum contrast at 10lp/mm, as per the 1976 announcement of it. I have that article somewhere in a stack of magazines.
I should buy the Canon and convert it to Leica mount. RF Cam made from a cut up tripod leg.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8345/8285061583_e1fa32888b_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dC87an)Canon 50/1.4, now RF Coupled (https://flic.kr/p/dC87an) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
You can buy Aspheric manual focus primes in Leica mount made by Cosina, the 35/1.2 Nokton was ~$800, same as the Noct-Nikkor in the early 90s.
-
Canon made the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.2 L (asph), analogous to the Nikkor 50/1.2 and Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2. The high-end lenses used aspheric optics.
With the Canon - the Red L and Red ring as shown in the link are the identifiers to look for.
-
Peruse NG forums and you hardly see anything else discussed....
And I can see why ... they're "pure," sweet, unencumbered by electronic gadgetry.
-
How could I forget to mention the 105/2.5....
I tend to use the Leica mount version more than the F-Mount version...
Nice lens collection, sir, and interesting ... thanks.
My definition of "Old School" tends to be anything pre-1960.
Would have to disagree ...
You're confusing old school with just plain old.
Old = chronological age.
Old School = modern item with elder design.
Most modern lenses are electronically-driven ... so a modern lens, with ZERO electronic gadgetry = "old school" design, as in the old days :D
The Nikkor-P 10.5cm F2.5 (Sonnar original) version was designed to be under-corrected for spherical aberration, ie smooth Bokeh. The rangefinder version has a rounded aperture using 10 blades, the F-Mount version has less blades. The optical formula changed in the early 70s.
Interesting, thank you.
I can tell I have a lot to learn ???
The F-Mount Ai version is back row, to the right. These can be bought for under $150.
The 200mm F4 Ai and Ais lenses are compact, and can be found for $100 or so. Some threads just started on them. Some samples here:
Wow :o
Very good lenses for a few hundred ... maybe I'd better spend some more time on eBay :-\
Thanks for the photos and input,
Jack
-
Thats because Canon dropped the FD mount for the EF mount in 1987 rendering all the manual focus FD lenses useless, until the mirrorless cameras appeared that is :)
I see.
Doesn't sound like a very good decision.
-
Canon made the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.2 L (asph), analogous to the Nikkor 50/1.2 and Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2. The high-end lenses used aspheric optics.
With the Canon - the Red L and Red ring as shown in the link are the identifiers to look for.
According to Ken Rockwell (http://kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/50mm-f12-L.htm), the Canon 50mm f/2 was superior to anything of its time :o
What a shame they trashed their whole system.
-
Sources on the Internet need to be reliable before you can trust them.
-
According to Ken Rockwell (http://kenrockwell.com/canon/fd/50mm-f12-L.htm), the Canon 50mm f/2 was superior to anything of its time :o
What a shame they trashed their whole system.
Canon has a history of making their SLR mount systems obsolete- from the first R series lenses up through FL and FD. Three lens systems in a little over 10 years. Their optics are first rate, played a come-from-behind game with Nikon. Canon's first cameras were sold with Nikkor lenses, when they came out with their own lenses- took years to catch up. They were first out with an F1.2 lens ~1956, and an F0.95 lens in 1961. I have a number of Canon lenses going back to the early 1950s in Leica mount.
When Nikon came out with the F-Mount, they sold an adapter to use the RF telephoto lenses with it. I've used a 1952 Nikkor 25cm F4 lens on the Df.
-
Doesn't sound like a very good decision.
It was a mixed bag, it allowed Canon to start fresh with a fully digital mount, electronically controlled aperture and lenses with built in AF motors while Nikon was limited by the old mount with the screw driver AF, mechanical aperture, etc for many years (if not decades).
That said it must have been quite a shock to the Canon users back then that the value of their lens investment evaporated into thin air :o
-
I can use Nikkors from the late '50s on my Df. Even earlier S-mount long lenses through the NF tube. That is why the decision to keep the basic F-mount was so compelling. It is highly likely Nikon engineers really want the contemporary and future Nikkors to become all "E", but they have the lens volume of close to 100 million existing Nikkors to take into account as well. Thus the "E" technology only slowly seeps into the current lens range and pro Nikons will probably continue to support the older interfaces for a very long time to come.
Also note that Canon optics have evolved and backwards compatibility against a fixed layout mount can cause issues for them over time. The width of the mount is not as important as people think because all of it cannot be used due to the positioning of the signal pins. Look into a Canon DSLR and see the true free space where the mirror works is hardly any bigger than what most Nikons offer. They do have that coveted "E" interface though, but that limits the use of some lenses for very specific purposes (reversal of lens, mounting on non-automated bellows etc.).
Thus there are pros and cons for either system. But the Nikkor wins on backwards compatibility if nothing else.
-
Sources on the Internet need to be reliable before you can trust them.
LOL, understood.
-
Canon has a history of making their SLR mount systems obsolete- from the first R series lenses up through FL and FD. Three lens systems in a little over 10 years. Their optics are first rate, played a come-from-behind game with Nikon. Canon's first cameras were sold with Nikkor lenses, when they came out with their own lenses- took years to catch up. They were first out with an F1.2 lens ~1956, and an F0.95 lens in 1961. I have a number of Canon lenses going back to the early 1950s in Leica mount.
It seems almost criminal to render customers' lens investments obsolete overnight.
No wonder long-time Nikon fans are loyal ... their lens investments over the years have accumulated, rather than become obsolete :-X
-
It was a mixed bag, it allowed Canon to start fresh with a fully digital mount, electronically controlled aperture and lenses with built in AF motors while Nikon was limited by the old mount with the screw driver AF, mechanical aperture, etc for many years (if not decades).
That said it must have been quite a shock to the Canon users back then that the value of their lens investment evaporated into thin air :o
It certainly wasn't very considerate of Canon ... if not outright rude ... to render an old lens compilation obsolete.
Looks like maybe it's a case of "the tortoise and the hare" ... those who invested in Nikon lenses decades ago can still use them.
Equally fascinating is the fact Nikon is still making completely-manual lenses. I couldn't help but simply buy them. I think this is great.
-
I can use Nikkors from the late '50s on my Df. Even earlier S-mount long lenses through the NF tube. That is why the decision to keep the basic F-mount was so compelling. It is highly likely Nikon engineers really want the contemporary and future Nikkors to become all "E", but they have the lens volume of close to 100 million existing Nikkors to take into account as well. Thus the "E" technology only slowly seeps into the current lens range and pro Nikons will probably continue to support the older interfaces for a very long time to come.
Also note that Canon optics have evolved and backwards compatibility against a fixed layout mount can cause issues for them over time. The width of the mount is not as important as people think because all of it cannot be used due to the positioning of the signal pins. Look into a Canon DSLR and see the true free space where the mirror works is hardly any bigger than what most Nikons offer. They do have that coveted "E" interface though, but that limits the use of some lenses for very specific purposes (reversal of lens, mounting on non-automated bellows etc.).
Thus there are pros and cons for either system. But the Nikkor wins on backwards compatibility if nothing else.
Again, fascinating.
(Pardon my very naïve perspective, but I am brand new to this system).
Only had a few years with Canon as well, but certainly understand the Nikon loyalists' perspective a lot clearer now ...
-
Of course Sony Alpha a7 Series camera users can be lens brand agnostic and cherry pick the best of breed from the best offerings of virtually all lens producers. Adapters are a necessary overhead.
That said, it is very good indeed that nearly all Nikon lenses of old can in the main be used with the latest camera bodies. :)
-
Let us not forget too that if you can do without metering, the low end Nikon DX cameras can take almost everything too, including unmodified (or unmodifiable) pre-AI.
-
V ery true in respect of the DX cameras, but it is nice to use the old legacy lenses to their best, which usually means an Ai conversion and ideally adding a CPU chip.
That said, and with a little practice, the exposure histogram of a lower end DX camera (i.e. one with no aperture follower tab) can still be used to yield accurate exposures with an unconverted lens. Good to have options.
Such lower end DX cameras can at least still present the green focus dot - unlike many Canon DSLRs, which can handle the exposure side of things with legacy lenses, but give no electronic focus assistance to unchipped lenses.
Let us not forget too that if you can do without metering, the low end Nikon DX cameras can take almost everything too, including unmodified (or unmodifiable) pre-AI.
-
I am in love with the 1.4/35 Ai-S ... again ... find lots of portaits I took with it during the last weeks on this site.
Concerning the 1.2 I am still undecided 50, 55 or 58???
The 2.5/105 is a must have lens but there are the 2.0/105, 1.8/105, 2.8/105 and tons of 105 Micro Nikkors all with
their special character and fan base. No wonder so many people here are infected with collecting and using plenty
of different and sometimes even same Nikkors.
I am more into shooting excessively with the few lenses I have. My philosohy is ... the more I use a lens the more
value I create for me .... if I know her inside out back and forth she is a gem.
-
Canon worked around the Rangefinder mechanism of the Canon 7 by using a cut-out on the top of the rear element of the Canon 50/0.95. The same could be done to allow a rear element to clear the electrical contacts of a modern lens.
edited to add, rear element of the Canon 50/1.0 EOS Mount (not my picture)-
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2270/1796968079_606e0d585f_z.jpg)
Looks like someone at Canon remembered the 1960 old school methods.
-
Erik has done this operation several times on various Noct-Nikkors ... Plus on the 50/1.2 AIS.
-
The 24x36 format works in your favor with hacks like this.
I've put RF cams directly on the rear elements of several SLR lenses to adapt them to Leica mount. The Canon 50/0.95 is the only lens I know of where they actually cut the glass to make way for the Cam. That lens used a breech-lock bayonet mount for the outer mount, the Canon 7 kept the 39mm Leica thread for the inner mount.
-
That said it must have been quite a shock to the Canon users back then that the value of their lens investment evaporated into thin air :o
Which is why I sold ALL our Canon gear as soon as the EF-Mount came onto the market. 9 Lenses, 5 bodies ... I still got half-way decent prices for them.
Ever since then I won't buy Canon no matter what.
Hermann
-
I appreciate the info, but 105 is not a focal length that interests me as much ... though 200 and more becomes increasingly so.
Well, the Nikkor 105/F4 is a very nice macro lens, my preferred macro lens actually.
Longer lenses: If you can do without AF, the 400mm/F5.6 IF-ED is even by today's standards a nice lens. So is the 300mm/F4.5 IF-ED, even though the 400mm is a bit better in my opion. Even the 600mm/F5.6 is good.
Hermann
-
I paid $50 for a Canon 58/1.2 FL mount lens, sold it with a Canon Pellix ~10 years ago. Kept the 50/1.4 that was originally on it, 50mm SLR lenses are easy to convert to RF mount. Prices are up since those days!
Nikon remembers their heritage, hence the S3-2000 and SP-2005. Canon never looks back.
-
The 24x36 format works in your favor with hacks like this.
I've put RF cams directly on the rear elements of several SLR lenses to adapt them to Leica mount. The Canon 50/0.95 is the only lens I know of where they actually cut the glass to make way for the Cam. That lens used a breech-lock bayonet mount for the outer mount, the Canon 7 kept the 39mm Leica thread for the inner mount.
But when you do that you can see it in the out of focus highlights, not so nice, The nice thing about the Noct-Nikkor is that the CPU still sits at the edge of this rear 'aperture' that is painted on the rear of the lens, so OOF highlights are still round.
Not possible with the 50mm f/1 as designed,,,
I have also converted lenses and mounted a cam but the trick is to mount a ring and keep the rangefinder cam well clear off the rear glass
-
Using a lens designed for the longer register distance of a (D)SLR is beneficial because a cut into the [side of the] rear element is less likely to vignette the exit pupil.
-
But when you do that you can see it in the out of focus highlights, not so nice, The nice thing about the Noct-Nikkor is that the CPU still sits at the edge of this rear 'aperture' that is painted on the rear of the lens, so OOF highlights are still round.
Not possible with the 50mm f/1 as designed,,,
I have also converted lenses and mounted a cam but the trick is to mount a ring and keep the rangefinder cam well clear off the rear glass
These are with the Canon 50/0.95, wide-open- first shots taken back in 2004. $200 from Ebay, threw it onto my Canon 7- perfect focus across range.
-
Which is why I sold ALL our Canon gear as soon as the EF-Mount came onto the market. 9 Lenses, 5 bodies ... I still got half-way decent prices for them.
Ever since then I won't buy Canon no matter what.
Hermann
Can't say as I blame you.
-
Which is why I sold ALL our Canon gear as soon as the EF-Mount came onto the market. 9 Lenses, 5 bodies ... I still got half-way decent prices for them.
.......
