NikonGear'23

Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Les Olson on January 30, 2016, 19:55:36

Title: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Les Olson on January 30, 2016, 19:55:36
Rorslett's Rule is the remark that you should have three primes, each at least twice the focal length of the next widest, so you never have to wonder about which to use. (There is a version for size as well: each camera you own should be at least twice the weight of the next lightest, so you never wonder about which to pick up). 

I like the rule: the focal lengths are clearly distinct, and the distinctiveness makes you think carefully about the picture you might take. 

With my FM3 I use a Voigtlander 20mm, a Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.4, and either a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 E series or the 135mm f/2.8 E series.  Rorslett's Rule satisfied.  If I get a Df for digital use there are the 20mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8, but there is no small, light, short telephoto except the 85mm among modern lenses - after that it is the DC lenses, which are big and expensive, or it is all the way to the 180mm f/2.8. 

So I have two questions:

What do people who use primes with the Df use for a short telephoto? 
If they use the E series lenses, how well do they perform on the Df? 
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on January 30, 2016, 20:15:36
You forgot the 105/2.5. It is synergetic with the Df and I am convinced the people designing that lens in its time had a visit from the future to put them straight. Thus it's better to start making up the kit from the 105. Leading to 50 and 24(-ish). Or 35 & 105 if you use the 3X factor instead of 2X.

The Nikon E lenses work well, but there are better alternatives.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Jakov Minić on January 30, 2016, 20:34:57
Les, I use the 85/1.4D on my Df, but that has got more to do with the lens that has simply been my favorite the past 10 years than it has to do with synergy.
My two lens kit used to be 16/3.5 fish-eye + 85/1.4.
Now it's 24/1.4 and 85/1.4.
If I were to build up a new kit today I suppose the new AF-S f/1.8 lenses are the way to go.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Les Olson on January 30, 2016, 21:12:30
You forgot the 105/2.5. It is synergetic with the Df and I am convinced the people designing that lens in its time had a visit from the future to put them straight.

Thank you.  I have been put off the 105/2.5 because the designers have written that it was optimised for portrait distances and widest aperture, which is not my normal use (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0005/).  Is it worth looking for the later NSIC versions? 
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Tristin on January 30, 2016, 21:37:10
The 105mm f/1.8 is worth looking into as well.  Sharpness and contrast between the f/2.5 and the f/1.8 are the same unless at very close range where the f/1.8 is better.  The f/1.8 also has a very flat field curvature where-as the f/2.5 plunges in the corners.  The f/2.5 also exhibits much more CA than the f/1.8.  The f/1.8 also handles flare better, though it's built in hood is quite small annd while it mostly takes care of ghosting, is not enough to get rid of flare often.

If you are looking for a mostly portrait lens and you like using filters and don't want to carry an extra set in 62mm, the f/2.5 would be better.  The f/2.5 is certainly better if you are looking to carry as minimal a trio as possible in that regard. For landscapes or anything where corner to corner sharpness is desired, the f/1.8 is better by a hefty margin.  They are of similar length, the f/1.8 is wider and heavier by qiite a fair chunk.

Past difference I could think of, the f/2.5's focus ring is faster moving and more suited for quicker focusing, while the f1.8 is slower and better for precision.  Both feel great.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Thomas G on January 30, 2016, 21:53:06
I'm using either a 135mm f/3.5 Q.C (non AI) or a 105mm f/2.5 AI-s when going with primes for mid range.
The former is not universal, though, and I tend to vary the rules by adding my own preference parameters.
For example most selections come with some type of close focus or macro capability in at least one lens in the set.


Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on January 30, 2016, 21:55:02
The f/1.8 is more modern but has less character. They complement each other very well. It is often stated that the 'Sonnar' version of the  105/2.5 is better for landscapes, but frankly I don't see that much difference if the slightly lower contrast of the old model is taken care of. Still the mid '70s 105/2.5 continues to be my absolute favourite. Colours are rendered with a vibrant intensity that really are preserved well by the Df.

However, all the above really is a question of luxury as any of these 105 Nikkors will serve their users well.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: John Geerts on January 30, 2016, 21:59:46
Another option to think about is the 85mm 1.8 (Pre AI),  it fits very well on the Df. It may be difficult to find a good sample, however. 
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Andy on January 30, 2016, 22:26:16
Depending on your needs and wants:
You might take a look into the Zeiss 2/100mm and the 2/135mm.
Both are outstanding performers - the 135mm in particular.
The 2/100mm is smaller though.

rgds,
Andy

PS:
For a size and proportionality estimation: Both lenses mounted on a Df.

2/100mm
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153910924/original.jpg)

2/135mm
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153910925/original.jpg)



Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on January 30, 2016, 22:28:58
The Zeiss 100/2 is the one with axial colour issue (longitudinal chromatic aberration), isn't it?

The APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 is my normal upper limit for a kit for hand-holding a Df. Fits nicely in combination with the 58/1.2 Noct and a 28 mm Nikkor.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Harald on January 30, 2016, 22:35:11
Hi,

definitely the 105 2.5 Ai or Ai-s. Lightweight, superb colors, sharp and a nice bokeh. Another Option: Samyang 85 1.4. A monster in terms of bokeh and sharper then the 105. Both are too cheap and cost used between 150 and 200 Euros. I do not need more.

Harald
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Andy on January 30, 2016, 22:50:05
The APO-Lanthar 125/2.5 is my normal upper limit for a kit for hand-holding a Df.

The 2/135 is not too difficult to handhold. The focus ring is easy and precise to adjust.

For MF practice, I once traced a small - quite agile - model helicopter with the 135mm (this time mounted to the D800E). After some initial ohaha, it turned out to be quite manageable.

(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153939488/original.jpg)

100% crop
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/153939489/original.jpg)

Agree, if size counts, the Nikkor 105mm/2.5 is the better way to go.

rgds,
Andy


Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Andy on January 30, 2016, 23:33:13
The Zeiss 100/2 is the one with axial colour issue (longitudinal chromatic aberration), isn't it?

Yes, there is slight LCA.
I'd say below f2.8, LCA at the Zeiss is a bit more visible than on the Nikkor 105mm/2.5, above f4, it is the reverse.

Among other things I like, the Zeiss has a much smoother transition from the focal plane towards the foreground blur vs. the Nikkor.

rgds,
Andy
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on January 31, 2016, 07:57:45
Quote
Among other things I like, the Zeiss has a much smoother transition from the focal plane towards the foreground blur vs. the Nikkor.
That usually means the transition from the focal plane to the background is less smooth, so the Nikkor would have smoother background bokeh.
Since background bokeh is usually more dominant in a picture, I give it much higher importance so the Nikkor wins here.
Or you can use a DC Nikkor, which allows you to adjust the bokeh either way :)

Quote
but there is no small, light, short telephoto except the 85mm among modern lenses
This does expose gap in the Nikon lineup. The smallest AF telephoto prime after 85mm is the 105/2.8 VR, which is hardly compact.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Andy on January 31, 2016, 08:47:54
That usually means the transition from the focal plane to the background is less smooth, so the Nikkor would have smoother background bokeh.
Since background bokeh is usually more dominant in a picture, I give it much higher importance so the Nikkor wins here.
Or you can use a DC Nikkor, which allows you to adjust the bokeh either way :)

Hi Roland,
I just arrived at the airport - will be away a bit.  So I can't create a few images for direct comparison. 

If interested, I can do some FG/BG bokeh comparision shots between the 4 lenses to share when back home (AiS 105mm/2.5, AFS 105mm/2.8 VR, Zeiss 2/100mm and the 105mm/2 DC). As said, it might be interesting.

BTW, imho the Zeiss is overall smoother than the Gauss, in the FG there is the larger visible difference.

rgds,
Andy
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Hugh_3170 on January 31, 2016, 09:59:30
Andy - what is wrong with what you already have, viz: Voigtlander 20mm,  Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.4, and either a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 E series or the 135mm f/2.8 E series?

Just my Scottish heritage kicking in when money is to be saved.  The two E-Series lenses are nice and lighweight and balance perfecly on the Df.  I know - I have tried them!

Really the FM3A and the Df are twin brothers and soul mates - why change your lens lineups?
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Les Olson on January 31, 2016, 16:36:02
Thanks everyone.  That has been very helpful. 
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Hermann on January 31, 2016, 23:14:27
Interesting stuff. Reminds me of the good old times with the Leicas (3f, M2) where I used a 35mm and a 90mm when travelling, and sometimes also a 50mm. The 90mm was my most used lens. I never got round to getting a 75mm lens, that would have been even better for my style of photography than the 90mm.

But what would be a good combination on a DX body? I personally don't really like zooms that much. I prefer primes, at least when I don't need to cover an event for my employer. At the moment I use a 50/1.8 and a 35/2, both manual lenses. What would be a (cheap) manual wideangle that gives me something like 30-35mm on FX?

Hermann
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Tristin on January 31, 2016, 23:35:45
You could get a 24mm f/2.8, which would be a 36mm on DX.  You can find those in the low $100s on ebay in good condition and it has a good reputation.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: David H. Hartman on January 31, 2016, 23:57:51
What would be a (cheap) manual wideangle that gives me something like 30-35mm on FX?

I'll recommend a 20/3.5 AI or AIS. It's highly resistant to flare and ghost. A 20/2.8 AIS might be used if more speed is desired although flare and ghost aren't as strictly controlled. The angle of view on DX of a 20mm lens is similar to a 30mm lens on FX. The 24/2.8 AI or AIS comes to mind but those have significant flare and ghost. If the sun is included in the image I can count the ghost to know if I had a filter on the lens or not, 13 if I did and 12 if I didn't.

For a set of three manual focus lenses for DX I'll recommend a 20/3.5 AI or 20/2.8 AIS, 35/2.0 AI and an 85/2.0 AIS. This isn't a strict half and double set like a 24mm, 50mm and 105mm set for FX is.

