NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: wesstl on May 01, 2016, 07:37:59
-
I've decided I "need" an 85mm 1.4. For those who've tried the various models what are the big differences in image quality and which do you recommend: Nikon AIS, 1.4D, 1.4G? Sigma? Or go super cheap and get the Samyang/Rokinon? I would say my priorities are performance at 1.4 and bokeh. Thanks
-
these are my observations from playing around with these lenses for a short time. :o :o :o
85mm f/1.4 Ai-S: probably the sharpest of the lot from Nikon. optically excellent but manual focus only. CA is ugly but rendering is special.
85mm f/1.4 AF-D: not too different from the Ai-S. some people say that the Ai-S is sharper,though. AF is pretty fast but not 100% accurate. CA is ugly.
85mm f/1.4 AF-G: the best that i have tried. sharp and well controlled CA. AF can be faster but is more accurate than AF-D. expensive.
85mm f/1.4 Zeiss (black lens w silver ring): not too different from the Nikkor AF-D as far as I can tell. nothing special unlike the AF-G.
Sigma 85mm f/1.4: output is similar to the AF-D, nothing special.
Samyang: no input. but for that price, i would rather get a Sigma or Ai-S (which is a legendary lens in it's days).
long story short, the 85mm f/1.4G is the best that i have tried so far. i was shopping for an 85mm f/1.4 as well so i tried these lenses to see which one should i buy. I can tell you that the 85mm f/1.4D is still a pretty good lens, the rendering is really something. some people actually prefer the "pop" that they get from this over the newer G lens. you cannot go wrong with the 85mm f/1.4 Ai-S, that thing will last forever.
i settled with what i have (85mm f/2 Ai-S) because it is so small and not intimidating. for my intended use, they would roughly perform the same anyways when shot at f/4-f5.6 since they should all perform at their peak at that aperture.
-
Hi,
i own the 85mm Samyang now for quite a time: It was and is the only Non-Nikkor here.... ;) Tested it against the 85mm 1.8g and no: Just a bit sharper (1.8 vs. 1.4!) but the bokeh of the Samyang is... bokehlicious... :D I got my perfect copy used for 180€. No Brainer.
Harald
-
The 85mm AFS is one of the sharpest Nikkors, Af is rather slow similar to the rest of the 1.4 AFS lenses,,,
CA and other abrasions can be fixed in the Raw converter.
Very nice lens ;)
If you need to shoot IR then go for the Ais
-
i have a portrait where i looked really good. it was shot with the 85 1.4G. it has magic glass that will make people look good :o :o :o
-
Magic glass or no, I tried the 85mm f1,4 AF-S G lens and found it's rendering pretty amazing but too clean for my liking.
I own the 85mm f1,4 AF-D which to me was the most sensible choice. It gives me the rendering I am looking for. Not as sharp along the edges but plenty sharp in the center wide open, and it sharpens up nicely past f2 with a sweet spot probably around f2,4
The Ai-S lens did appear sharper when I tried it. I do however believe that some of that perceived sharpness is because the Ai-S has less veiling flare wide open then the AF-D version.
I tried the Sigma and it renders nice, but I prefer the rendering of the AF-D lens. Can not quite put my finger on the "why" but it might be this "pop" referred to. Something the AF-D lens certainly produces.
I have not tried the Zeiss or Samyang offerings yet. One lens I am interested in however, also in this range, is the Meyer Optik Goerlitz 85mm f1,5 Figmentum. It sells at a Zeiss like price point (999 Euros) but offers quite a unique rendering. I was able to try one in a local shop but so far have not managed to gather the funds to purchase.
-
I never really noticed any difference between the AF-D and AFS except the slower AFS due to the by design more accurate focus
-
I share the view that the 85/1.4 G may look "too clean". I'd say "transparent". Bokeh is top notch, so outside the studio when you cannot control the background such easily, it might be the optimal choice.
I've never seen it sold 2nd hand, or nearly, probably the conjunction of 1° low number of copies sold, and 2° initial customers' satisfaction.
In addition : visible but acceptable coma (not smeary, you'll get slender gracious butterflies), acceptable LoCA.
I guess the latest redesigned Zeiss 85/1.4 might be a challenger to the Nikkor, but beware of the price.
But do you really need f/1.4 ? if not, there might be nice macro lenses offering an alternative (Tamron & al.)