Hermann
I did the same - It was a shame since they where nice glass,,,
And it was not that they where worthless JA, thats a miss understanding, people where happy with film and MF back then,,,
-
The FD/FL gear just suddenly appeared on an evolutionary side branch ...
-
Well, the Nikkor 105/F4 is a very nice macro lens, my preferred macro lens actually.
I agree it is a nice lens, just prefer a longer focal length (and therefore working distance) for 1:1 macro.
Longer lenses: If you can do without AF, the 400mm/F5.6 IF-ED is even by today's standards a nice lens. So is the 300mm/F4.5 IF-ED, even though the 400mm is a bit better in my opion. Even the 600mm/F5.6 is good.
Hermann
Thank you very much.
Could have picked up all 3 of these for the price I just paid for the new Nikkor 300 VR II :o
Am seriously enjoying an all-manual approach of late ...
Jack
-
Brian #53. A m a z i n g footage wonderful colors bokeh to my liking. Which body?
Canon7 never heared of
-
These will help you get started :D ie. my list of recommended manual focus Nikkors
20/2.8 Ai-S
24/2 Ai-S
24/2.8 Ai-S
28/2 Ai
28/2.8 AI-S
35/2 Ai
50/1.2 Ai-S
50/1.2 Ai
50/1.4 Ai
50/1.8 Ai-S (Japan only pancake)
58/1.2 Noct
85/1.4 Ai-S
105/2.5 Ai
105/2.5 Ai-S
135/2.8Q (easy to Ai convert)
135/3.5 Ai
180/2.8 Ai-S
+ all the Ai/Ai-S Micro-Nikkors
-
I agree it is a nice lens, just prefer a longer focal length (and therefore working distance) for 1:1 macro.
The 105 mm f/4 is a unit-focusing design, hence its 1:1 working distance is very long and actually might be longer than some 180-200 mm modern "macro" lenses featuring internal focusing and other clever optical tricks.
Numbers alone can be misleading unless carefully interpreted.
-
Ouch. The Canon 0.95 is about 2500 Euro now on Ebay...
-
These are with the Canon 50/0.95, wide-open- first shots taken back in 2004. $200 from Ebay, threw it onto my Canon 7- perfect focus across range.
Fascinating, and kinda-trippy, bokeh.
The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 has kind of a "weird" bokeh like this too wide-open.
-
Fascinating, and kinda-trippy, bokeh.
The Nikon 50mm f/1.2 has kind of a "weird" bokeh like this too wide-open.
I would tend to agree.
The AiS 50mm/1.2 at f1.2
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/132756157/original.jpg)
rgds, Andy
-
These will help you get started :D ie. my list of recommended manual focus Nikkors
15/3.5 Ai-S
20/2.8 Ai-S
24/2 Ai-S
24/2.8 Ai-S
28/2 Ai
28/2.8 AI-S
35/2 Ai
35/1.4 Ai-S
50/1.2 Ai-S
50/1.2 Ai
50/1.4 Ai
50/1.8 Ai-S (Japan only pancake)
58/1.2 Noct
85/1.4 Ai-S
105/2.5 Ai
105/2.5 Ai-S
135/2.8Q (easy to Ai convert)
135/3.5 Ai
180/2.8 Ai-S
Thank you for the feedback.
I already have the lenses in red (and will not duplicate their range), whilst the lenses denoted in green (and added, as in the 15mm) I will soon add to the fold :D
Cheers,
Jack
PS: I already have the Voigtländer 125mm f2.5 Apo-Lanthar Macro, which covers the 105-135 gamut, IMO.
PSS: After I purchase the smaller focal lengths, I then plan on purchasing the elder Nikkor 600mm/F5.6 IF-ED for field work.
Very exciting "new world" for me ;D
-
Brian #53. A m a z i n g footage wonderful colors bokeh to my liking. Which body?
Canon7 never heared of
The Canon 7 is from 1961, used a breech-mount for the outer mount and Leica 39mm thread mount for the inner mount. The camera uses projected-framelines, was Canon's entry to compete with the Nikon SP and Leica M3. Many bought it in the day just for the F0.95 lens.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1457/25803705560_31b8376994_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FjbJFb)RIMG0737 (https://flic.kr/p/FjbJFb) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
Quick grab shot- the Selenium Meter still works.
-
John,
wrt to your list.
May I suggest to add the Ai(S) 105mm/2.5 as well - it is a fabulous lens.
Chances are high that you will enjoy the 15mm/3.5 :)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153825190/original.jpg)
rgds, Andy
-
These will help you get started :D ie. my list of recommended manual focus Nikkors
35/2 Ai
50/1.2 Ai-S
Not the 35/2.8 Ai ?
-
The 105mm has quite the reputation, if you haven't noticed ::)
-
But when you do that you can see it in the out of focus highlights, not so nice, The nice thing about the Noct-Nikkor is that the CPU still sits at the edge of this rear 'aperture' that is painted on the rear of the lens, so OOF highlights are still round.
Not possible with the 50mm f/1 as designed,,,
I have also converted lenses and mounted a cam but the trick is to mount a ring and keep the rangefinder cam well clear off the rear glass
Have you used this lens, and have some examples of this effect? I've never seen it in the Canon 50/0.95 or on the 80~200/4.5 Ais vs the Ai version.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1630/25613066311_f7820a0117_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/F2kEgz)Nikkor 80~200/4.5n and 8-~200/4.5 (https://flic.kr/p/F2kEgz) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
The mask used on the Ais lens intrudes much farther into the rear element than the contact plate of the Canon 50/1.0 or RF cam of the 50/0.95. much depends on the collimation at the point of the mask, that used with the 80~200/4.5 Ais does not show up in the out-of-focus regions.
Looking at images on Flickr taken with the Canon 50/1.0, it is not evident that the electrical contact plate shows up in the out-of-focus areas.
-
My recommended list is:
16/3.5 AI - Best fisheye I've used, get the true AI version (NOT the converted to AI) as it's slightly better than earlier versions. Super sharp out to the corners on FX and excellent flare/ghosting.
20/2.8 - Because it's so small and pretty decent stopped down. Lots of ghosting.
28/2 AI - On DX it's excellent, on FX the corners not so much. Very very flare/ghost resistant.
45/2.8 AI-P - Very usable at f/2.8, all you could ask for at f/5.6, and it's effectively a body cap.
50/55/58 f/1.2 - Just because they are f/1.2
105/2.5 AI or AIS - A very very good lens. AI has curved blades, AIS build-in hood - take your pick.
135/3.5 AIS - Very good lens. Does not like back-lit subjects due to flare issues.
135/2 AIS - Better the farther away the subject is, kind of long MFD.
180/2.8 ED AIS - Very very good, but does have some aperture reflection and PF problems.
300/4.5 ED AI (NOT the IF version) - Very very good compact tele.
400/5.6 ED-IF AIS - Very good compact 400mm that's pretty light weight.
400/5.6 ED AI - An excellent not quite as compact 400mm that takes TC's better than the IF version.
600/5.6 ED-IF AIS - Well, there's nothing compact about it unless compared to the 600/4 :), has the usual CA problems of older Nikkors, but it's pretty darned sharp even wide open.
:)
-
John,
wrt to your list.
May I suggest to add the Ai(S) 105mm/2.5 as well - it is a fabulous lens.
Chances are high that you will enjoy the 15mm/3.5 :)
rgds, Andy
Noted ;D
-
My recommended list is:
16/3.5 AI - Best fisheye I've used, get the true AI version (NOT the converted to AI) as it's slightly better than earlier versions. Super sharp out to the corners on FX and excellent flare/ghosting.
20/2.8 - Because it's so small and pretty decent stopped down. Lots of ghosting.
28/2 AI - On DX it's excellent, on FX the corners not so much. Very very flare/ghost resistant.
45/2.8 AI-P - Very usable at f/2.8, all you could ask for at f/5.6, and it's effectively a body cap.
50/55/58 f/1.2 - Just because they are f/1.2
105/2.5 AI or AIS - A very very good lens. AI has curved blades, AIS build-in hood - take your pick.
135/3.5 AIS - Very good lens. Does not like back-lit subjects due to flare issues.
135/2 AIS - Better the farther away the subject is, kind of long MFD.
180/2.8 ED AIS - Very very good, but does have some aperture reflection and PF problems.
300/4.5 ED AI (NOT the IF version) - Very very good compact tele.
400/5.6 ED-IF AIS - Very good compact 400mm that's pretty light weight.
400/5.6 ED AI - An excellent not quite as compact 400mm that takes TC's better than the IF version.
600/5.6 ED-IF AIS - Well, there's nothing compact about it unless compared to the 600/4 :), has the usual CA problems of older Nikkors, but it's pretty darned sharp even wide open.
:)
Thank you.
Saw you omitted the 35 f/1.4 AiS.
Curious how the old super telephotos stack up to the new?
-
Have you used this lens, and have some examples of this effect? I've never seen it in the Canon 50/0.95 or on the 80~200/4.5 Ais vs the Ai version.
Nikkor 80~200/4.5n and 8-~200/4.5 (https://flic.kr/p/F2kEgz) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
The mask used on the Ais lens intrudes much farther into the rear element than the contact plate of the Canon 50/1.0 or RF cam of the 50/0.95. much depends on the collimation at the point of the mask, that used with the 80~200/4.5 Ais does not show up in the out-of-focus regions.
Looking at images on Flickr taken with the Canon 50/1.0, it is not evident that the electrical contact plate shows up in the out-of-focus areas.
Yes I have some images somewhere but its actually super easy to test this. But first, it will not show up in your zoom or any other lens with similar rear rectangular opening also the new 24-70 VR doesnt show this ;)
The key is you wrote; ',,,on the rear element' and that's the issue, when it's on the surface of the rear element then you can see it clearly.
The Noct has this cut out of the rear element, it is for the aperture activation lever on the camera, when you mount the lens it must be able to clear this lever, the 55 and 50mm also has this to some extent. That's why there is a painted 'aperture' on the element.
Here the 50mm 1.2 AI you can see the cout out from 2 o'clock until 7 o'clock...
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8403/8623210197_01af4cd6ea_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/e91cXT)L1020189 (https://flic.kr/p/e91cXT) by Erik Gunst Lund (https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_lund/), on Flickr
To see this you just take any old lens, make a distinctive black/light proof mark on the rear element and shoot for instance a green diode as above at infinity but shot a say 1 meter.
-
John,
wrt to your list.
May I suggest to add the Ai(S) 105mm/2.5 as well - it is a fabulous lens.
Chances are high that you will enjoy the 15mm/3.5 :)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153825190/original.jpg)
rgds, Andy
What a clean pair 8)
How does a lens like that stack up to a 14-24, optics-wise?
Prices are reasonable too ...
-
John,
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet Nikkor, The Thousand and One Nights has some very interesting reading concerning the development and philosophy behind many Nikkor lenses old and new.
Best,
Dave
-
John,
In case it hasn't been mentioned yet Nikkor, The Thousand and One Nights has some very interesting reading concerning the development and philosophy behind many Nikkor lenses old and new.
Best,
Dave
Dave, thanks for the tip.
Bookmarked, and will read to learn more.
I have my eye set on the 15 f/3.5 as my next purchase, and after that a 600mm f/5.6 ED-IF.
Jack
-
I am digging these old school Nikon lenses for nature photography.
I can take the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S and take a "normal" bokeh shot of a flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001297_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/657/1297/medium)
Then slap a reverse-ring on the filter mount, flip the lens over, and take a super-close 1:1 shot of that same flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001295_medium.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/657/1295/medium)
Same flower, both hand-held, both natural light.
The ability to do this is even more dramatic with the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S ... doubling the width perspective as a wide-angle ... then being able to go 2:1 lifesize as a macro. (Tripod is needed this close.)
The flexibility, small-size, and high-quality of these all-manual lenses is pretty nice :D
-
The 50mm f/1.2 is a fantastic lens. If you are reversing it for macro, you should look into gettig a BR3, quite handy for protecting the rear element and acts as a short hood as well.
-
The 50mm f/1.2 is a fantastic lens. If you are reversing it for macro, you should look into gettig a BR3, quite handy for protecting the rear element and acts as a short hood as well.
Thank you for the advice ... heeded and product ordered 8)
-
Very interesting topic. Makes me want to buy new equipment which is bad ***ggg***..
Thank you Brian for your follow up on the Canon 7!
-
BR-2/2A, BR-3, K-ring set (K1 through K5), are mandatory for the experimentally inclined photographer ....
Plus of course male-male coupler rings to 'transgender' the lens and a filter wrench and some rubber gloves or similar to remove stuck items.
-
Very interesting topic. Makes me want to buy new equipment which is bad ***ggg***..