Dave

Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 00:18:59
Opinions on the 85 mm f/2 AIS are divided. I have used several of these and don't like its performance in particular at the widest apertures.

A lens to try out before accepting it is my advice.

The 85/1.4 AIS is not small, but operates very well on the Df. Then there are the older 85/1.8 versions which also are nice if one can get them in AI or AI'd.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: David H. Hartman on February 01, 2016, 06:14:00
I ran off an 85/2.0 AIS and an 85/1.4 AIS and the f/1.4 beat the f/2.0 from f/2.0 to f/5.6 then by f/8.0 they were equal. My 85/1.4 AIS is lube contaminated. I find the 85/2.0 acceptable. [It's not in the same class as the 105/2.5 AI/AIS and 85/1.4 AIS.] The 85/2.0 is small and reasonably priced. That's why I recommended it. If size and price aren't important then I'll recommend the 85/1.4 AIS.

I've printed portraits for a friend from an 85/1.8 K that's AI-ed. A number of years back I tried to buy it from him but he wouldn't sell it. I'd still like to own one. I wonder if it's more prone to flare than the others based on an 85/1.8 Nikkor-H I owned. The Nikkor-H was one of the worst flaring lenses I've owned.

Dave
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: pluton on February 01, 2016, 06:33:52
The H.C, K, and final Ai versions of the 85/1.8 have the same optics, but with multiple layer AR coating added.  The Multicoating not only cuts down on flare, but tweaks the color transmission of the lens away from the greenish yellow and more toward neutral.  The K and Ai versions also feature the rubber focusing grip and a slightly closer MFD.  Also, they look cool.  8)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 08:31:07
I had the 85/1.8 HC and was stupid enough to sell it off as it didn't fit the new Nikon F3 I purchased to replace my F2. Turned out I was doubly stupid as the F3 had nowhere the nice smooth feel of the F2 in operation.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Les Olson on February 01, 2016, 20:46:14
Andy - what is wrong with what you already have, viz: Voigtlander 20mm,  Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.4, and either a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 E series or the 135mm f/2.8 E series?

Just my Scottish heritage kicking in when money is to be saved.  The two E-Series lenses are nice and lighweight and balance perfecly on the Df.  I know - I have tried them!

Really the FM3A and the Df are twin brothers and soul mates - why change your lens lineups?

Thank you and I take your point.  Mind you, my heritage is Irish, so if there is money to be spent and pleasure to be had, I am your man  ;) 

And as your ancestors would also have said, "Why keep a dog and bark yourself?"  Or, why have a camera that will AF and use MF lenses?   OK, if the MF lenses are special, or there isn't an AF option, but if there is ... 
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: David H. Hartman on February 01, 2016, 21:31:34
How about the classic rich man's amateur set, a 28/2.0, 50/1.4 or 50-55/1.2 and a 135/2.8. The very set I didn't want back in the early '70s. I didn't want a 28mm and 135mm lenses for no better reason than that was what most amateurs bought. The poor mans set was 28/3.5, 50/2.0 and 135/3.5 in those days.

My choice was a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P, 105/2.5 Nikkor-P and a 24/2.8 Nikkor-N. Later I added a 35/2.0 Nikkor-O, 20/3.5 Nikkor-UD and finally when I could not afford anything longer than 135mm a 135/3.5 Nikkor-Q. The 135/3.5 cost me $135.00. Years later in the same situation while buying AI Nikkors I bought a 135/3.5 AI for $270.00. In the late '70s a friend joked that I bought so many lenses that I could not afford film, almost true but I always had one or two hundred feet of bulk Tri-X on hand.

Dave

To this day 20mm and 105mm just feel right.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Tristin on February 01, 2016, 22:31:24
How lucky we are that all the Ai/Ai-s lenses are now the cheap lenses! :D  Well, minus the exotic telephotos.  I certainly wouldn't mind the old 200mm f/2 getting cheap hehe  :P
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 22:36:44
I have a 200/2 AIS staring at me and asking why don't I use it more ...
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Tristin on February 01, 2016, 22:39:34
Such are the benefits of being a professional photographer, being able to justify such expenses!  Consider me envious  ;)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 22:43:42
My AFS 200/2 also bitterly complains about the same, so both act like petulant children and whom am I to listen to :D
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Tristin on February 01, 2016, 22:47:40
If their cries become too nagging I can always babysit one for ya Bjørn.  I guess I'd be willing to help you out  ;)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 22:49:02
...
My choice was a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P, 105/2.5 Nikkor-P and a 24/2.8 Nikkor-N. Later I added a 35/2.0 Nikkor-O, 20/3.5 Nikkor-UD
....