-
I've tried the AFD and AFS versions
AFS is amazing , if you are looking for "performance" wide open and bokeh, this would be my choice, rented it for a weekend, absolutelly no problems, a bit to big and more on the heavy side.
AFD is close behind, AF was not as accurate as I would like it, sold it as I had a number of shots where I got disappointed due to missed focus
I'm lousy doing manual focus, so I wouldn't consider any of the manual focus versions , specially if you want to shoot at f1.4
anyway ... today I own and frequently use the 85 F/1.8G AFS, it is very good and has kept from wanting to have the f1.4 versions
-
I'm lousy doing manual focus, so I wouldn't consider any of the manual focus versions , specially if you want to shoot at f1.4
anyway ... today I own and frequently use the 85 F/1.8G AFS, it is very good and has kept from wanting to have the f1.4 versions
The 1.8G might be an option. It's a bargain compared to the 1.4 How's the bokeh and rendering? I might also look for the MF f/2 for the small size.
Thanks all for the info.
-
Do not forget the helios 85mm f/1.5 (75mm f/1.5 biotar ' copy) with its amazing bokeh.
But, yes, it is a manual focus... :o
Never mind, it's on my wish list !
-
If f1.4 is not absolutely necessary, the latest TAMRON 85/1.8 would be worth trying. It also has a vibration reduction in the lens.
-
Good point. Analogously, the performance of the 45/1.8 wide open, which is fully useful, makes me forget about the compromise f/1.4 setting offered by others...
-
I have only ever used/owned the 85/1.4 AF-D. It is a very nice lens, the drawing style is a bit more old-school with slightly subdued colors, there is not a lot of falloff (I think the AF-S has more), the OOF areas are incredibly smooth.
The lens is not bitingly sharp wide open though, if you want/need that you should look elsewhere. Also, sharpness drops off quite a lot towards the edges. I find that f/2 is a nice aperture to use on this lens.
The screwdriver AF takes a bit of practice and should probably be fine-tuned. Less importantly, the lens is quite beautifully made in my opinion, it just looks great and wants to be used. One has to be careful not to touch the front element, it is advisable to use the hood.
The biggest drawback is the big amount of LoCA in high-contrast situations. You have to stop down to about f/2.4-2.8 to bring it under control. If you like to shoot images with OOF stuff in front of the subject, the magenta aberrations may annoy you. The green ones behind the subject are less intrusive, particularly if the background is composed of natural stuff (leaves etc). A black&white rendering gets rid of the LoCA, the lens draws very nicely in B&W.
Overall, and considering the low prices at which this lens sometimes sells on the second-hand market, I can warmly recommend it.
One example wide open: I just love how the background melts away. For available-light shots at a dinner party with friends, isolating different people and juxtaposing with others, catching the atmosphere around the table, there is hardly a better lens. And it is sharp enough for these purposes, you just have to nail the focus.
-
I'm lousy doing manual focus, so I wouldn't consider any of the manual focus versions , specially if you want to shoot at f1.4
I found with a 50/1.2 AIS that I was better at focusing than maintaining that focus. If I was free standing at about 2m (6.5') I'd miss the focus nearlly 100% of the time. This was due to body movement and the very shallow DoF at 2m and f/1.2. If I was leaning on a counter, door frame or sitting in a chair the number of in focus shots rose significantly. I can't stand still enough to nail the focus at short distance and very large apertures.
This was on a D300 and D300s. I feel my D800 is a little harder to focus manually on the stock focus screen.
Best,
Dave
-
It is common knowledge that I am in love with the 85/1.4 AF-D so my words mean very little I am afraid.
I have used the 85/1.4 AF-S when I had mine for repair and NPS gave me one. As Erik, I couldn't really find any optical advantages. In fact I am so accustomed to the AF performance of the AF-D that that the AF-S felt fiddly and always searching for the right focus as other AF-S lenses do.
When my friend went to Moscow on a business trip, there was a Petzval thread and the talks of out of focus areas. Although all the 85s are cream machines my lucidity kicked in and I bought the already mentioned Zenit 85/1.5 but that's a completely different tool...
-
Wes,
I only have Nikkor's in this range, sorry can't provide any info on the Zeiss, Sigma, et al. lenses.