Thank you Brian for your follow up on the Canon 7!
;D
-
BR-2/2A, BR-3, K-ring set (K1 through K5), are mandatory for the experimentally inclined photographer ....
Plus of course male-male coupler rings to 'transgender' the lens and a filter wrench and some rubber gloves or similar to remove stuck items.
Thanks for the tips!
-
Here is an example of the great range in what can be done with one 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S on a hike:
I can use the "infinity" end of the wide-angle lens and document the entire area where I hiked:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001307_medium.jpg)
I can use the mid-range end of the lens and document the plant/flower upon which I found a spider:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001308_medium.jpg)
And I can flip the lens around, with a simple $35 adapter, and take this 2:1 macro shot of the spider that was on the flower:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001298_large.jpg)
This is closer than any 1:1 macro lens can get (it's 2:1), it's wider than any 1:1 macro lens can get, and it goes for about half the price of any decent macro lens.
(FYI, you can fit 4 of these little spiders on your pinky fingernail :o)
All from a 9oz, $539 lens ;D
Jack
PS: Here is the Encounter (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=81)
-
This is a great shot of a peculiar and beautiful spider!
-
This is a great shot of a peculiar and beautiful spider!
Thank you :)
-
Then slap a reverse-ring on the filter mount, flip the lens over, and take a super-close 1:1 shot of that same flower:
Is it reversed a 1,2-lens?
-
Very nice detail of the Spider John. And a good description of that versatile 28mm/2.8 Ai-S ;)
-
Is it reversed a 1,2-lens?
It's this lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36925-USA/Nikon_1420_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2_8.html), reversed onto my camera by way of this ring (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37171-REG/Nikon_2657_BR_2A_Lens_Reversing_Ring.html).
According to the specs it achieves 2.1x lifesize magnification.
-
Very nice detail of the Spider John. And a good description of that versatile 28mm/2.8 Ai-S ;)
:D
-
Here is another example:
I used the "infinity" end of the wide-angle lens (properly-oriented) to document the entire area, looking back, where I hiked:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001307_medium.jpg)
I used the mid-range end of the lens and document the plant/flower upon which I found the spider:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001316_medium.jpg)
The lens also has a very close min focusing distance (properly-mounted) to get a standard close-up of the flower type on which it was found (again, normal lens mounting):
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001315_medium.jpg)
And then, just slapping on a simple reverse-ring, and turning the lens around, I am able to get an ultra-close 2:1 macro shot of the spider on the end of a flower bud (again, stacked image, natural light, macro rail):
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001323_large.jpg)
(This is no crop--it filled the frame--and it looks awesome at full-size!)
That is a pretty wide gamut of uses for 1 simple, inexpensive lens ;D
Jack
PS: Here (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_encounter_view.php?encounter_id=82) is the Encounter.
-
It's this lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36925-USA/Nikon_1420_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2_8.html), reversed onto my camera by way of this ring (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37171-REG/Nikon_2657_BR_2A_Lens_Reversing_Ring.html).
According to the specs it achieves 2.1x lifesize magnification.
I thought that You reversed the 1,2/50, and it would have been interesting for me if it maintains 1,2.
-
John, have you actually measured that a reversed 28/2.8 delivers 2:1 images? I would have expected higher magnification that that.
-
Vers nice spider shot ! I guess that in june at the Bièvre Photofair, I'll go hunting for some reversal rings, as in all those years I haven't tried the process of lens reversing, maybe because I was much too lazy... :-) But the 28/2.8 AIS being one fo my favorite your pictures just gave me a tinge of envy !!!
-
John, have you actually measured that a reversed 28/2.8 delivers 2:1 images? I would have expected higher magnification that that.
Hi.
I haven't measured them, no.
But the instructions that come in the box directly give the macro measurements achievable with each lens type, so I see no reason to question the manufacturer's own statistics.
Attached is the package insert (the green checkmarks are my own, denoting each lens I have, based on the incremental increase in magnification I get with each lens type--and I will probably add the 24mm so I can get 2.6x magnification). I rarely find the need to shoot at over 3x magnification for a nature shot.
Jack
PS: You can add extention tubes between reverse-ring and lens to increase the magnification (though I rarely, if ever, do so).
-
OK, thanks for the additional details.
I would have tried putting a close-up lens on the host lens before reversing it. Conjugate relationships would be better maintained. Also do note that without a narrow lens hood on the exposed rear end of the lens, the setup becomes very sensitive to stray light and potential loss of contrast. This of course due to the fact that a lot of the light entering the rear of the lens no longer can form an image.
The humble 36-72/3.5 Nikon SE is excellent for reversal using this principle. The added advantage is that one can fine-trim the composition by a little zooming in or out.
-
Vers nice spider shot ! I guess that in june at the Bièvre Photofair, I'll go hunting for some reversal rings, as in all those years I haven't tried the process of lens reversing, maybe because I was much too lazy... :-)
Thank you--she is a beauty!
No need to wait or hunt for a ring: you can order the BR-2A online, brand new, for like $35.
But the 28/2.8 AIS being one fo my favorite your pictures just gave me a tinge of envy !!!
Lol, it is really fun having this kind of flexibility in one lens.
I actually bring 3 lenses with me now (unless I take a longer trip): the Voightlander 125 APO, the Nikon 50 1/2, and the Nikon 28 f/1.2.
The Nikon 300 mm II I have is too heavy to enjoy hiking with every day.
The Nikon 20 mm f/2.8 shoots too close (3.4x) to be useful.
I find that the Voightlander 125 is light enough to be enjoyable and gives me a decent amount of reach. The 630° focus throw is a blessing and a curse. A blessing when you have the time; a curse when you don't.
The 50mm f/1.2 gives great bokeh for candid shots, plus it gives very nice 1:1 when I need to be close. It probably gets used the least, though, as most of what it can do the Voightlander can do also.
The 28mm is my favorite, because it gives me a really good wide shot, and when I reverse it, it gives me twice the magnification as the Voight and the 50, without being so close as to render it useless in the field (like the 20mm does). Again, I rarely need to shoot at 3:1, and when I do I need studio conditions. But that is me.
Jack
-
I'm a little confused as to what lenses you actually use as the nomenclature is non-standard.
"Nikon 50 1/2" is it the Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2 or the Nikkor 50 mm f/2 ?? The latter is known to be excellent for reversed-lens photography.
"Nikon 28 f/1.2" - no Nikkor has this specification. Is it the Nikkor 28 mm f/2 you refer to? Or the 28/2.8? The latter is often referred to as the "Wide-angle Micro-Nikkor".
-
OK, thanks for the additional details.
I would have tried putting a close-up lens on the host lens before reversing it. Conjugate relationships would be better maintained. Also do note that without a narrow lens hood on the exposed rear end of the lens, the setup becomes very sensitive to stray light and potential loss of contrast. This of course due to the fact that a lot of the light entering the rear of the lens no longer can form an image.
The humble 36-72/3.5 Nikon SE is excellent for reversal using this principle. The added advantage is that one can fine-trim the composition by a little zooming in or out.
Interesting, thanks. A manual aperture zoom makes sense, composition-wise.
My only reason from shying away from zooms is because the image quality isn't typically as good as a prime.
The way I do things is, if I need greater than 1:1, I slap extension tubes between my 125 APO and my Voightlander.
At greater than 1.5:1, I slap a reverse ring on my 28 mm.
Although my 35mm could get me 1.8:1, I like the simplicity of 3 lenses (1 on camera, 2 in a bag + tubes, if necessary).
The Zoom would simplify things even more ... but I am not sure the image quality would be on a par with a prime.
Have you compared the two?
Cheers,
Jack
-
I'm a little confused as to what lenses you actually use as the nomenclature is non-standard.
"Nikon 50 1/2" is it the Nikkor 50 mm f/1.2 or the Nikkor 50 mm f/2 ?? The latter is known to be excellent for reversed-lens photography.
"Nikon 28 f/1.2" - no Nikkor has this specification. Is it the Nikkor 28 mm f/2 you refer to? Or the 28/2.8? The latter is often referred to as the "Wide-angle Micro-Nikkor".
Just a typo from responding quickly.
I use the 50 f/1.2 and the 28 f/2.8 both Ai-S.
All of which can be seen on my "gear" link on my signature ;)
-
Thanks again, those were my hunch but I wanted to remove any ambiguity.
I have several of the 36-72 Nikon SE lenses, of which one is permanently set up for photomacrography. They are very inexpensive and optical quality is surprisingly good for a decent specimen.
There is an example using 36-72 SE on a D800, hand-held capture. The subject is the signal pins of a Xeon CPU chip at 3.5X.
-
Very interesting, thank you.
Would be similar in functionality (reversed) to the Canon MP-E 65mm.
Also a cool way to check the sharpness, via CPU chip :D
Thanks for sharing, may have to get one on eBay to check it out.
-
Hi again.
I checked out your article (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=576.0) on this, and again, interesting.
I would like to see the results when shot from a tripod + remote switch.
It is impossible to tell the level of detail possible from the lens, from that 3x shot, because you hand-held. It would be unacceptable for a live image, but that might not be the fault of the lens just the fact it was hand-held.
I don't think it is possible to hand-hold any camera/lens combo at 3:1 and get acceptable results (mayybe with a flash at 1/250, no way with natural light).
Jack
PS: From what I read of the 36-72 Nikon SE reviews its strengths were sharpness and bokeh, so it may well be an ideal choice ... so thanks again for the tip.
-
But the instructions that come in the box directly give the macro measurements achievable with each lens type, so I see no reason to question the manufacturer's own statistics
In the passed I found frequent errors in Nikon documents. Some where major errors. The last I remember were in the AF 70-180/4.5-5.6D ED Micro-Nikkor instructions.
Dave
-
"It is impossible to tell the level of detail possible from the lens, from that 3x shot, because you hand-held. It would be unacceptable for a live image, but that might not be the fault of the lens just the fact it was hand-held."
??
-
"It is impossible to tell the level of detail possible from the lens, from that 3x shot, because you hand-held. It would be unacceptable for a live image, but that might not be the fault of the lens just the fact it was hand-held."
??
Yeah...I also wondered what shot this post was referring to.
-
A few more words on the 28mm Ai-S:
It's funny, I was just talking on another thread, where I rate this my favorite, all-around lens, for the reasons displayed on the previous page.
(It does super-wide, wide, close-up, and extreme macro ... all in 1 inexpensive lens.) And then I read this:
- "The Nikkor 28mm f/2.8s also famed for its ability to deliver images of extremely high contrast and resolution. It has long been a favorite among many seasoned photographers as one of the best wideangle lens for all round photography ....
"Wide 74° picture coverage lets you handle wide scope of applications, such as it can be used to take candids, portraits of people in their surroundings, landscapes, travel photos, night lights, architecture and interiors, nudes, and star trails etc.
* Focuses down to 0.2m (0.7 ft.) - the closest minimum focusing distance of any Nikkor lens; Close-Range Correction System insures sharp images even at its closest focusing distance.
* Excellent for high-magnification close-ups when mounted in reverse on a bellows unit - up to nearly 9X magnification is possible.
* Superb picture quality from center to edges because it is extremely well corrected for coma and spherical aberration.
* Exceptionally light - weighs only 250 grams."
Check out the full article (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/28mmf28.htm).
All I know is, I am a believer.
The small size + light weight + low price yet high-quality + the incredibly-wide range potential applications have made this my favorite lens on a hike.
I still bring some specialized lenses, but this 1 lens now does more total work than any of them.
Jack
-
The 28/2.8 AIS is without doubt good and deserves well its high regard. Despite its qualities, one has to keep a few aspects in mind:
- This is *not* a true flat-field lens, unlike nearly all the Micro-Nikkors
- Its performance at distance is less convincing
- Bokeh could be smoother
- It makes a hot spot in IR
- It is not as persistent against flare as the f/2 version
-
Yes, it all depends on the needs you have as photographer. For critical street-work it's less suited due to the points you mention.
-
The AIS 28/2.8 was the subject of the latest Nikon 1001 nights article on the development of certain lenses: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0057/
This was one of my favourite wide lenses for many years due to the very low geometric distortion and close focusing ability. 28mm also makes a natural wide companion for 50mm lenses, it's pleasantly wide without the extreme stretching towards the corners of wide lenses. (Because I had 28mm I bypassed 24mm and went to the AI 20/3.5 if I wanted something wider).
For me, the main fault of the 28/2.8 is generalised flare and loss of contrast, for example when shooting a landscape with a large expanse of bright overcast sky above. Shading the front does not control the flare until the shade intrudes into the picture. Mine has the newer SIC coating. It seems to handle point sources better. Still, I never noticed this problem after many years of shooting so it can't be too bad.