The classic line-up of Nikkors. I used it for decades in the earlier days of my career.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 01, 2016, 22:51:15
If their cries become too nagging I can always babysit one for ya Bjørn.  I guess I'd be willing to help you out  ;)
But then what about the Noct-Nikkors? The UV-Nikkors? The APO-Lanthars? The 300/2.8s? And so on. The mess is complete. There always will be complaints and disgruntled members of the lens arsenal.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Andy on February 01, 2016, 22:57:59
I certainly wouldn't mind the old 200mm f/2 getting cheap hehe  :P

I guess you will enjoy it ....

...... and to support your efforts to look for one .... :)
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/133961018/original.jpg)

more AiS 200mm/2 snippets are here (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/ais200mm2)

rgds,
andy
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: oldfauser on February 13, 2016, 06:13:21
Not ever hearing of Rorslett's Rule (makes a lot of sense!), I ended up with a 24mm, 50mm and a 105mm in my "light" bag for my Df.  Only variation is adding my 85mm AF-s 1.8 for the grand kids. 

Question: how do you choose between the 20mm f/2.8 AI-s, 24mm f/2.8 AI-s or the 28mm f/2.8 AI-s?  (I can also through in my 35mm Nikkor-O f/2 AI converted).  I'm almost all of the time debating which one to take.  I think of the 20 and 28 as more of a "special" lens, especially the 28mm as i love the closeup capabilities of it.  I end up taking the 24mm as in my mind it is the best compromise.  Thoughts on the "short end" of the rule?

Art
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on February 13, 2016, 08:27:57
With a 50mm in my kit, I usually go to 28mm as my wide lens. 24mm is closer to the 2x (or 1/2x) rule from 50mm, but I find as you approach the wider angle of view the apparent difference between one lens and the next is greater than with telephotos. So for example the difference between 24 to 50 feels greater than 50 to 105, so 28 ends up being a better fit (for me anyway). Sometimes I'll add a 20mm or 16mm fisheye below that if I feel like going really wide.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on February 13, 2016, 08:36:11
To be honest, I never heard of the 'Rule' myself - before saw it posted here on NG .....

My approach has always been to bring lenses so widely different that there is never any doubt which of them to use on a given occasion. That almost directly leads to a requirement of having focal lengths being double or triple of the others.

I shot for many many years basically with a 24/2.8, 55/3.5 Micro, and the 105/2.5. When I deemed something even longer was appropriate, added the 200/4 maybe topped by a 400/5.6. As the lens kit increased, other kits such as 35/2, 85/1.4 (or f/1.8 ), 180/2.8, or 15/5.6, 28/2, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, and so on were tried. On my stay as a Visiting Scientist in New Zealand I departed slightly by using 25-50/4 for the wide end, 85/1.4 for details and landscapes, and 200/4 Micro for close-up work.

The permutations probably are endless. Consider carefully any upcoming trip to decide what to bring and why a given lens should be in that kit. Never ever take everything with you. That only leads to a mess.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Airy on February 13, 2016, 09:04:57
Rorslett's rule works well on the long FL side, and less well on the other side. I'd also rather go for the 28-50-105 sequence. Could not find any obvious mathematical "law" (correlation with angle, tangens...) that would correlate with the "feel". The "optimal" sequence is probably subject-dependent ; if it's all about people (individuals and groups), FLs shorter than, say, 28 bring about some usability problems (anamorphosis), and the shorter the more often, while buildings will always look good.

For reference, a French photographer known as "JR 28mm" nearly exclusively uses that FL, including for portraits - see his book "Women are heroes", but he has drifted far away from academic conventions.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Airy on February 13, 2016, 09:07:47
The permutations probably are endless. Consider carefully any upcoming trip to decide what to bring and why a given lens should be in that kit. Never ever take everything with you. That only leads to a mess.

Self-restraint is and old, proven recipe for improvement. And the more often lenses are changed, the less time for observing and shooting.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: John Geerts on February 13, 2016, 09:37:42
For reference, a French photographer known as "JR 28mm" nearly exclusively uses that FL, including for portraits - see his book "Women are heroes", but he has drifted far away from academic conventions.
Interesting you mention JR. In 2012 the Inside Out project was organised by Incubate with thousands of portraits of mothers. Strangly enough not mentioned on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR_%28artist%29)

Article in Tilburg (http://tilburgers.nl/incubate-van-start-met-duizenden-moeders/)  But it's all more about marketing than real photography...
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: BW on February 13, 2016, 09:57:57
Self-restraint is and old, proven recipe for improvement. And the more often lenses are changed, the less time for observing and shooting.

I agree. If you keep a certain FL attached to your camera, there is never any doubt what you should do when a scene unfolds infront of you. Come in closer or back up.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Fons Baerken on February 13, 2016, 10:01:08
Start with a small bag, i have been using the thinkthank correspondent 10, comfortably it only holds two smaller lenses and body, some extras like, battery, cards, a few personal items etc
Or simply go out with one lens, 35 or 50mm for instance
After all its a personal thing, i agree simple is better in general anyway.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Airy on February 13, 2016, 10:10:45
Interesting you mention JR. In 2012 the Inside Out project was organised by Incubate with thousands of portraits of mothers. Strangly enough not mentioned on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR_%28artist%29)

Article in Tilburg (http://tilburgers.nl/incubate-van-start-met-duizenden-moeders/)  But it's all more about marketing than real photography...

