NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Steven Paulsen on July 04, 2020, 01:32:26
-
They don't have to be stellar, but are kind of few and far. (I'll try first.)
From the old Nikkormat days I have a Sigma 21-35. 36mp may be pushing too far on this one, but it isn't a slouch.
For S & G's I picked up a Samyang 18-28/4-4.5. It is a wobbly, somewhat loose zoom & focus ring, but stopped down I have gotten some great results.
Are there others worth adding? There has to be a few more.
The silly little Df opened a 30 some year window deluding that I'm 30 something again with a proud sack of glass. ;) I wish they had a screensaver that looks like pebbled vinyl with film holder to nix the rear display.
-
I'm not sure if it counts as ultra wide but there is the Nikon 25-50mm f/4.
-
I'm not sure if it counts as ultra wide but there is the Nikon 25-50mm f/4.
I would say no. Super/Ultra wide starts at 20/maybe 21mm and shorter, 24mm and above is conventional wide angle
one could as well say (if one makes a difference between super and ultra wide, ultra should contain at least 15 mm or below)
-
I think the ultrawide Nikkor zooms are all AF / AFS lenses. But you can focus them manually.
20 - 35 /2.8 or 17 - 35/2.8 could be a candidate? Maybe a 17-35 that has the "squaking" problem you may get it cheap and use it as MF only?
-
First, Thank You.
I was going to say anything that starts with a FL under 24mm.
I don't know how many attempts I've made long ago using "Whatever" book, learning 35mm photography with a 50mm. For some reason, I seem to hate 50's. A 35mm prime made everything more in perspective. I later acquired a 28, 24's and recently, an old 20mm.
I have the old 18-35/nikkor and a tokina 17-35, AF, but what I'm mired in at the moment, an all manual focus lens kit. A 16mp camera that is quite forgiving in noise reduction that is also fun with old, 30-40 year old primes, I don't necessitate a Df in needing a $2K prime.
If you take off the filter the DX 12-24 nikkor is quite usable @ 16mm & above but it's another confounded Af lens.
-
I think the ultrawide Nikkor zooms are all AF / AFS lenses. But you can focus them manually.
20 - 35 /2.8 or 17 - 35/2.8 could be a candidate? Maybe a 17-35 that has the "squaking" problem you may get it cheap and use it as MF only?
The 17-35/2.8 is easily manually focusable, and a copy with AF issues could make a good choice for a reasonably priced, good quality wide angle zoom.
-
The Nikkor 25-50 is as far I can see in a Nikkor system handbook the most wide MF zoom Nikon has made.
But the AF 20-35/2.8D is almost a MF lens if you switch from A to M on the lens. I read that this lens has a very good MF feel. Lens has the "screwdriver AF".....so it will not make the lens much bigger than if it was a pure MF lens. Then you still have the advantage from the chip and contacts.
But it is also the "look" of a pure MF lens and the feel of old focus helicoids you like?
-
Pluton. You are welcome to join my cheapness club, for free. (DOA, 17-35.)
What I'm after is the feel of a long throw chrome/black barrel lenses. Most af lenses have a short amount of adjustment, (throw,) and its generally a pain or compromise to use manually.
It would be a really nice feature......on Af lenses stopped down, (say F8) for the camera to use hyperfocal distance in setting focus. I love those little tick lines on older wider glass.
-
Pluton. You are welcome to join my cheapness club, for free. (DOA, 17-35.)
I like the idea of The Cheapness Club!
What I'm after is the feel of a long throw chrome/black barrel lenses. Most af lenses have a short amount of adjustment, (throw,) and its generally a pain or compromise to use manually.
Agree...A lens well-designed for manual focus, like the old MF Nikkors, is preferred to the compromised manual focus action on the AF lenses. What I'm thinking is that all the really good wide-angle zooms were produced after the start of the auto-focus era. Therefore, there are no native manual-focus wide zooms.
-
The Nikkor 20-35 has a marking for 20mm and a marking for 35mm. I guess it could be for F8 (but have not investigated it).
But it does not have those curved colored lines the old push-pull zooms had for each aperture setting.
The 20-35 is probably the closets you get if it has to be a ultra-wide Nikkor zoom.
Old MF "other 3. party brand" zoom lenses probably has a poor performance compared to a Nikkor! :-)
Maybe Leica has something where you can use an adapter.