-
The 28/2.8 AIS is without doubt good and deserves well its high regard. Despite its qualities, one has to keep a few aspects in mind:
- This is *not* a true flat-field lens, unlike nearly all the Micro-Nikkors
- Its performance at distance is less convincing
- Bokeh could be smoother
- It makes a hot spot in IR
- It is not as persistent against flare as the f/2 version
Yes, it all depends on the needs you have as photographer. For critical street-work it's less suited due to the points you mention.
Thanks for the input.
For my needs, it is just about perfect.
The performance "at a distance" is convincing to me (see previous page).
The bokeh may not be "technically perfect," on paper, but it renders wonderfully to me (again, see macro shots, previous page).
I am not worried about flare. In fact, sometimes, in nature shots, flare can actually enhance the effect and image IMO ...
Also, I am actually glad this lens is not a "flat field" lens, because I can do so much more with it as a result. I've had plenty of macro lenses, and still have a nice one, so that the 28mm isn't flat-field is a bonus too IMO.
Cheers,
Jack
-
The AIS 28/2.8 was the subject of the latest Nikon 1001 nights article on the development of certain lenses: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0057/
This was one of my favourite wide lenses for many years due to the very low geometric distortion and close focusing ability. 28mm also makes a natural wide companion for 50mm lenses, it's pleasantly wide without the extreme stretching towards the corners of wide lenses. (Because I had 28mm I bypassed 24mm and went to the AI 20/3.5 if I wanted something wider).
Thank you for the link!
It, too, expressed my exact sentiments:
- "While many users tend to focus on aspects and specifications ... I think that more importance should be placed on minimum focus distance and maximum reproduction ratio. These aspects are directly related to the degree of flexibility a lens offers. For example, have you ever photographed flowers with a normal zoom lens, and then switched to a telephoto lens to make the flowers appear larger or closer, only to find that you couldn't make the flowers appear any larger or closer because the minimum focus distance for the telephoto lens was quite long? Micro lenses are the best lenses for situations like this. Therefore, with actual shooting, the minimum focus distance is every bit as important as focal length. If we look at brochures in this way, the unique characteristics of the AI Nikkor 28mm f/2.8S covered in this tale become clear. It has a minimum focus distance of just 20 cm, one of the shortest among wide-angle lenses, and a high maximum reproduction ratio of 1/3.9×. This is one of the reasons this "approachability" is still included in our manual focus lens lineup."
The fact I can get so close to a subject, and capture the environment behind it, is what makes the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S such a great naturalist's lens to me.
For me, the main fault of the 28/2.8 is generalised flare and loss of contrast, for example when shooting a landscape with a large expanse of bright overcast sky above. Shading the front does not control the flare until the shade intrudes into the picture. Mine has the newer SIC coating. It seems to handle point sources better. Still, I never noticed this problem after many years of shooting so it can't be too bad.
Well, no lens is perfect, but this comes as close to a perfect, single lens (for my purposes) as I have ever shot with. The detail, color, and bokeh I am able to get (reversed) as a macro lens is exceptional. Its low weight and low cost make me comfortable using it "for anything." It does many things very well, some exceptionally well. The landscape shot I took on the previous page had an overcast sky and it didn't seem to affect the detail or contrast. Also, with Lightroom, so much can be "brought back" that I am not too worried about it.
Maybe the new Zeiss 28mm is a better "fine art lens," but at $5,000 it ought to be!
However, as a total nature documentation lens? Not so much. IMO, this little $500 Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S lens is more versatile, for a naturalist, at 1/10th the price. They don't make 95mm reverse rings, for starters, so you can't even use the Zeiss as a macro--and who wants to use a $5,000 non-weather-proofed lens in inclement weather anyway? Or to expose the rear element by reverse-mounting it (assuming you could even do, which you can't). In other words, a Ferrari may have a better ride, in perfect conditions, than an Army Jeep, but can you take a Ferrari off-roading, like you can the Jeep? ;)
I love the simple, versatile, rough-and-tumble characteristics of this little lens. I really do. This lens can't replace my 300mm telephoto for distance shots of creatures that won't allow close approach, and I can't capture a 1:1 butterfly shot from a far-away distance (as I can with my Voigtländer 125mm) either, but the 28mm Ai-S can capture everything else about the natural world that these two lenses cannot duplicate. And, reversed, it goes 2:1, not just a mere 1:1. So it takes me beyond a standard macro also. Further, when oriented properly, it can also capture very close "near-macro" shots, and the environment behind the tiny subjects, because it allows such close approach while still being wide-angle. (In this respect, the Nikon 28mm Ai-S is very much like the new Laowa 15mm f/4 Wide Angle 1:1 Macro (http://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-15mm-f4-wide-angle-1x-macro-lens).)
The all-manual Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S may not be perfect at all things; but it is really good at just about everything I need it to be good at 8)
Jack
PS: Much props for your Nikon Website (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/index.html). Lotta work went into that, and it is a great source of history and information, which is definitely bookmarked.
-
Distance in a city is just what is needed for the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S...
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3930/14912484744_4849a5042e_b.jpg)
Of course, for the model admired by students, this nifty lens can be appreciable...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5599/15571385795_9e9bace297_b.jpg)
But then it works also for the casual group portrait at the next door café's terrace...
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2898/14393303941_d77b9359f8_b.jpg)
Or for documenting the lens bought at the photo fair (Before cleaning the 135mm f/2.8 Q)...
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/14389280063_9d58a882cb_b.jpg)
I completely agree on the usefulness of this little lens, I find it easier to use then my "kit lens zoom", the 24-85mm VR ! Paired with a 50mm f/2 AI and a 85mm f/2 AI in my vest pockets, I'm ready to conquer the world... :-)
-
wonderful group portrait!
-
Wow, Jacques, NICE!
Cheers (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/bier.gif)
-
wonderful group portrait!
Thanks a lot... :-) A Df and a small "Old School prime" !
-
Wow, Jacques, NICE!
Cheers (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/bier.gif)
Thanks... :-) I'm just missing the reversal rings ! But I'll wait for the June Photofair of Bièvres to get one, it's part of the pleasure to chat and discuss with sellers from all over europe. If I don't have some small errands to find, I might buy some Hassys or Russian Leicas or some weird lenses for my Agfa Silette ! So I keep my wishes for the fair... :-)
-
Beautiful examples, Jacques !
-
Beautiful examples, Jacques !
Thanks a lot... :-) I also have the more casual shot of a well behaved stray cat in Istanbul...
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7572/15048963694_73afd5f1e2_b.jpg) with the Df and the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S.
-
Jacques, this is a fantastic capture! Love the cat's expression of the eyes. :D
-
Jacques, this is a fantastic capture! Love the cat's expression of the eyes. :D
Ah, yes... I just hope that after I was gone he did get a bit of fish (the fishermen in Istanbul usually like the cats) !
-
Thanks for yet again so much expert knowledge shared so generously by so many. There are many interesting insights into the legacy of the Noct (and some other Nikon Classics) in the book 'Eyes of Nikon. Art meets Technology makes History'
Published 2014 ISBN 978 4 904959 12 1 Every Nikonphile should own this book ;) I bought mine in Pimlico, London
In particular, the 35 1.4G N revives the Noct Nikkor design philosophy, "A point is photographed as a point." At least some of the remarkable innovations in R&D persist in current Nikkors, but it is deeply satisfying for some of us to keep these classic manual instruments delivering marvels on digital bodies. Long Live the Nikon Df :-)
Canon made an FD mount 50mm F1.2 "L" aspheric lens very similar to the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-Canon-New-FD-NFD-50mm-F-1-2-1-1-2-L-From-Japan-142-/222062625808?hash=item33b3f6c410:g:ER8AAOSwPc9Wzcev
The Noct-Nikkor could be bought for $800 used when still in production, prices have soared after it was discontinued. The Canon lens is cheap as the FD mount was discontinued.
The Noct-Nikkor was designed to eliminate Coma, and was optimized to provide maximum contrast at 10lp/mm, as per the 1976 announcement of it. I have that article somewhere in a stack of magazines.
-
Maybe it's due to the fact that some of the Ai-S Nikkors are still sold new today or maybe it is in part due to hanging out with some crowds who deal with older Nikon lenses but I think of the pre-Ai lenses when I think of old school Nikon primes.
I started out my photography using Ai and Ai-S lenses but since a few years now I have been experimenting with various pre-Ai lenses, all converted to Ai standard by one means or another so I can use them on my dSLR's.
This is my current lens lineup:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1550/25933936365_0d3407360e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FvGcKT)DSC_5777-Edit-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/FvGcKT) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
And with lineup I mean that these are the lenses I use when I go out to take photos.
(As you can see there is a problem here. 10 lenses, 9 slots in the non-CPU register.)
-
(As you can see there is a problem here. 10 lenses, 9 slots in the non-CPU register.)
Right! Nine, not even ten. I'd like twenty or more as I have more than twenty AI and Ai-s Nikkors. I only started buying semi-modern AF-S Nikkors just recently.
Dave
-
Nice collection Buddy, I'd love to get a 16/3.5 someday!
-
The nine slot thing is a major irritation from Nikon. Didn't the D200 have more slots for non-cpu lenses, and a wider range of enterable focal lengths than the current cameras?
-
A nice selection indeed.
I can see that you and David have a great need to "Chip" / add metering CPUs to at least some of these lenses. Perhaps start with a few of those lenses that you use a lot and which also are easier to chip due to their available internal space & layouts. That will free up some space on your camera for those lenses that are unchipped.
.....................................
.....................................
(As you can see there is a problem here. 10 lenses, 9 slots in the non-CPU register.)
-
Buy a Df and forget about chips ;)
-
The D200 was certainly much easier IMHO to setup for non-CPU lenses than current cameras, especially where one could pre-program the FUNC button to allow for the rapid entry of the maximum lens aperture & its focal length. When setup by the menu, you simply entered max aperture and focal length - slots were not numbered as such.
The nine slot thing is a major irritation form Nikon. Didn't the D200 have more slots for non-cpu lenses, and a wider range of enterable focal lengths than the current cameras?
-
With the D200 I did indeed use the Fn button to set the focal length and aperture for the lens when mounting it rather then use the non-CPU register. I used some zoom lenses like the 80-200 and 200-600 combined with a bunch of primes. Uisng the Fn button was easy and quick and I really missed that in the D300 and now in the D3. Wonder why it was changed.
As for the DF, the camera is too small for my hands. I tried it a few times and even though I go out and shoot film with a Nikon F or F3 a lot I just can not get used to the gripless but digital thick Df ergonomics. So unfortunately it's not an option to swap my D3 for a Df.
Tristin, the 16mm f3,5 is the best full-frame fish eye lens I used to date. It is incredibly sharp all across the frame.
-
Well I see actually little difference. In all my Nikons I have programmed the My-Button with on top the Non-CPU-lens data. I adapt the data, hit OK and ready. It works more cumbersome on the D200.
-
Tristin, the 16mm f3,5 is the best full-frame fish eye lens I used to date. It is incredibly sharp all across the frame.
It's difficult to obtain one, with prices exceeding 700 euro...
-
I normally prefer the 16/3.5 myself, as it indubitably is the sharpest and thereby the "best" of the Fisheye-Nikkors all aspects considered. However, the AF 16/2.8 is better in the near range and if you need the optimal combination of handling and near-range capability, the 16/2.8 Fisheye-Nikkor (after a quick fix to shorten its near limit) ranks #1. It is also the better choice (together with the AF successor) for use on the FT-1 with my 1 Nikons. Thus for the upcoming trip to The Hebrides and Killin I'm taking the 16/2.8. CPU-modified of course, like 99% of all my Nikkors. So for me, no worries about non-CPU slots available on a camera.
Despite the above, the D200 approach to selecting non-CPU lens specifications was the best yet implemented by Nikon. Why they abandoned this solution in favour of the limited slot number feature is beyond my imagination.
-
It's difficult to obtain one, with prices exceeding 700 euro...
Unfortunately this is true. In it's 6 year production run about 8000 of these lenses were manufactured. Unfortunately a number of these were lost due to damaged front glass and other defects. I have even seen a few copies with perfect front glass but damaged internal lens elements too and I have seen a few copies with broken hood petals which with this lens are part of the lens barrel.
I bought mine for EUR 200 last year, so if you search long enough you can find them. I know someone who bought one for US$235 earlier this year from ebay. So with a little patience it is possible to find one. I got lucky and was informed by a friend that the copy I eventually bought was on ebay. A few people I know searched for months or little over a year to find a good copy of the lens and as mentioned before, quite a few people I know bought damaged copies that were beyond simple repair.