He is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR_%28artist%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JR_%28artist%29). Thanks for the link. Open another thread if you feel like.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: oldfauser on February 13, 2016, 18:21:50
Start with a small bag, i have been using the thinkthank correspondent 10, comfortably it only holds two smaller lenses and body, some extras like, battery, cards, a few personal items etc
Or simply go out with one lens, 35 or 50mm for instance
After all its a personal thing, i agree simple is better in general anyway.

I have an old Kata 3n1-11 that works great - carries the 24/28 - 50 - 105, filters and a tablet.  I find it the best way of "not taking everything!"  But because of that, i wonder about the "short" end...

I can only imagine the dilemma if i had a larger selection!

Art
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on February 13, 2016, 22:31:01
Photography is my game, not my profession.  So, limiting myself to one lens is always challenging and enjoyable.  My current lens system consists of 7.5mm fisheye, 25mm standard, 200mm supe- tele (in m4/3 term).  Quite a bit extreme...

I haven't go out just with the 200mm, but often just with the fisheye.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: jhinkey on February 16, 2016, 23:18:30
Rorslett's Rule is the remark that you should have three primes, each at least twice the focal length of the next widest, so you never have to wonder about which to use. (There is a version for size as well: each camera you own should be at least twice the weight of the next lightest, so you never wonder about which to pick up). 

I like the rule: the focal lengths are clearly distinct, and the distinctiveness makes you think carefully about the picture you might take. 

With my FM3 I use a Voigtlander 20mm, a Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.4, and either a Nikon 100mm f/2.8 E series or the 135mm f/2.8 E series.  Rorslett's Rule satisfied.  If I get a Df for digital use there are the 20mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8, but there is no small, light, short telephoto except the 85mm among modern lenses - after that it is the DC lenses, which are big and expensive, or it is all the way to the 180mm f/2.8. 

So I have two questions:

What do people who use primes with the Df use for a short telephoto? 
If they use the E series lenses, how well do they perform on the Df?

I don't have a Df, but Bjorn's focal length rule is the same that I've developed independently.  I too like to have a clear motivation to change lenses.  Rarely can I not move a bit to make it work.
I've long ago abandoned the need to have finely-spaced focal lengths since I end up carrying a lot of lenses that I don't really need to use.
Plus, with today's high MP cameras you have a ~2x teleconverter built into your system if you are willing to crop.
Zoom I hate carrying on the camera body so I hardly touch those these days.

With my A7RII system I tend to carry:
16/3.5 AI
15/4.5 CV
40/1.4 Leica
75/2.5 Leica
135/3.4 Leica -or- 180/3.4 Leica
300/4.5 ED AI/400 - or - 400/5.6 ED AI

With my D800 I tend to carry:
16/3.5 AI
20/2.8 AIS
45/2.8 AI-P
90/3.5 CV
180/3.4 Leica
400/5.6 ED AI
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: chambeshi on January 02, 2017, 13:15:08
I know i'm not alone in the agonies of choice, within and besides the fiscal strictures, in building up - and tweaking - my Nikkor / Nikon-Fit lens system. Across all many pearls of wisdom so kindly shared by this fraternity. Surely, there's many centuries of experience pooled here in the discussion threads making up NikonGear. Rather than starting a new thread, i'm posting my summary / synopsis here. This thread typifies the tremendous help I'm most grateful for... toward trying to rationalize with the flood of information that makes up the universe of options. This website has been especially helpful to economize with the superb quality resplendent in the Used market of classic, older Nikkors.

Obviously one has to juggle several variables besides cost vs quality in one's budget. Weight is critical to my choices - see below. But optical quality overtakes all variables, and not just what one may read into MTF curves and counting pixels. A big lesson gained on Nikon Gear lie in the criteria of bokeh and variables that are more challenging to quantify but no less critical to performance of one's selected optics. Indeed, the latter factors appear to dominate a great deal of discussions on this thread :-) :-) And justifiably!

I have come to justify my Nikon lens system as comprising Four complimentary Suites centred on lenses. Principally i call them 1. WildLife, dominated by telephotos; 2. CloseUp-Macro, Micro-Nikkors as the core 3. Landscape - Ultra-Wides, Wides, Tilt-Shift complimented by telephotos 4. Lightweight-Hiking - cf below. To date, after 2+ decades with FM2, F3, F90x, my digital bodies are confined to DX cameras (D7200 and now D500) but I plan to close up the gap in FX. And I for one await eagerly what Nikon might announce in FX upgrades for 2017, especially for the Df and D810 (hopefully).... The overlaps and flexibility can do more than justice where one is called upon by social circumstances to photograph Homo sapiens - including events to do with betrothals, functions, portraits etc in varying social circumstances :-) Actually, i must confess much of my day to day photography focuses on my pet cats. Whether practice, stringent lens tests and pure relaxation, the domestic felid (and equally Canis domesticus) are the perfect subjects; cats cater for a sweep of genre in photography; not just action and portraits either. Closeups of cats' whiskers, eyes, ears, paws etc are great tests of the capabilities of a macro system and especially the photographer's!