For the Nikkor's:
A few years ago (I think it was 2012) I compared the 5 different fast 85mm Nikkors (f1.4 and f1.8 )
Here is a group picture to compare the relative sizes:
(from left to right: AiS 1.4, AFD 1.4, AFS 1.4, AFS 1.8G, AFD 1.8 )
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141561641/original.jpg)
In these "old" days, I did more "comparisons" to figure out what the sweetspot of each lens was (probably better to call it curiosity). One of those tests was of course sharpness wide open (I am much more relaxed about this today)
This was the overall testchart
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548941/original.jpg)
Here are crops of the upper left corner of all 5 lenses with their respective open aperture (Camera=D3x):
1) AiS 85mm/1.4
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548955/original.jpg)
2) AF 85mm/1.4
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548951/original.jpg)
3) AFS 85mm/1.4G
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548947/original.jpg)
4) AFS 85mm/1.8G
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548944/original.jpg)
5) AF 85mm/1.8 D
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/141548953/original.jpg)
Please be aware, that with open lenses the impact of sample variation can be higher than with slower lenses. (Check for decentralization when looking for used ones)
The transition from the area of "sharpness" to background or foreground blur, the 1.4 lenses are vs. the f1.8 lenses @ same f-stop usually visual more appealing - the intro of the transition is earlier and softer - which contributes to this nice bokeh. The lenses aren't designed for AF speed (heavy lens elements to move around), so don't expect them to be comparable to a lens optimized for AF speed like the AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II.
The AFS 85mm/1.8G is closer to be a f2.0 lens seen from the actual aperture.
The AFS 85mm/1.8G is wide open sharper than the AFS 85mm/1.4G at their respective open aperture.
At same aperture, my experience is that the f1.4 always leads against the f1.8.
Bokeh with both the f1.8 lenses is not at the same level as with the f1.4 lenses.
The f1.8 lenses have usually less CA wide open vs. the f1.4 lenses
Quick bokeh impression between f1.4 and f1.8:
1) AF 85mm/1.4D @ f1.4
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/132739771/original.jpg)
2) AF 85mm/1.8D @ f1.8
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/132739773/original.jpg)
Subject isolation is usually easy to do with the f1.4 lenses (D3s & AFS 85mm/1.4G @ f1.4)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/129627133/original.jpg)
Creamy bokeh as well (D300 & AFS 85mm/1.4G @f1.4)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/128103116/original.jpg)
rgds,
Andy
-
Although all the 85s are cream machines my lucidity kicked in and I bought the already mentioned Zenit 85/1.5 but that's a completely different tool...
I have the Zenit and you described it perfectly: a different tool. I really like the results for the right subject but feel I need a more "normal" 85. The AF-D is tempting.
-
Wow, Andy. That's great info and much appreciated. My thoughts: the AF-S 1.8 makes a nice showing and is a real bargain for the price. But it's not the 1.4. Your images from the AF-S 1.4 are perfect examples of my reasons for wanting one. Now I need to decide if I can live with the issues of the AF-D. I can live with weak corners if the center is good and the oof areas are good. I may look for the AF-D, work with it, and if I decide I need the AF-S I'll sell the D.
-
thanks, Andy. your test confirmed my experience that the Ai-S is sharper than the AF-D :o :o :o
the russian lens gives your trippy bokeh. some people love it some people hate it. its interesting though.
-
Over the years I have worked my way through several 85-ish mm lenses from various manufacturers
My first one (back in the early 70's) was the Canon FL 1.8/85mm, quite an exotic lens in those days, but by 'modern' standards obviously heavily outdated lens due to the (again by modern standards) inferior coating and lens design. But I really love the image rendering of that lens, even after 40+ years.
I switched to Nikon in the late 70's (really the only pro's alternative in those days, not so much for the sake of the brand, but more so because of the dealer and repair network, availability of third party accessories, and offerings on the second hand market ) when I started my studies at the art academy in The Hague.
Being told it was the 'best' my first portrait lens was the 2.5/105mm, but never felt the 'magic' of that lens, so after some time traded it in for a 2/85mm AI. Found that one handy as a low light short telelens alternative (compared to my 4.5/80-200 Ai and 4.5/300mm AI ED), but didn't impress me very much either.