Whether it is worth it to search for this particular lens rather then the later 16mm f2,8 fish eye? In my opinion it is. This version seems to be a little sharper across the frame compared to the 16mm f2,8 fish eye Nikkor. It is a lot sharper then the Zenitar 16mm f2,8 which can be bought for EUR 150 new. At least one person I know prefers the 16mm f3,5 Ai Nikkor fish eye which has improved internal baffling reducing ghosting and flare a bit. This person owns 3 out of 1500 copies made of the Ai version.
I own a pre-Ai version and cut the aperture ring to allow metering and use on my digital cameras. I never had problems with flare when the sun was in the frame so I am not sure how much of a benefit the changes made for the Ai version would have for my particular use.
Below are some examples made with this lens. The Fisheye Nikkor Auto 1:3,5 f=16mm
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1550/25849503493_504f70c140_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FoesNH)DSC_7274 (https://flic.kr/p/FoesNH) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
(btw, a nice feature for black and white photography is that the lens has internal yellow, red, orange, green and N filters where N is a clear glass filter. The filter is part fo the optical system so a filter must be in place to use it. Many of the 16mm f2,8 fisheye Nikkors are sold on ebay unfortunately come without the originally included filters because they were screw-on accessories that come in front of the rear element)
At f5,6
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1642/26224153512_bcacccc49d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FXkDcN)DSC_6517 (https://flic.kr/p/FXkDcN) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
At f5,6 and near minimum focus distance (the glare/glow you can see in this image was added in post because it better resembled my state of mind at the time I took the photograph. The original image was too sharp for my liking, at least for this particular scene)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1487/26250410591_1d8d0b8e8d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/FZEdw4)DSC_6456-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/FZEdw4) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
At f3,5
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1693/26260431435_298675a9f2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/G1xzne)Cherryblossom 1 (https://flic.kr/p/G1xzne) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
Cropped some
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1547/25492153922_abe96c7d63_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EQDXed)DSC_5028 (https://flic.kr/p/EQDXed) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
Sun in the frame
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1480/25112117199_288fe1efaf_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Eg5axV)DSC_4757 (https://flic.kr/p/Eg5axV) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
Shooting stars with the D800 at f5,6
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1649/23954675390_a6ce165dc4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CuMYqE)DSC_9499 (https://flic.kr/p/CuMYqE) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
Wrong EXIF here, but at f8 or smaller this lens can make very nice sunstars
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5699/24030732051_dfa9d6ac92_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/CBvMqp)DSC_2861 (https://flic.kr/p/CBvMqp) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
(you can download all of these in full res by following the Flickr link, as well as find some more examples made with this lens)
-
The 16/2.8 versions also need a rear filter to focus properly to infinity. Without the filter, they just focus a little closer ,but infinity focus is lost.
I take it your implied meaning was the filter pouch with the additional blue (B2), amber (A2) and orange (O-56) filters for the f/2.8 often was split off from its master lens. I purchased a few of these filter sets over the years.
-
Yes, that was what I tried to explain. When buying the 16mm f2,8 Ai-S either make sure the filter pouch is included or contact Bjørn Rørslett who just revealed to have a few spares ;)
-
Despite the above, the D200 approach to selecting non-CPU lens specifications was the best yet implemented by Nikon. Why they abandoned this solution in favour of the limited slot number feature is beyond my imagination.
I found the system used on my D2H better than the one used on the D300s and D800. I never used a D200. I wish I had the expertise to add chips to lenses.
Dave
-
Thanks Buddy. Very nice examples. Impressive! Well, most of the time lenses come to you, instead of chasing it ;) And I usually finance 'new' lenses by selling some I never use again.
Here the Ai or Pre-Ai lenses Nikkors currently in use. Just some quick shots to test the Voigtlander Ultron 40/2 wide open in close-up.
-
Despite the above, the D200 approach to selecting non-CPU lens specifications was the best yet implemented by Nikon. Why they abandoned this solution in favour of the limited slot number feature is beyond my imagination.
If I remember correctly, the D200 allowed up to 20 non-CPU lenses to be entered, and they were automatically sorted by focal length?
I have more lenses than the 9 available slots in the D600, but I usually carry only two or three at any time, rarely four, so the limit has never been a problem. Before I go out it's just a quick job of entering the day's lenses in the first 3 or 4 slots. Actually, if there were more slots it would increase the chance that I selected the wrong one by mistake, maybe that's why the number was reduced?
I added Non-CPU lenses to "My Menu" so I find it easily to set up the lenses. The "Fn" button is configured to switch between the stored lenses, so when I change lenses it is pretty quick to tell the camera which lens I'm using. Works well enough for me (I still forget to switch to the correct lens sometimes...)
I would be more impressed if you could select an actual lens, eg "Series-E 75-150/3.5" or "35/1.4". The camera could then have the matching data including focal length, aperture, exit pupil etc to allow more accurate metering and exif data.
-
If I remember correctly, the D200 allowed up to 20 non-CPU lenses to be entered,
Actually 40 if all of them has different biggest aperture.
But the difference is that one can enter both the focal length and the biggest aperture with the fn-button and the two wheels, not just changing between 9 pre entered combination as with later cameras. And the camera remember the last biggest aperture pr focal length.
-
I'm setup so I can press the Function button and roll the command dial to select the lens if it's in the list. I would like to enter at least 15 manual focus Nikkors. Even 10 lens slots would help me.
Dave
-
I added Non-CPU lenses to "My Menu" so I find it easily to set up the lenses. The "Fn" button is configured to switch between the stored lenses, so when I change lenses it is pretty quick to tell the camera which lens I'm using. Works well enough for me (I still forget to switch to the correct lens sometimes...)
This is how I do it also.
-
The last 2 pages are filled with great information (and photos!).
I have manually-configured my non-CPU lenses to my D810, and they all work wonderfully ... with the (slight) exception of my Voigtlander 125mm APO macro.
The D810 settings allow for the f/2.8 settings, but on the focal length my choice is either 105mm or 135mm ... they don't have a 125mm option :-\
Still, it's nice to be able to see the aperture data now :D
-
Isn't there a 120mm option (for the 120mm Medical lens) ??
-
Isn't there a 120mm option (for the 120mm Medical lens) ??
No, not on my D810, Firmware version 1.11 there isn't.
Perhaps on other Nikons ...
-
Not on the D3 either
-
Interesting I thought they would have the focal lengths for all "Nikkors", after all they even have focal lengths of the 43-86. Strange they left 120mm out. They don't seem to include the series-E focal lengths - nothing for the 36-72, or the 75-150. For my 75-150 I set 100mm instead, as a mid-point of the zoom range, and to distinguish it from my 105mm primes. Luckily the 100mm setting is there - taken from the short end of the AIS 100-300 zoom - so I can also use it for my series-E 100/2.8.
Getting back to the Voigtlander 125mm APO macro, the best option is 135mm, it's the closest focal length and "looks" similar. Otherwise, get the lens chipped so you can report the correct focal length automatically.
-
I have the following lenses in my list...
15/5.6
28/2.0
35/2.0
50/1.2
85/2.0
105/2.5
135/2.8
180/2.8
400/4.5
I don't use my 24/2.8 AI much anymore due to flare and I can crop an image in post 0.83x from my AF-S 20/1.8G to get the field of view of a 24mm. Not that this needs to be exact. I just frame loose.
I've added a rest to the NCSETUP8.BIN saved on my CF and SDHC cards in my D800's "My Menu." I write protect the one on the CF card so can't over write it by accident. I format my cards about once a week and replace several small files when I do. Otherwise after uploading photos and never before backing up I delete all photos in camera. The NCSETUP8.BIN and my menu works (sort of) as a U1, U2... U4 option for me. There's nothing worse than a dSLR that's got some special settings left behind to mess up new photos. The "Save/load settings" mostly solves this but if I reset while carrying a less used lens then I'll have to set the non-CPU lens data again.
I wish Nikon had offered a service like non-AI to AI they offered in the early '70s. By now I'd think the chip could be so tiny that only a contact block with the chip included should be needed. I'd think it could be on the back protected with Epoxy.
It's so easy to hold the Fn (function) button and roll in the lens in use. I'd like lens 0-19 or 1-20 and don't see any need to stop at 1-9. This feature could be set to skip unused locations, e.g. if 12 lenses were registered pressing the Fn button and rolling the main control would show only lens number 1-12.
Dave
-
The reason for the 120 being left out is very simple. This lens (in its factory configuration) allows no user control over aperture and does not provide any kind of metering. Everything is done by the focusing ring that is coupled to the aperture mechanism.
Breaking the linkage between focusing and aperture is possible and by implanting a "G" chip into the 120 Medical, aperture operation and metering become available. You can even do a flash balance to ambient light [over a limited range of stops].
-
True, but a photographer might still want to use a 120mm medical on a digital camera and know which lens was in use, even though it is not meter coupled. It seems Nikon discounted that possibility.
-
Interesting I thought they would have the focal lengths for all "Nikkors", after all they even have focal lengths of the 43-86. Strange they left 120mm out. They don't seem to include the series-E focal lengths - nothing for the 36-72, or the 75-150. For my 75-150 I set 100mm instead, as a mid-point of the zoom range, and to distinguish it from my 105mm primes. Luckily the 100mm setting is there - taken from the short end of the AIS 100-300 zoom - so I can also use it for my series-E 100/2.8.
Getting back to the Voigtlander 125mm APO macro, the best option is 135mm, it's the closest focal length and "looks" similar. Otherwise, get the lens chipped so you can report the correct focal length automatically.
I agree, 135 is the best option. Can't justify the hassle/expense of getting the lens chipped, so that the "3" would be a "2" ... when all else would be identical.
The D810 recognized the f/2.5 of the Voigtlander APO 125, which is the most important for my reading where I'm at in my display when I shoot.
I guess I will have to wink every time I see the 135 in the exif data, lol
Thanks.
-
Long after many AF Nikkor motors are burned out you will have the manual Nikkors still in vast numbers on the secondary market. All are terrific buys. The biggest negative on older Nikkors is their coatings. If you know your serial numbers and when multicoatings kicked in you can buy smartly.
Skillful avoidance of flare situations can allow you to exploit them to the fullest.
Every Nikon gear head should have at least these manual lenses:
20mm f/3.5 (52mm filter)
35mm f/1.4 (later is better)
50mm f/2 (the later the better)
50mm f/1.4 (late)
55mm Micro-Nikkor (any aperture)
105mm f/2.5
Obviously, for the telephotos, those with ED glass over earlier ones.
Many zooms are often overlooked because of our old friend
The she-san hatchi-roko (43~86) that singlehandedly hurt the zoom lens concept before it even had a chance to start. Later 43~86 lenses are blessed with better optics including better coatings. Mechanicals are first rate Nikkor. Don't forget the 80~200 f/4.5--a miracle lens that still works with 52mm filters! Nikon put a lot of effort into keeping their lens lineup all within the 52mm filter size.
My all time favorite--but impossible to find today without trading in your car--the Nikkor 13mm f/5.6. Vastly sharper than the AF 14mm f/2.8. It goes with me across the pond routinely. The 14 stays home.
The other lens I get tremendous satisfaction from is the Noct-Nikkor. No more must be said. It performs similarly to the Leitz Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 from two releases ago.
Dan
-
Many zooms are often overlooked because of our old friend The she-san hatchi-roko (43~86) that singlehandedly hurt the zoom lens concept before it even had a chance to start.
It is unfair to blame the 43-86. Yes, it performs poorly, and being the first standard compact zoom on the market it was the one to hit the headlines. But other similar zooms which appeared soon after were hardly better ...
This lens has to be seen in context, it was developed when zoom technology was in its infancy, and in its day it was really quite a handy lens.
-
50mm f/2 (the later the better)
Dan
Dan, I always think of better as a relative term.
I owned the 50mm f2 Ai, 50mm f2 Nikkor-H, Nikkor-H.C and currently use the 5cm f2 Nikkor-S (later version with 6 aperture blades)
My findings tell me that for my intended use the 5cm f2 Nikkor-S with 9 aperture blades will be the better lens choice.
In the 50mm f2 Ai I found glare around even in-focus subjects at medium to far distances a big problem. It really messed with the overall appearance I got from images taken with the lens because subjects appeared as if they had a halo around them.
Pretty much the same thing happened with the Nikkor-H and H.C so I do believe it had something to do with the optics (similar for all 3 lenses) rather then owning a bad copy of one of them.
The 5cm f2 Nikkor-S on the other hand has less problems with glare but is weaker in sharpness at mediium to long distance subjects unless stopped down. Wide open it is usable up to about 5 meters. Anything further away makes me want to stop down to f4. When stopping down a lens with 6 straight aperture blades OoF highlights look terrible, so I hope the 9 bladed version will serve me better.