So after trying many Used lenses, I've settled on the 20 f4, 20 f3.5, 24 f3.5 PCE, 45 f2.8 AIP, 2 Micro-Nikkors in 55mm, a 105 f2.5 AI and then i have settled on AF lenses in longer Fl - 135 f2 DC, 80-180 Micro Nikkor (both the latter often used in MF), 180 f2.8D, 300 f2.8G VR2 and 300 f4E PF. Both 300's perform well with my TCE 14 II and TCE 20 III, and undercut the costs and weight of a 400 f2.8, or even longer focal length. One can of course justify zooms - after trying several AF-D lenses, i've settled on the 70-210 AFD and 28-105 AFD. Personally, after agonizing over its superb optics  and affordability, I find the excellent 200-500 f5.6 unwieldy. Then admittedly lead on by fervent supporters on NikonGear, one can be tempted by those legendary AI and AIS zooms also. So me thinks I can still justify a 80-200 f4 and/or 75-150 E Series !! The latter lenses will be especially useful in aerial photography where AF has a tendency to get knocked about.

And I also recently invested in 4 used Zeiss MF lenses > 15mm f2.8, 21 f2.8, 25 f2 all Distagons, and a 135 f2 APO Sonnar. All are in superb condition like-new. Superlative optics with Zeiss.... (So one can surmise the previous owner likely off-loaded them to upgrade to the new Milvus versions.)

The wisdom of the late Galen Rowell, landscape photographer and environmental activist, has been cited a few times on this website. namely his wisdom and experience choosing the lightest gear for outdoor work where one has to cover hard country efficiently. The quip used within National Geographic circles of "f8 and be there!..." ruled true for Galen Rowell in getting to the optimal site at the perfect time to secure rare and fleeting atmospheric phenomena. So I pack the 20 f4, 45 f2.8 AIP, 55 f2.8, 180 f2.8 and 300 f4 for such excursions. And normally I only take the minimum of lenses in this line up... The 75-150 E Series zoom fully qualifies in this Lightweight-Hiking Suite....

The heavier lenses have their place in intensive photography sessions with closeup subjects (with flashes) and shooting wildlife with the heavy 300 f2.8 using Sirui tripods or a monopod. These are manageable using a vehicle, in ahide, and/or shorter hikes.

Besides MF zooms, perhaps all I can still justify is the new 70-200 f2.8E F zoom. I've held back with difficulty from trying the 85mm Nikkors and 200 AIS; Although I regret selling my hard worn 200 f4 AI (a stupid move given the miniscule in fiscal return). And the 200 Micro-Nikkor beckons as does the 85 PCE Micro!

In closing I'm sharing this essay below that I only found recently on the criterion of FL. It appeals to my scientifically trained mind on  building up one's lens collection, and suites therein :

http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_fllineup.html

Here are couple of threads on NikonGear citing Galen Rowell :

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3028.msg42111.html#msg42111

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,1644.msg48003.html#msg48003

http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2040.msg60941.html#msg60941

I am planning to pull together a post that collates links and the most recent publications with reference to Galen Rowell

kinds regards

Woody
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: richardHaw on January 02, 2017, 14:05:50
This is what I use lately:
28mm
50mm/55mm
200mm

I would usually have a 105mm in place of the 200mm but lately, the 200mm is quickly becoming more relevant to me than the 105mm. My shooting style changes depending on the season and Japan has 4 VERY distinct seasons. Maybe on summer, I will be shooting with a 105 again instead of a 200 :o :o :o
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: John Geerts on January 02, 2017, 21:18:09
A small compact set (for general photography) is the  16/2.8 (or 20/4),  45/2.8P,  85/1.8K and 200/4K,  (and if you can find a good sample of the AIS 35-70/3.3-4.5 (Nikons smallest MF zoom-lens.) I would add it as well)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bjørn Rørslett on January 02, 2017, 21:28:31
Didn't realise I had suggested a "Rule" - aren't such supposed to be set in stone ? :D

The basic idea is that there should be sufficient gaps between the focal lengths, those in turn leading to very different coverage and hence different fields of application. You will intuitively reach for the correct lens once the image is previsualised. No zooming back or forth will be required.