After that had a long spell where I basically never used short tele's like a 85mm but rather long telelenses (between 200 and 500mm) for my fashion work. Last couple of years though started looking into the 85mm range again, especially for the use in portraiture (also due to the fact I basically am quite content with my present DF and D800, and now find I have some money left to spend on 'luxury' lenses).
As I wanted to experiment with tilting the focal/sharpness plane (similar to eg a large format camera) I initially got a 2.8/85mm TC (never grew to like it due to the awkward handling) and later a LensBaby Composer with 80mm Edge. Didn't work out for me (too fiddly to work with, and imagewise too sharp and too clean), so decided to approach it in a more 'traditional' way by simply using shallow DoF, and moving away from the holy grail of 'perfect sharpness'.
So no I've started a small collection of 85mm lenses, ranging from a Lomography Petzval 2.2/85mm, a pre Ai Nikkor-C 1.8/85mm, 1.8/85mm AF D to a 1.4/85mm AF D.
The Petzval is an acquired taste (love the typical bokeh, although for some that's an absolute horror), which BTW is despite many reports claiming the contrary is quite capable of delivering sharp images despite the ancient design and awkward pin and rack focusing system http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156848896/large.
The Nikkor-C 1.8/85mm has the typical soft (un)sharpness of film age lenses, much like the 1.8/AF D, although the latter being more of a workhorse then an 'artistic' 85mm.
Had the opportunity to play around and compare with the 1.4/85 AF S and 1.4/85mm AF D (which I own). Found the differences in sharpness and AF speed for real life/my personal use use neglectable (not much of a pixelpeeper, and coming from a manual focus background not having unrealistic expectations of what the AF should be able to do/how much it should be able to compensate my operating errors).
The 1.4/85mm AF D has an amazing ultra thin DoF image rendering wide open at and around 1.4 http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/145046624. But it completely changes character when stopped down (only) a few stops http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/163023739 delivering eye watering sharpness and detail.
So unless you really are after the latest and 'sharpest' IMO hold on to your cash and 'just' get a 1.4/85mm AF D.
-
Very interesting overview, Paul. Have you ever tried the Nikkor 80/2.8 ?
-
Very interesting overview, Paul. Have you ever tried the Nikkor 80/2.8 ?
No, as I never had a F3AF, for which this lens along with the 3.5/200mm were especially designed, although they reportedly also worked (and better/faster) with the F501/N2002 and F4. But since I could afford AF D lenses when I upgraded to AF film SLR's, and considering they are/were incompatible with later DSLR's, I never looked into them myself
But from what I heard from a model friend who back then once did a shoot with it, the AF was sluggishly slow on the F3AF ('strike a pose, and hold, one mississippi, two mississippi, and then take the picture') basically more of a novelty then a really practical tool.
-
One uses the lenses for F3AF, 80/2.8 and 200/3.5 ED_IF, these days for their optical quality only. No AF is possible of course and in fact some Nikons can be short-circuited by mounting these lenses on them. Solution is of course to replace their CPUs with a modern equivalent.
Manual focusing is a bit sluggish on the shorter 80, somewhat easier on the 200. Their optical performance is very good to excellent and in particular the 80/2.8 is really an outstanding performer in visible as well as in IR light. Its bokeh is superb as well.
-
Yes. I use it as a manual AI lens, and it works perfect on all my digital Nikons. Focussing is not really a problem if you are used to manual focussing, the little drag in the ring (of the AF-moter) works fine for critical focussing. Sharpness, colours, contrast and bokeh are nearly perfect, in my opinion.
-
Two examples with the AF 80/2.8 Nikkor (visible light: two invasive Rosa species side by side; R. rugosa and R. pimpinellifolia). IR: Hawaii Oslo; front of a store also featuring in a film of the same name).
-
While I would certainly be interested in trying them, the F3AF lenses are the ugliest lenses Nikon has made. Nearly worthy of a paper bag!
-
I always thought the first generation of 'plastic fantastic' lenses was the prime candidate to win that prize ...
-
Being told it was the 'best' my first portrait lens was the 2.5/105mm, but never felt the 'magic' of that lens, so after some time traded it in for a 2/85mm AI. Found that one handy as a low light short telelens alternative (compared to my 4.5/80-200 Ai and 4.5/300mm AI ED), but didn't impress me very much either.