Some examples with the 5cm f2 wide open
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1497/26781004545_fb00aa4f36_b.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/25642813951_d308272ff9_b.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1564/25589177341_59bdb81686_b.jpg)
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1503/25655962926_5d4d450477_b.jpg)
-
nice work Buddy
-
Thank you Fons. It all is a matter of personal opinion of course, but for me this old 7 element 5cm lens sings in a way none of the newer 6 element 50mm lenses could.
Here is an experiment I tried with the 50mm f2 Ai which I owned
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8848/17576130734_cf7a570f85_b.jpg)
The lens was completely disassembled, cleaned, left to dry for a week, lubricated and re-assembled. Everything worked great after that and all the internal dust and the slight amount of haze were gone after cleaning the lenses with acetic acid
-
Acidic acid? As opposed to . . .? ;)
-
Acidic acid? As opposed to . . .? ;)
That of course happens when the misse sis waiting to go outdoors and the fingers are faster then the brain because I want to write this post and send it on the way. Acetic acid it is of course
-
I figured :) Cool image, did you find it worth all the effort?
-
True, but a photographer might still want to use a 120mm medical on a digital camera and know which lens was in use, even though it is not meter coupled. It seems Nikon discounted that possibility.
Roland, Nikon suggest using the nearest focal length longer than the lens, 135mm for your 120/Medical example. Then assign a different or no aperture that allows you to recognize which lens was used.
-
I figured :) Cool image, did you find it worth all the effort?
It was a nice experiment. Cleaning the lens wasn't really worth the effort. I found out that I like other lenses in the 50mm range far better then the 50mm f2 Ai. But then again, I learned a bit about lens dis-assembly as well in th eprogress so as far as learning is concerned it was well worth the effort :)
-
Just acquired a 50/2, following Fons' recommendation...
-
Congratulations on the new acquisition then :D
Do not discard the lens based on anything I write.
My personal findings base on my opinion and on a certain type of rendering I am after. Sometimes I can not describe the exact defining factors I am looking for in a lens until I find the lens I was looking for (mostly by trial and error). And when I then praise a lens and let someone else try it in the hope they find the same qualities, they most of the time do not see them.
In other words, there are no real bad lenses. Just lenses that do what you want them to and ones that don't.
I know of a guy who loves his copy of the 43-86mm zoom because he thinks it is an excellent lens to reverse-mount on a camera. Another Nikon users favorite versatile small macro lens is a reverse mounted 28-50mm zoom Nikkor.
-
Here are some recent photos of San Dimas Canyon Macro Wildlife, all taken reverse-mounted on either the Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S, or the Voightlander 125 APO Macro.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001356_large.jpg)
Running Crab Spider♀ (Philodromus sp.) | Nikon D810, Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, reverse-mounted (2:1), tripod, remote, natural light, stacked (17 images).
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001354_large.jpg)
Flower Crab Spider♀ (Mecaphesa sp.) | Nikon D810, Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, reverse-mounted (2:1), tripod, remote, natural light, stacked (15 images).
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001355_large.jpg)
Green Lynx-juv (Peucetia sp.) | Nikon D810, Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, reverse-mounted (2:1), tripod, remote, natural light, stacked (17 images).
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001345_large.jpg)
Gabb's Checkerspot♀ (Chlosyne gabbii) | Nikon D810, Voigtländer SL 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro, tripod, single image.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001295_large.jpg)
Bull Thistle (Cirsium sp.) | Nikon D810, Nikon 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S, reverse-mounted (1:1), hand-held, single image at f/1.2.
-
Congratulations on the new acquisition then :D
Do not discard the lens based on anything I write.
:) great pic with the diving 50/2.
Of course the 50/2 is by no means perfect, and of course I anticipate to be further using the 50/1.2 (to remain with Nikkors), or the 50/2 ZF2 rather than anything else. The former remains my reference standard lens at small apertures when "3D effect" matters, whatever that may mean, and the Zeiss remains my preferred high contrast, high resolution allrounder (except with backlit scenes). The older 50/1.4 C is also very interesting for soft effects wide open, e.g. for portraits.
My interest for the 50/2 can be traced back to the funny bokeh also documented by Fons. It may not be a lasting interest, but since I found a copy in an excellent condition for a reasonable price, I thought it worth testing. As you noted, (nearly) every lens has its chocolate side, and it is a nice pastime to find out which.
Before buying, I also took note of the opinion expressed by a certain Bjørn R. on the Naerfoto website, so I got reassured that the optical design of the 50/2 was not crappy. Another useful reference is the book "103 lenses tested for Nikon D700" by Jean-Marie Sépulchre, which is somewhat limited in scope (addressing only sharpness in a plane, vignetting, CA and distortion), but the testing is consistent and seriously done. This is a complement to the more in-depth, verbally expressed assessments provided by Bjørn, plus the many examples brought in NG.
So we'll see if the 50/2 is just a good lens bested by many other, more recent designs, or if I can find its "soul" ;)
-
The lens was completely disassembled, cleaned, left to dry for a week, lubricated and re-assembled. Everything worked great after that and all the internal dust and the slight amount of haze were gone after cleaning the lenses with acetic acid
Not quite sure if you are kidding or not, about the slight amount of haze.
I am finding the contrast of my 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor-H, 5cm f/2 Nikkor-S, 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor-P, 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor-Q (all non-C) to be low, or might it be "slight amount of haze"? Thinking of opening them up to clean the lens elements, perhaps (not the diving treatment - although I do dive with my more modern Nikkors in a proper Ikelite housing). Comments?
-
Not kidding at all. The lens had some haze all over the lens element directly in front of the aperture.
The easiest way to find out if there is haze is to light through the rear element with your cellphone LED and look through the front to see if an element looks like a focus screen rather then a clear glass element. That is what the glass surface in the 50mm looked like.
The "diving treatment" was just to get that photo and had nothing to do with the haze on the element, but since I took the lens apart to let it dry I cleaned it as well.
Today I disassembled my 55mm f1,2 Nikkor-S.C btw and cleaned and re-greased the focus helicoid. As it appears the grease I used is somewhat thick so the focus ring now has a little more resistance when turning. In itself I do not find that a bad thing. Might have to open it up again at a later stage when I find a thinner grease.
I had some excellent help from Richard Haw along the way because I was a bit puzzled to find a part of the lens glued in place (the DoF scale ring/sleeve) which I had not encountered in any of the other lenses I disassembled.
-
Some first shots from my 50/2 (AI, 6 blades). Sharpness near infinite may not be that good, or is it my manual focussing ? At intermediate distances, the lens is very sharp, well into the corners, at about f/5.6. Center sharpness is always good, at all apertures. LR has a profile and anyway, distortion is moderate. Flare is no big issue, but the coma is very noticeable wide open. Colors seem neutral ; contrast is good. A daytime lens.
I like the build, the recessed front lens (hood not really useful) too.
Bokeh : I noticed nothing peculiar so far, except the hexagons of course.
-
My contribution to the old school primes: Nikkor PC Auto 1:2.5 105mm, shot at 1:5.6 - 125th.
Really a pleasure to use!
-
Some time back I acquired a few older mono-coated pre-Ai lenses, and used them sporadically. Impressions were lower contrast and poorer colour saturation, to the point I told myself not to get non-C designated pre-Ai lenses. But perusal of this forum and fm forum on old MF lenses was showing me otherwise. Is there something I am missing?
Then I read in this forum that there are some who will use the lens hood religiously, while I had stopped using lens hoods unless there is sun shinning on my lens. So I thought, OK, let me try this out. So out came my Sonnar 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor-P and 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor-Q, with HS-4 hood full time regardless of shooting positions.
To my amazement there were significant differences subjectively as I did not shoot A-B with-without hood.
(http://gallery.clubsnap.com/data/500/160521_015_135f3_5Q-2.jpg)
Nikon Df 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor-Q, 1/160 f/5.6, ISO 280
Comments most welcome.
-
Yes, especially with the single coated lenses but also with quite a few of the multicoated ones using a lens hood makes a huge difference. I even go as far as using an ugly rubber hood on my most used lens. The 55mm f1,2. In some cases practical use wins out over cosmetic appearance and the rubber hood was in my opinion a good and useful invention, even though it is one of the ugliest contraptions ever to find it's way to photography.
-
Yes, especially with the single coated lenses but also with quite a few of the multicoated ones using a lens hood makes a huge difference. I even go as far as using an ugly rubber hood on my most used lens. The 55mm f1,2. In some cases practical use wins out over cosmetic appearance and the rubber hood was in my opinion a good and useful invention, even though it is one of the ugliest contraptions ever to find it's way to photography.
Thanks. I haven't done the shine-a-light-through-the-lens to examine for veil in lens, but I suspect from yesterday's experience it is the mono-coating that needs to be protected by the use of lens hood that is the reason. More experiments required...
:)
-
Apart from the coating, the use of hoods on digital camera's are a benefit to prevent astray light on the sensor.
An old school prime, also the 135/3.5 Q but the C version with the HS-4 hood.
-
exquisite picture.
-
Thanks Airy.
-
Nice rendition of Trifolium incarnatum, the reddest of the red clovers. Colour contrast to the background adds to the impact as well.
-
Thanks Bjørn. In the field you have to be a bit lucky with the background.
-
By the way. A nice surprise with the 135/3.5 Q C is the use of the Close Up lens 4T.
Here a Strawberry flower at @5.6
-
Gorgeous images, John.
-
Exquisite, John!
On another note: I was playing with the Sonnar 105mm f/2.5, using one designated 10.5cm based on Roland's link ~1963. And I have a Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P.C and a Nikon 105mm f/2.5 AiS. The newer lenses were subjectively sharper (no A-B), but the Sonnar has the really nice rendition of skin tone.
I would post some photos here but I could not, privacy considerations.
So my feel is that if i want to shoot portrait, I would use the Sonnar 105mm, but for general shooting, like travel, it would be Gauss 105mm.
But then the usual winner for general shooting is the 75-150E... that's another story...
-
Thanks John and FGAng. Never tried the Sonnar 105/2.5.
-
Ok, here goes. This is all very unscientific mind. I was only able to test one copy of each lens against each other.
The first is always the Sonnar 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P, easiest recognisable by the silver nose, narrower scalloped focus ring, smaller rear element but also because it weighs a bit less (370 grams vs 435 for the Gauss design lens)
The 2nd image is the Gauss 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P.C.
All shots are handheld, so the change of position and framing does make up for part of the difference in rendering between each shot. Mor ethen anything, these photos will show how close in rendering these lenses are to each other.
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/698/22894931540_0070d3e100_b.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5807/23190786035_622123a219_b.jpg)
Next, MFD. Again the Sonnar lens first, followed by the Gauss design lens
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/659/23190842005_7de352f62b_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/700/22563821953_1d6ec19a51_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/577/22563966673_592b991d4a_b.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5630/22823126569_0c4bb925f4_b.jpg)
And last but not least, this shot was the reason for my decision to keep the older Sonnar design lens and sell the Gauss design lens
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/604/23181240516_fd866da033_b.jpg)
-
Why didn't you keep both? In particular if they are found to service different purposes.
-
Initially I did keep both, but after a month or two I found that I used the Sonnar lens for portraits and bokeh play. Subjects I would otherwise photograph with the Gauss lens would be close up shots using PK rings or product shots. The Gauss lens does have marginally better sharpness in my experience. The 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C however served this purpose even better, so after I observed the situation for 2 months and I noticed one lens always comes with me while the other one always remains in the closet I decided to sell the Gauss lens.
I still have the 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P, an AF-S 105mm f2,8G VR micro Nikkor, an 80-200 f2,8 zoom, the 135mm f2,8 and 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C so all in all the range of short/medium telephoto lenses is pretty well covered by everything else in my camera bag. All the lenses I own see regular use. I don't keep anything on the shelf because I need to manage my rather tight funds for this hobby in a way that has me sell anything I do not use in favor of buying lenses that I actually use.
The only photographic item I have too many of is film bodies. I mean, who needs a Yashica TL Electro X, 2 Nikon F, a Nikon F2, an F3 and an FM? But that's mostly sentimental value there as most of those are family heirlooms and the FM my very first camera.
-
NG, mir & Ebay is a beautiful combination. ::) 8) ;D Just got my 105mm f/2,5 Ai. What a lovely piece of glass.. ;D
-
Apart from the coating, the use of hoods on digital camera's are a benefit to prevent astray light on the sensor.
An old school prime, also the 135/3.5 Q but the C version with the HS-4 hood.
Wonderful shot John. What a background contrast and colours!
-
Took my $100 105 f4 MF AIS Micro Nikkor out by herself the other day. This and my similar vintage 55 f3.5 are my two highest resolving lenses.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7799/26665119263_722b88d933_h.jpg)
-
Wonderful shot John. What a background contrast and colours!