If focal lengths are (roughly) doubled, one gets the minor axis of the wider lens being approximate the same as the major axis of the lens one step up the ladder, and so on. Thus 24, 50, 105, 200 combine well for a kit of 4 lenses. For three lens kits, either forego the longest (or shortest) but keep the rest. For example; 24 + 50 + 105 combine well. There is considerable leeway around these data points, thus one could easily substitute a 55 Micro for a 50/1.2 or f/1.4 'normal' lens.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on January 03, 2017, 04:22:11
Now I'm working with one standard lens (either 50/1.8G or 45/2.8P) fixed to the 24MP D750.  Hence my "set" according to Rørslett's rule is:

Wide: 45P/50G (stitching pano)
Standard: 45P/50G
Short tele: 45P/50G (some cropping)

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Les Olson on January 03, 2017, 09:52:59
Now I'm working with one standard lens (either 50/1.8G or 45/2.8P) fixed to the 24MP D750.  Hence my "set" according to Rørslett's rue is:

Wide: 45P/50G (stitching pano)
Standard: 45P/50G
Short tele: 45P/50G (some cropping)


I think one useful aspect of this discussion is thinking about why one would use different focal length lenses, when, as you point out, there is no longer any necessity to do so.  In particular, why use a wide angle lens when it is easy to stitch images from a normal lens?   

The answer is that one of the things that makes images striking is visual tension, and it is harder to create visual tension with a normal lens, precisely because the image looks like what you see.  Stitching doesn't change the familiarity of the image, but a wide-angle view does.  The unfamiliarity creates visual tension and keeps the viewer looking.

It is the same as left-right orientation.  About 2/3 of all portraits in Western art show the subject turned slightly to their right - although for paintings showing Jesus the figure is about 90%.  That is probably because that orientation puts the eyes on the left side of the picture, and people spend more time looking at the left side of any image than at the right.  Putting your main subject towards the left of your pictures makes the viewer comfortable, which in the case of a formal portrait is normally the aim.  Putting the main subject on the right creates tension, which in the case of a formal portrait is slightly uncomfortable, but in creative photography is often what you want.   
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on January 03, 2017, 11:16:52
Les, thanks for your affirmative reaction.

My previous post appears to be funny, but I'm at least 75% serious.  The key technology that enables me to do more things with one standard lens than the film days is Photomerge in CC2017 which seems to be silently but constantly improved.

You can also change what you say the familiarity of the image by "tiling" instead of "stitching" for the (super-)wideangle effects.  Of course, you are limited to the landscape or static subjects, but I have found much more opportunities and possiblities to utilize the function than I had expected.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: chambeshi on January 03, 2017, 11:20:49
All very interesting posts. Another system is a suite of 3 complementary zooms, with some overlaps in FL: the MF models as given above, or the 3 AF Nikkor Dragons: 16-35; 24-120 f4 (AFS not AFD); 70-200, which all have VR : A lens feature which hasn't been considered that much in this thread. There's also the 17-35 and lighter 18-35 G AFS

And, in addition, we have the 200-400 and more affordable 200-500, which has been lauded. Personally, i've a predilection for prime glass  ;D
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: the solitaire on February 27, 2017, 22:40:40
To be honest, there are two rules I tend to adhere to when packing the camera bag.

1) Bring lenses I know I will enjoy (or need for a particular image) that day
2) set my expectations to meet these lenses

No need to bring the diminuitive 5cm f2 Nikkor-S and expect 200mm f2 clarity.

The result, I have yet to be disappointed

Some days I bring a 16mm f3,5 and 80-200 f4 Ai-S only, the other day I take the 5mm f1,2, 85mm f1,4 AF-D and 135mm f3,5 or any other combination. It really depends on where I go, why I go there, who I go there with and whether or not I think it is going to rain
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Jacques Pochoy on February 27, 2017, 23:39:01
Most times, when using primes, I tend to have only two lenses. One on the camera, the other in the pocket (nowadays I don't use bags). As an architect, walking through cities with students (herding could be the word :-) ), I try to keep track of the urban qualities of what we are going through, using a moderate wide angle as a 28mm f/2.8 AI-s. For details I tend to use the 85mm f/2 AI (small).

When I walk alone, taking time to think a bit about the shot, I would use the 35mm f/2 O.C. and the wonderful 105mm f/2.5 AI-s.
If I'm lazy, it would be the 35mm AF and the 85mm AF !
If I can take three lenses (trip to Istanbul for example) the third lens would be a 50mm (f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4, AI, AI-s, G).
With a fourth lens, I would take the 135mm f/2.8 AI'sed, but then would need my venerable Billingham !!!
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Airy on February 28, 2017, 09:56:30
Just spent five days in Porto with Madame and, by the way, Df and three lenses. Or basically two : 50/2 AI and 105/2.5 AI.

An HS-4 clip-on lens hood was waiting for us at an antique shop (they had only a few junk photographic items, then this one). Until then I was using a screw-on HN-7 (designed for 85/2).