The AI 85/2 has never had a great reputation as far as I can tell. Maybe it suffers in comparison with the older 85/1.8 versions - these are solid, well proportioned lenses, with performance that was favoured by a generation of photographers. During the 1970s there was a trend towards more compact lenses and cameras, so the AI 85/2 lost 1/3 stop from its predecessors and is much smaller - it looks rather petite, even runty in comparison, and it has a ridiculously long focus throw - 255° from infinity to 0.85m, so focusing is very slow. According to one source, contrast was kept intentionally low to make it more flattering for portraiture, but this makes it less useful as a general purpose lens. Sharpness is also reported to be not as good, but that may be the result of the lower contrast. Whatever the reason, the AI 85/2 never had the following of the 85/1.8.
I have used the AIS version for many years with excellent results. As far as I know the optics and coating are unchanged from the AI version, yet my copy is as sharp and contrasty as other similar Nikkors like the 105/2.5 or 135/2.8. Maybe Nikon tweaked the optics or coatings for the AIS version? I also consider it to be a better looking lens, and the focus throw is just right - at 170° it is the same as the AI 105/2.5. This is one case where AIS version has a better focus throw than the AI. Overall I consider it to be a great little lens - fast, sharp and compact with good handling (just compare the size to the current AFS 85/1.8!). Combine the shorter focal length and 2/3 stop faster speed and you have nearly 1 stop improvement in hand-holdability compared to the 105/2.5. Only the bokeh is not quite as smooth.
-
Big thanks to Andy for the test shots of the various lenses. The results put some meat on the bones of the various opinions about each lens. They also tend to strongly confirm those opinions.
Mongo has the AI-S version and delights in its chaaracter. Having to manually focus is a small liability but not one which is not able to be overcome. Have seen the G model results from a friend's copy and they seem a bit 'clinical' by comparison albeit, sharper and has AF.
From the results posted by Any, one should give some serious though to the 1.8G model as an all round great performer for the task one is likely to put an 85mm lens to.
-
I have used the AIS version for many years with excellent results. As far as I know the optics and coating are unchanged from the AI version
the 85/2's Ai and Ai-S versions have different coatings, i can tell one from the other just by the color of the glass :o :o :o which came in handy because somebody was trying to sell me an Ai and claimed that it is Ai-S.
PS: have you read my PM reply?
-
Interesting ... I just compared my AI and AIS 85/2 and the coatings look the same. These lenses can be distinguished quite easily without having to study the coatings, the AI has the DOF scale on the barrel between the chrome and focus rings, the AIS has the DOF scale on chome.
-
not only that, there are screws on the focusing ring for the Ai one. the barrel's outer construction are different. even the front ring's construction is different but they do look similar at first look.
as for the coatings, one has greenish while one has magenta tint. this might be a production batch variation and you may have the later Ai one. I compared the one being sold to me to the one that I have and the coatings are different as I described. :o :o :o
-
I'll have another look at coatings again in better light ...
-
My Ai 85mm f/2.0 has predominantly greenish tinges to its coatings - at least under artificial light. I will check it again in the morning under daylight.
Its Serial No. is 2627xx, which implies that it was one of the last of the Ai 85mm f/2.0 lenses - made not very long before the AiS version was released in 1981. Maybe the last of the Ai lenses were supplied with the newer coatings? Just a guess I admit.
Edit: I have rechecked the colours of the reflections off the coatings of this lens under bright daylight @ 11:00am local time. The reflections are still predominantly green, although there is some less obvious magenta relections as well. I compared these with the relections off my AiS 105mm f/2.5 lens, Serial No. 9355xx, and they looked very similar.
-
Observation of manual focus 85mm Nikkors...
85/2.0 AI: Didn't like odd barrel design.
85/2.0 AIS: Small, light, good performance but nothing special.
85/1.8 K AI(ed) medium, excellent sharpness, printed b&w for friend. Perhaps more flare in harsh conditions. Tried to buy from friend 10 years ago, no luck.
85/1.4 AIS: Large (presence), excellent sharpness, better sharpness than f/2.0 AIS from f/2.0 to f/5.6. Maybe better than 105/2.5 AIS. Good bokeh.
Dave Hartman
-
Here are the coatings of the 85/2, AI on the left, AI-S middle and right.
The AI is a little greener, but not dramatically different from the AI-S.
-
It is my understanding that when we see a different color reflection from the surface of two sample lenses, it is possible that the specifications of the coating have been changed, but also there is the possibility that the type of optical glass has been changed.