Thanks Anirban.
-
Never tried the Sonnar 105/2.5.
John, I can bring mine to Maastricht, if you want to try it.
-
Really nice mix of colors, textures, shapes and detail, Peter. Very complex yet efficient.
-
John, I can bring mine to Maastricht, if you want to try it.
Mine will be in the bag for Maastricht either way. It is one of my most used lenses so I would not feel well leaving it at home. Comes with the factory Ai kit installed :)
-
Thanks Bruno and Buddy. Perhaps a nice opportunity to see sample variation? ;)
-
Took my $100 105 f4 MF AIS Micro Nikkor out by herself the other day. This and my similar vintage 55 f3.5 are my two highest resolving lenses.
Well done !
One of the best micro nikkor lenses. My favorite anyway.
I gave recently a little big present to this lens...A CPU chip, neatly and skilfully placed by Erik lung (Dr Lens) and Bjørn Rørslett. As well as PN11 to get 1/1 size.
As a result, more accurate light metering, no hassle to go into the non-CPU lens data menu (when you don't forget to go when you change a non-CPU lens, hence wrong exif datas ::)).
Peter, please note : if you wish to introduce yourself, here is the thread http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/board,13.0.html, so we could know a little more about you. ;)
Below, the 105mm f/4 and PN11 newly chipped.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7799/26665119263_722b88d933_h.jpg)
I love this pic. A very common subject and you still managed to give it a different spin. Cool.
-
Thanks for the approval ratings! High honour, given the audience. These two lenses keep amazing me. I call them my "science" lenses because they're so precise, so revealing.
This one is a five image stack. PSCC did an interesting job of blending the water ripples between exposures.
As suggested, I've posted an introduction:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3653.0.html
-
Peter, a very striking image!
-
I love this pic. A very common subject and you still managed to give it a different spin. Cool.
+1
A fabulous eye for making the ordinary, extraordinary :)
-
I get increasingly pleased by the modest 50/2 AI. The imaging qualities are not particularly outstanding, but simply good (except maybe the sharpness wide open, which is modest). The small size and the handling make a difference with many other lenses. The recessed front lens makes a shade superfluous and is a good protection, especially since I never use filters. So that small lens is a confidence-builder, which maybe contributes more to good shots than perfect optics.,
My other favourite in that category is the Zeiss 50/2, a better lens in every respect (except flare on stopping down), but it is quite a bit heavier, and 10 times more expensive by the way.
Unexpectedly, I managed to get good night shots too, at least when stopping down a bit was possible. The 6-ray stars may also look appealing at times. First shot at f/4, second one at f/8 (thanks Df).
I made my Milano trip with Zeiss 25/2, this 50/2 AI, and the Tamron 90/2.5.Three different styles, but all very usable.
-
Here is a image of Mosquito's larva taken with 105mm f/4 micro+PN11+close-up noT3, (wrongly called as ''filter close up attachment'') and used here to get slightly bigger image without darken the shot too much.
Everything attached to my Df.
# 100 iso;
# 1/200 sec;
# f/16.
Note that I cropped the image.
-
This is outstanding in every respect: composition, subject, execution.
-
Thanks for your comment, Bjørn !
-
This is outstanding in every respect: composition, subject, execution.
Truly. While Df and 105 f2.5 is a classy combo, it's your skill and creativity that shine in this photo.
-
This is outstanding in every respect: composition, subject, execution.
Agreed. Superb!
-
Great image Francis
And I'm glad you & Andrea were able to suss out the filename upload issue
-
Rosko/Francis, very nice image of the Mosquito larvae and very nice work on both your lens and the PN-11 extension tube. I am sure that you will be pleased with your investment in this valuable mid-life "refit".
When having the extension tube programmed, were its focal length and max/min apertures set to those of the 105mm f/4 lens, OR, are they set to those appropriate to the extension and resultant magnification of the combination of lens & tube?
Thanks in anticipation.
Well done !
One of the best micro nikkor lenses. My favorite anyway.
I gave recently a little big present to this lens...A CPU chip, neatly and skilfully placed by Erik lung (Dr Lens) and Bjørn Rørslett. As well as PN11 to get 1/1 size.
As a result, more accurate light metering, no hassle to go into the non-CPU lens data menu (when you don't forget to go when you change a non-CPU lens, hence wrong exif datas ::)).
Peter, please note : if you wish to introduce yourself, here is the thread http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/board,13.0.html, so we could know a little more about you. ;)
Below, the 105mm f/4 and PN11 newly chipped.
-
Beautiful image Francis!
Now, how do you know that it's a mosquito larva, and then, what are you doing examining it :D
-
When having the extension tube programmed, were its focal length and max/min apertures set to those of the 105mm f/4 lens, OR, are they set to those appropriate to the extension and resultant magnification of the combination of lens & tube?
Thanks in anticipation.
The latter alternative.
-
Impressive Francis. Detailed and Graphic. Beautiful.
-
Thanks, everydody for commenting.
@ Anirban : using the 105mm f/2.5 instead the micro should be a good idea, just to compare the lenses. However, as the PN11 is chipped and programmed ''as f/4'' perhaps the metering would be slightly wrong.
I can try ! ;)
And I'm glad you & Andrea were able to suss out the filename upload issue
Well, All merit is to Andrea who found the problem !
I am sure that you will be pleased with your investment in this valuable mid-life "refit".
Yes ,Hugh, I am very pleased indeed !
Now, how do you know that it's a mosquito larva, and then, what are you doing examining it :D
If you leave some water in any open container outside, you will get some small creatures moving fast in the water when disturbed. They are mosquitos' larvas. This one is a small specie (7 to 8mm).
This is why is not recommended to leave any containers, old tyres, pads of water as they will generate mosquitos which will bite you ! :P
I examine such small creatures with magnifier glass first and microscope if needed. ;)
Impressive Francis. Detailed and Graphic. Beautiful.
Thanks, John !
-
Rosko/Francis: Your picture of the mosquito larvae is so good it compelled me to get the PN11 this morning for my own 105 f/4 AIS. When I get it, I'll have some practicing to do!
Thanks for posting.
-
Rosko/Francis: Your picture of the mosquito larvae is so good it compelled me to get the PN11 this morning for my own 105 f/4 AIS. When I get it, I'll have some practicing to do!
Thanks for posting.
Glad you like it, Tom !
Getting the PN11 will give you two advantages :
# 1/1 magnification with 105mm lenses;
# you can attach it to a tripod, which will balance the combo very well and thus relieves the camera body mount from leverage. (105mm + 52.5 close up attachment).
# one more advantage : the combo can rotate freely allowing horizontal and vertical position and it's lockable.
A sturdy tripod is then strongly recommended. ;)
-
The 105/2.5 AI got a work-out on the D500 today.
-
Bjørn, what a brilliant picture.. ;D Just got my 105mm f/2.5. Exiting lens.
-
Here is a image of Mosquito's larva taken with 105mm f/4 micro+PN11+close-up noT3, (wrongly called as ''filter close up attachment'') and used here to get slightly bigger image without darken the shot too much.
Everything attached to my Df.
# 100 iso;
# 1/200 sec;
# f/16.
Note that I cropped the image.
Beautifully-textured, almost as if carved in stone.
-
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001466_large.jpg)
Brown Lynx ♀ (Oxyopes scalaris (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=885523))
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001471_large.jpg)
Brown Lynx ♀ (Oxyopes scalaris (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=885523))
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001468_large.jpg)
Flower Crab Spider ♀ (Mecaphesa sp. (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=872471))
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001469_large.jpg)
Flower Crab Spider ♀ (Mecaphesa sp. (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=872471))
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001470_large.jpg)
Green Lynx ♀ (Peucetia longipalpis (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=886347))
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001472_large.jpg)
Flower Crab Spider ♀ (Mecaphesa sp. (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/image_tree.php?tsn=872471))
All images captured on a Nikon D810 + Nikkor 28mm Ai-S f/2.8 lens, reversed (at 2.1x magnification), using natural light.
Jack
-
John,
wrt to your list.
May I suggest to add the Ai(S) 105mm/2.5 as well - it is a fabulous lens.
Chances are high that you will enjoy the 15mm/3.5 :)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153825190/original.jpg)
rgds, Andy
At the suggestion of Andy, I also just picked up a copy of the Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 Ai-S ;D
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm.jpg)
While the leather case is a bit under the weather, the lens and filters are absolutely flawless.
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm1.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm2.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm3.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm4.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/lenses/15mm5.jpg)
Am going to the Grand Canyon this weekend, so we'll see how it fares.
Jack
-
Outstanding spider pictures. What aperture did you use? Some years ago I tried using a reversed lens for greater than life size pictures, and found it was difficult to find the right balance between stopping down for greater DOF, and avoiding too much diffraction. For magnifications up to about 1.6x I use the AFD 105/2.8 micro on a PN-11 tube, the working distance and handling is much easier, but I'm not sure this lens qualifies as "old school" ...
-
Outstanding spider pictures.
Thanks, Roland.
What aperture did you use? Some years ago I tried using a reversed lens for greater than life size pictures, and found it was difficult to find the right balance between stopping down for greater DOF, and avoiding too much diffraction. For magnifications up to about 1.6x I use the AFD 105/2.8 micro on a PN-11 tube, the working distance and handling is much easier, but I'm not sure this lens qualifies as "old school" ...
I tend to fluctuate between f/8 and f/11, with both the Ai-S 28mm (at 2:1) and Ai-S 20mm f/3.5 (at 3+:1). The main thing I try to do is never go over IS0 320 using natural light (ISO 640 in the extreme).
I have read conflicting information on th Ai-Ses: one reviewer mentioning that you should always put the lens at infinity to "increase working distance" ... while another reviewer suggested using the closest setting possible, so as to trigger the CRC (Close Range Correction) feature of these unique Ai-S lenses.
I would have to agree with the latter suggestion, using the closest-distance setting possible, because I have enjoyed my results better this way.
The bokeh is buttery-smooth, even at f/8-f/11 apertures, just because of the extremely-shallow DOF. (All of these images are between 12- and 18-stacked images to get the focus range, so I get the best of both worlds: lots in-focus but still buttery-smooth bokeh. I almost never use flash. These images were at about 1/10 SS.)
Hope this is useful.
Jack
-
Thanks. It's worth stating that the aperture setting on the lens is only true for the lens mounted normally on the camera and focused at infinity. If the lens is reversed the aperture setting of f/8 probably translates to something like f/22 once you take extension and the different configuration into account. That's well into diffraction territory, but obviously good results can still be obtained. Focus stacking explains why you were able to get so much DOF. That's really good use of stacking as it looks natural, if stacking is overdone the picture is too sharp front to back and looks flat. It's amazing the spiders were still long enough for you do do it.
As for "focusing" the reversed lens, if the lens is unit-focusing (such as the AIS 20/3.5) it makes no difference optically. If you set the focus ring to infinity you gain a few mm extra working distance because the rear element is further to the rear (or front since it's reversed...) On the other hand if you focus close, the rear element retracts into the barrel so you lose a bit of working distance, but the rear element is better protected from knocks.
If the lens has floating elements (such as the AIS 28/2.8 ) then the setting of the focus ring does make a difference optically. With the lens reversed, if the subject - sensor distance is 0.3m, then the lens should be focused to 0.3m, so the optics are properly configured for that distance.
-
John, these spider images are simply amazing! Thanks for sharing. It is also surprising that you can stack more than ten images for these living creatures. My amazement is doubled...
-
Thanks. It's worth stating that the aperture setting on the lens is only true for the lens mounted normally on the camera and focused at infinity. If the lens is reversed the aperture setting of f/8 probably translates to something like f/22 once you take extension and the different configuration into account. That's well into diffraction territory, but obviously good results can still be obtained.
I almost never use extension tubes, as they degrade things rather quickly IMO.
I am not much at calculating diffraction-per-aperture, reversed, but rather just go by my eye.
My eye tells me that, with the 28mm Ai-S, f/8-f/11 apertures, stacked, give me buttery-smooth images (if I keep the ISO down) ... but at f/16+ I begin to notice unacceptable diffraction.
Focus stacking explains why you were able to get so much DOF. That's really good use of stacking as it looks natural, if stacking is overdone the picture is too sharp front to back and looks flat. It's amazing the spiders were still long enough for you do do it.
I agree; I don't like "everything in-focus" in most macro shots either, as the images look more like CGI graphics than artistic macro shots. I much prefer the fore- and aft-bokeh to macro imagery.