-
The Nikkor 20-35 has a marking for 20mm and a marking for 35mm. I guess it could be for F8 (but have not investigated it).
But it does not have those curved colored lines the old push-pull zooms had for each aperture setting.
The 20-35 is probably the closets you get if it has to be a ultra-wide Nikkor zoom.
Old MF "other 3. party brand" zoom lenses probably has a poor performance compared to a Nikkor! :-)
Maybe Leica has something where you can use an adapter.
Posting error, sorry.
-
There is a bit more information about 20-35 here:
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AFNikkor2035mmf28D/index.htm
…..and development of wide angle zooms in general. Also link to Nikkor 25-50.
-
The Nikkor 20-35 has a marking for 20mm and a marking for 35mm. I guess it could be for F8 (but have not investigated it).
Those marks are the infinity points for infrared shooting, nothing to do with depth-of-field.
-
Ok....then there is only the "paper scale" solution provided by Nikon...…
The infinity focus at 20mm is quite far away from "visible light" infinity…..so not so well corrected I guess.
-
Guessing depth of field, ie hyper-focal distance in setting focus for a digital camera is hit and miss, definitely not recommended, not even for ultra wide lenses. A scale on the lens barrel will not change that.
20-35mm AFD f/2.8 is a very nice lens, the MF fell is very nice and smooth and it's very compact, almost no geometrical distortion on top!
-
20-35mm AFD f/2.8 is a very nice lens, the MF fell is very nice and smooth and it's very compact, almost no geometrical distortion on top!
I like the lens but I don't like the poor edges and corners wide open. My copy isn't just soft wide open in the peripheral regions but shows noticeable sagittal/tangential aberrations there.
-
Guessing depth of field, ie hyper-focal distance in setting focus for a digital camera is hit and miss, definitely not recommended, not even for ultra wide lenses. A scale on the lens barrel will not change that.
20-35mm AFD f/2.8 is a very nice lens, the MF fell is very nice and smooth and it's very compact, almost no geometrical distortion on top!
I am mainly speaking towards landscape photography, setting the DOF scale so includes fore and far ground. People, specific subjects all warrant somewhat precise face/eye focus.
With my 20 or 24 "locked" on f8, (aperture & focus,) it allows a lot less hassle trudging through the wooded areas and farmland. Just compose and click.
In my lifetime, I lost more shots due to Af not nailing the subject than my manual focus, point/shoot method.
-
I like the lens but I don't like the poor edges and corners wide open. My copy isn't just soft wide open in the peripheral regions but shows noticeable sagittal/tangential aberrations there.
Well, yes not up to high corner standards, fully open, but I guess this is not really what he is looking for, stopped down...
-
I am mainly speaking towards landscape photography, setting the DOF scale so includes fore and far ground. People, specific subjects all warrant somewhat precise face/eye focus.
With my 20 or 24 "locked" on f8, (aperture & focus,) it allows a lot less hassle trudging through the wooded areas and farmland. Just compose and click.
In my lifetime, I lost more shots due to Af not nailing the subject than my manual focus, point/shoot method.
Did you try live view? To determine correct depth of focus. If not I would recommend to give it a try ;)
Sorry to hear Af is not working out for you...
-
There are several phone apps that I use for reference in setting hyperfocal distance and I'm fine with the results.
This is an older focusing approach that mainly involves using wider primes for landscape shooting.
I only ever use live view for macro on a pod. I also sometimes wish the camera didn't have that annoying rear display, or at least cover for the same.
-
Being a bit cheeky but why Not the Samyang 14-28mm? Well OK its not a zoom but its so sharp you can crop 50% and not notice so thats 28mm .. The Samyang 14mm F2.8 On a D850 uses 30 MP of the available MP and just set it to F5.6 and 10ft focus and just click away.
-
if the question is primarily about MFwide zooms and not constrained by back focus distance, the Leitz 21-35 should qualify, it also is reasonably good.-
Its rear element retaing ring is a bil too long to clear a Canon 5DII mirror, but some careful filing of the bil that the mirror hits solves the problem-The Leicaflexes and successors had long flange distances and peculiar mirror mechanics- (a rear mount lens- cutout is just like the kilfitt wide macro which also has a sloping bit to avoid the mirror (at least my made in Liechtenstein, Alpa-mount copy)
p.