You never quite know...
-
In the second picture, the coating of the middle one looks different. As I understand, the reflected color of the coating can change after cleaning it several times.
-
These don't look to be much different to my late mode Ai 85mm f/2.0 and the 105mm f/2.5 AiS.
Here are the coatings of the 85/2, AI on the left, AI-S middle and right.
The AI is a little greener, but not dramatically different from the AI-S.
-
The coatings are a tad different. :o :o :o
This is also what i use as a hint in the online auction sites as sometimes, some idiot will sell and Ai for an Ai-S as they probably do not know the difference or just plain malicious. ::) In my case, the shop keeper at a reputable store probably just did not know enough about the Nikkors. Good thing I remembered this bit or else I would have been ripped off ::)
-
I thought the best way to tell apart AI from AIS was the lens mount ?
-
I thought the best way to tell apart AI from AIS was the lens mount ?
the smallest aperture number should be a bright orange. that is the easiest way :o :o :o
-
Well yes if the mount was not changed, serial # is the best, unless the ring has been changed, so really just look on Roland's page to make sure ;)
-
To easy to paint the min aperture number ::)
-
Ai has the "20m" mark on its focusing ring, whereas Ais doesn't because of the latter's shorter focus throw.
-
I thought the best way to tell apart AI from AIS was the lens mount ?
AI and AI-S lenses are closely related: many have the same optics with more or less the same coatings, and the general appearance is also very similar. AI-S have one functional difference: the position of aperture stop-down lever has a linear relationship with the aperture opening (f-stop). This allows the camera to move the stop-down lever to set the aperture in P or S modes. Doing the same with an AI lens will give unpredictable exposures. AI-S is standard for all CPU lenses (except the new E lenses) but no current camera distinguishes non-CPU AI from AI-S, all are assumed to be AI which is why S and P modes are not possible.
AI-S lenses can be distinguished by:
- A small scoop in the lens mount, signals to certain cameras that an AI-S lens is used.
- Minimum aperture on the ADR scale is orange (ADR = Aperture Direct Readout, the small secondary scale near the lower edge of the aperture ring, visible through small window in viewfinder of AI cameras such as FM, FE, F3). Several AI lenses have minimum aperture on main scale in orange (or orange-brown) but ADR scale is white.
- Changes in styling - many AI primes have DOF scale on the barrel between the chrome and focus ring, on AIS lenses the DOF scale is generally on the chrome ring. The focus throw of AI-S lenses is usually shorter, and there my be other small differences.
Series-E lenses are AI-S, in fact they came to market two years before the official AI-S series.
-
One factor in lens selection that never entered my mind was emphasized by the late Galen Rowell. It's why I've now shifted the 85 f1.4 high up my Wants-List. And the well revered 80-200mm f/4.5n AI Nikkor is another :-)
This is for aerial photography. Rowell found the vibrations / turbulence in a light plane or chopper can knock an AF lens off focus even if it's set manually. He preferred manual focus AIS Nikkors for aerial photography, especially in bumpy light aircraft. Hence the 85 f1.4 was among his favourites:
"Because AF lenses set manually vibrate out of focus while shooting from a moving plane, I choose older manual lenses that stay locked on infinity. My Nikon 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 give me the highest possible shutter speeds to use with slow, sharp slide films. I try to shoot at over 1/1000 and consider 1/250 my slowest safe speed with my 35mm lens (1/500 for my 85mm)...." Aerial Wisdom, Outdoor Photographer, May 1996 http://www.mountainlight.com/articles.html
his equipment list here:
http://www.mountainlight.com/rowell/gr_camera_bag.html
video clip http://www.openroad.tv/video.php?vid=48
In my own experience in conservation surveys, I only had a manual lens on film camera. And in a Bell 'chopper and a SuperCub (very turbulence over granite landscapes on a hot day) I used a 55 f2.8 micro-Nikkor on a FM2 or F90x. And by chance or other, I got great results, and obviously with fast shutter speeds
-
simple is best <- my motto :o :o :o
-
Yes, the late Galen Rowell was very canny indeed in his lens and camera choices. Where he was running or backpacking into locations he was not averse to carefully selected consumer grade lenses and cameras where weight was an issue. His gear was not always top shelf in these situations.