Regarding their standing still, these particular species are "freeze and ambush" spiders, so they're great for stacking. Once they settle down, they just sit there ... "waiting" ... It is only the species which are proactive hunters that are almost impossible to stack, but these guys, above, are a piece of cake :)
As for "focusing" the reversed lens, if the lens is unit-focusing (such as the AIS 20/3.5) it makes no difference optically. If you set the focus ring to infinity you gain a few mm extra working distance because the rear element is further to the rear (or front since it's reversed...) On the other hand if you focus close, the rear element retracts into the barrel so you lose a bit of working distance, but the rear element is better protected from knocks.
If the lens has floating elements (such as the AIS 28/2.8 ) then the setting of the focus ring does make a difference optically. With the lens reversed, if the subject - sensor distance is 0.3m, then the lens should be focused to 0.3m, so the optics are properly configured for that distance.
Interesting distinction, thanks.
These were taken with the Ai-S 28mm, and I like the results better with the min. focus distance set.
Jack
-
John, these spider images are simply amazing! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you, glad you like them :D
It is also surprising that you can stack more than ten images for these living creatures. My amazement is doubled...
See previous response: these species "sit still" by nature, so they're pretty easy to stack.
It's the wandering, non-web-spinning spiders that "never sit still" and are almost impossible to stack.
(Probably the most frustrating spider to photograph is a Peckhamia ant-mimic jumper. They're about the size of a hypen, require 4-5x magnification to capture, and relentlessly "move" ... everywhere ... like Pacman on methamphetamines :)
-
Thanks. It's worth stating that the aperture setting on the lens is only true for the lens mounted normally on the camera and focused at infinity. If the lens is reversed the aperture setting of f/8 probably translates to something like f/22 once you take extension and the different configuration into account. That's well into diffraction territory, but obviously good results can still be obtained.
Isn't the severity of the diffraction effect in a given setup linked to the f-stop(geometry) and not the T-stop(transmission)?
-
Isn't the severity of the diffraction effect in a given setup linked to the f-stop(geometry) and not the T-stop(transmission)?
Both, as magnification comes into play as well. What Roland mentioned was the effective aperture which takes magnification into consideration. We don't denote this 'T-stop' or more appropriately, T-number, that relates to the nominal transmittance of the non-reversed lens.
Depth of field at high magnification is always a scarce commodity, whether or not one stops the lens down to the minimum aperture setting.
-
At this point in time, may I call for examples of Nikkors that are used for non-photomacrographic applications? I also suggest that further posts of photomacrographs whether of an arachnoid nature or not are moved into a separate thread.
Such a thread is set up here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3779.0.html
-
Following up on my suggestion, here is an old favourite of mine: the 300 mm f/2.8 AIS. I was drawn to its isolation powers and the special delicate 'drawing' of colours typical for the early ED optics. On my large-format cameras at the time I used the 270 mm f/6.3 and 360 mm f/8 ED T-Nikkors and they both showed the same behaviour.
The 300/2.8 also was the first ever lens I had CPU-modified. The D1 functioned better with a CPU-enabled lens, simple as that. There have been 'a few hundred' more since then.
-
This is the first digital image by the 300/2.8 I sold in the old days (to a CD cover if I recall correctly). What I distinctly remember though is the complaint from the printers about the deep 'digital' blue colour, apparently the digital world to them was so new they had no adequate colour profile for these cameras and their colour purity. I had to tweak the image to make it 'printable'. Later the printing situation improved as digital technology permeated the market.
-
Another early 300/2.8 picture that made its way into print.
Vodka and driving combine badly.
-
Love all these prime colors even on my uncalibrated screen.
Did you shoot all these three images with D1?
-
No, only the moving wave reflections. The Iris was with the F4 and the Russian truck with an F5, according to my field notes. I got my first Nikon D1 late in 1999 and very rapidly switched to an all-digital work flow thereafter.
-
No, only the moving wave reflections. The Iris was with the F4 and the Russian truck with an F5, according to my field notes. I got my first Nikon D1 late in 1999 and very rapidly switched to an all-digital work flow thereafter.
Bjørn, thanks for the details. I remember your review of D1 in which you proved that even the "lowly" 27MP sensor outperformed Velvia50 by a comfortable margin.
-
I almost never use extension tubes, as they degrade things rather quickly IMO.
Just reversing a wide-angle on a camera is already adding extension, due to the length of the lens barrel and reversing a retrofocus optic. That's why such high magnifications are obtained ...
-
Just reversing a wide-angle on a camera is already adding extension, due to the length of the lens barrel and reversing a retrofocus optic. That's why such high magnifications are obtained ...
I disagree.
It's not the extension; it's the reverse-magnification that increases the macro magnification.
If I reverse a 50mm lens, and reverse a 20mm lens, the "extension" is the same between lens and sensor, from flipping both lenses over.
By your statement the macro magnification should be the same in both cases ... but that's not the way it turns out ;)
The truth is, the wider the angle of the lens, the more inverse the magnification, which is why the specs are what they are (50mm reversed = 1:1, while 20mm reversed = 3.4:1).
So, back to what I said: reversing a lens isn't much different in "extension," between sensor and lens, from the original orientation of the lens.
The farther you pull the lens away from the sensor, the more degradation IMO (esp. as you increase ISO).
Therefore, getting greater-and-greater magnification through native lens width is a superior manner in which to retain image quality than by using "extenders" (IMO).
Jack
-
The question of magnification of a reversed lens relates to focal length not its field of view.
From the equation of the 'thin' lens,
1/u + 1/v = 1/f
where u= front nodal distance (front node plane to subject), v=rear nodal distance (rear node to film plane), f=focal length. For infinity focus v=f.
Magnification of detail is m=v/f-1
Actual extension is e = v-f or v=e+f
When the lens is reversed, so are the conjugate distances, and the optical extension increases concurrently. Hence the importance of the focal length of the reversed lens.
With regard to the format coverage of the reversed lens, it is actually beneficial to have lenses designated for a smaller format as the stray light input (non-image forming rays) is reduced.
-
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8533/8645990247_b0021ae508_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/eb1XFn)20130410-012-2 (https://flic.kr/p/eb1XFn) by (https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8265/8640903277_9bfd326002_b.jpg) (https://www.fli[url=https://flic.kr/p/eayTuZ)20130410-039-2 (https://flic.kr/p/eayTuZ) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrckr.com/photo(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7305/10732956763_324308161e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/hmrd7F)20131005-013 (https://flic.kr/p/hmrd7F) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrs/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. Were taken with old Nikkor 35/2.8 AI. EXIF is wrong cose I forgot to switch. Anyway, 105mm was 2.8, so, no difference to exposure. They are crops, less or more. THX! LZ
-
A quick question on the subject of old mf : my GAS is growing more critical and I'm contemplating these
28 f2
28 f2.8
20 2.8
My first choice Would be the 20 2.8 then the 28 2. but the 28 2.8 got so much love in this thread that it's hard to ignore. I plan to get them all over time but what should be the order.
Alas, terminal GAS...
-
Having possessed all three over time, and with the note that I had the 28/2 only on film, I'd stick to your original plan, or if you place a very high value on the absence of distortion, maybe switch the 28/2 to the 28/2.8ais for it's extremely low distortion.
-
It depends on the way of shooting in my opinion. If a general lens and distant scenes are important, I would go for the 28/2.
-
It depends on the way of shooting in my opinion. If a general lens and distant scenes are important, I would go for the 28/2.
I agree with this.
-
The various multi-coated 28/2.0 versions have extremely low flare and ghost.
Dave
-
Here is a image of Mosquito's larva taken with 105mm f/4 micro+PN11+close-up noT3, (wrongly called as ''filter close up attachment'') and used here to get slightly bigger image without darken the shot too much.
Everything attached to my Df.
# 100 iso;
# 1/200 sec;
# f/16.
Note that I cropped the image.
Love you. We have to cook something together, with sonme serious light & cameras in the kitchen!
-
I agree with this.
Me, too. My 28 2.8 isn't very sharp at infinity.
-
Thank Keith, John, Dave, and Peter. 28 f/2, then 20 f/2.8, then 28 f/2.8 then :)
-
Even though the 28mm f2 has a bit more barrel shaped distortion then the 28 f2,8 Ai-S (do pick up the Ai-S rather then the Ai version. Worlds of difference between the two!) I personally preferred the distorted view of my 28mm f2 Nikkor-NC over that of the 28mm f2,8 in most cases. The extra stop of background seperation and the image sharpness and clarity really make the f2 version an excellent choice.
I do not quite see where the 20 f2,8 comes into the equation. It is such a different lens. With the 20's either pick up the latest or oldest. The 20mm f2,8 Ai-S has the sharpest center. The 20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD the best overall sharpness with better corners but slightly less sharp center. Merits of the 20mm f4 and 20mm f3,5 Ai are merely small size and 52mm filter size but none optically. (ok, maybe flare resistance on the 20 f3,5 Ai)
-
Not "maybe", but for with certainty. Combining the very flare resistant 20/3.5 (52 mm thread) with a K-1 has been the secret weapon for generations of nature photographers ... It's right there at the top of the list with the 16/3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor and few others.
An old scan, but one gets the idea.
-
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/imagehosting/1/1_image_0000001560.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/JohnKoerner/672/1560/medium)
Yosemite National Park
The Tunnel View
Nikon D810 | Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 AI-S
-
Very nice composition, John, of a view that's normally presented in a very limited and stereotyped set of compositions. I love the subtle variations in colors, textures, and lighting.
For those in other parts of the world, the brown pine trees visible throughout the photo have died due to bark beetle infestations triggered by the drought of the last 5 years in California. Near-normal precipitation in the local area the past rainy season has not overcome the accumulated precipitation deficit, and trees badly infested with bark beetles continue to march inexorably towards their death.
-
Thanks Bill - these insights are what makes NG!
Great photo John
JJ
-
hi, dusted off the d50, bought a 20mm f4 a few months ago and here's the first wide angle pic. found out that "shade" as white balance is saturated but way, way too warm so I had nudged it towards neutral and upped the saturation to get some color back.
Also the picture is soft. Could be me not focusing properly. Been a long time since i did any artsy photography and spent more time blocking cars and houses with the big red tree.
overall, i'm happy with my first wide angle lens and the picture during lunch break.
-
The 20/4 Nikkor should be fairly sharp, but of correct focusing is helpful :D With a medium-resolution camera like the D50, some output sharpening might be required to bring back 'snap' in the image.
Most Nikons do well on Auto white balance. If one shoots in RAW format, certainly easier not to fiddle with the W/B settings and let the camera do the job, if necessary a "click-white" operation in the RAW conversion program later will put things on the right track anyway. a good practice
Your image has excessive pixel dimensions and is stored with massive jpg compression to bring down its size. This is not a recommended approach here at NG, not at all. A smaller dimensioned file allows much better image quality to be enjoyed.
I took the liberty of downloading your photo, rescaled it and added some sharpening to it. Seems pretty acceptable now and certainly not "soft".
-
Some nasty artificial light really benefits from a custom WB but since the my D300s and now with my D800 I seldom use anything but auto WB. I shoot NEF so I can touch up the WB if needed.
I dabble in video and that's where I'm most likely to use a custom or preset WB. Here is an example, a rather extreme one, of a cheap fluorescent twisty in a slightly amber colored hall lamp (auto v. custom)...
Dave
-
The Auto w/b certainly is not infallible, and artificial lights are its Achilles heel. Consider in these situations there is hardly any blue present, though. Thus Custom w/b here really boosts the blue channel far beyond reasonable limits to give a facsimile of 'white', but there will be the inevitable rise in noise.
-
OK, thanks for the additional details.
I would have tried putting a close-up lens on the host lens before reversing it. Conjugate relationships would be better maintained. Also do note that without a narrow lens hood on the exposed rear end of the lens, the setup becomes very sensitive to stray light and potential loss of contrast. This of course due to the fact that a lot of the light entering the rear of the lens no longer can form an image.
The humble 36-72/3.5 Nikon SE is excellent for reversal using this principle. The added advantage is that one can fine-trim the composition by a little zooming in or out.
Conjugate; adj.; in mathematics (of an element) so related to a second element of a group that there exists a third element of the group that, multiplying one element on the right and the other element on the left, results in equal elements.
Now it, uh, adds-up?! Although I've been employing this methodology for many years since first reading of it, I never quite understood exactly how the 1+1=3 ethereal aesthetic outcome was attained.
-
Your image has excessive pixel dimensions and is stored with massive jpg compression to bring down its size. This is not a recommended approach here at NG, not at all. A smaller dimensioned file allows much better image quality to be enjoyed.
I took the liberty of downloading your photo, rescaled it and added some sharpening to it. Seems pretty acceptable now and certainly not "soft".
This is a masterful demo ! :)