The third lens was the Tamron 45/1.8, which I used every now and then for night shots, in which case I had nothing else in the bag. I very seldom feel the need for a wide angle, by the way.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: tommiejeep on March 01, 2017, 04:37:25
Airy, interesting.  I've sort of gravitated to the 58 1.4G and DC105 f2D (or 105 f2.5 Ai) as my two lens travel/walkabout kit for the Df.  I always shoot two cameras so I now leave the wides to the Sony a7xx with the Batis 25 f2, Voigt V/M 15 f4.5 III  for wide and Leica 75 f2.5 for candid portraits.   I have recently purchased two small, day backpacks either of which will handle the two camera set up with those lenses and both give me easy access tooth cameras. There are times when I want longer but have not worked out the weight (and space) for carrying a longer lens even though I recently bought the 300 f4 Ais.    Either my wife or son will have the Olympus 40-150 f2.8 on an EM1.   The Pen F is in high demand between the three of us.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Kenneth Rich on April 15, 2019, 21:58:08
This old post was updated about two years ago, and I read all entries because it somewhat mirrored my own self-made quandary.  I have the Df and a number of Nikkor primes ( 24, 28, 35, three 50's, 105, and three zooms: 28/85, 43/86 and 80/200, all lenses being either AI or AIS.  I do not have an 85, but the length is covered by the zooms, though not the speed.  I'm toying with buying an 85 f2, simply because It is available and cost is not a determining factor. I do not need this lens, and I do have a 105, which is little used.  My favourite lens has become the 28/85 I bought solely for a Euro rivers trip I took recently. I love that lens, despite its lack of speed, and the Df with auto ISO compensates for its smallish aperture.  Do I need the 85 f2? No.  A resounding NO!  But the hankering does not go away. What to do?
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Bent Hjarbo on April 15, 2019, 23:42:42
The 85 f2.0 might not be the best of the 85’s but it is very small and easy to have in a pocket. Just don’t use it a f2.0  ;)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on April 15, 2019, 23:43:54
When choosing lenses I tend to grab a 50mm lens first, and then add a 28 or 24 as a wider companion, and 105 or 135 as a telephoto. I tend to skip 35mm and 85mm lenses, not that I have anything against them, but the focal length is too close to provide a useful spread of lenses.

On the other hand, taken in isolation the 85mm is an excellent lens and it nicely compliments the 35mm focal length. The 85/2 is very compact, hardly bigger than most manual focus 50mm lenses, and much smaller than the current AF 85/1.8 options. Some reviews say the AI 85/2 has rather low contrast, which was intentional to make it more flattering for portraiture (but less suitable for general use). My AI-S copy, which supposedly has the same optics seems as sharp and contrasty as my other AI-S lenses so maybe the coatings were improved? Performance is about the same as my AI 105/2.5 although I haven't done any close side by side comparisons. I'd say the rendering of the 105 is slightly "rounder". Ric Haw has some useful comments on his blog:
https://richardhaw.com/lens-repair-articles/

I prefer the AI-S 85/2 over the AI. The focus throw of the AI version is too long so focusing is very slow, the focus throw of the AI-S is better balanced. The AI-S also looks nicer. Given the small size, good performance and relatively low cost, why not try one? I have one for sale if you are interested (some years ago I bought a spare copy but I don't really need it)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Jacques Pochoy on April 16, 2019, 00:53:30
After my Leica M era, I used to prefer the 35mm-50mm-85mm combo (I've never been a fan of "wide" ). Since I've bought the 28mm/2.8 AI-s and the 105mm f/2.5 AI-S I tend to use them more but still often return to the 85mm/2 AI, the 35mm/2 O.C and the good old 50mm f/2 AI. I do find a real difference between these focal lengths, even if I understand the 24 or 28-50-105 theory  ;)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on April 16, 2019, 02:18:17
I prefer the AI-S 85/2 over the AI. The focus throw of the AI version is too long so focusing is very slow, the focus throw of the AI-S is better balanced. The AI-S also looks nicer. Given the small size, good performance and relatively low cost, why not try one? I have one for sale if you are interested (some years ago I bought a spare copy but I don't really need it)

Roland, if you use the live view more often or a mirrorless camera, you would appreciate the longer focus throw of Ai lenses.  During the film days, I was frustrated by the slower focusing of Ai lenses and loved the intuitive rotation/focusing ratio of Ais lenses.  On the other hand, now that precise nailing of the focus is possible on both EVF and LCD, the short focus throw of Ais lenses is simply irritating: the focus changes too fast, and it is difficult to stop at the best focusing point.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on April 16, 2019, 05:52:22
Akira, I agree that the longer focus throw of AI lenses is generally preferable. In this case I think the focus throw of the AI 85/2 is too long. The focus ring turns 255° (nearly 3/4 turn) from infinity to the non-macro limit of 0.85m, you need to adjust your grip two or three times to focus from end to end which is inconvenient. The focus throw of the AI-S 85/2 is 170°, which I find is very comfortable, and comparable to the Ai 105/2.5 :)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on April 16, 2019, 06:09:14
Akira, I agree that the longer focus throw of AI lenses is generally preferable. In this case I think the focus throw of the AI 85/2 is too long. The focus ring turns 255° (nearly 3/4 turn) from infinity to the non-macro limit of 0.85m, you need to adjust your grip two or three times to focus from end to end which is inconvenient. The focus throw of the AI-S 85/2 is 170°, which I find is very comfortable, and comparable to the Ai 105/2.5 :)

I didn'tr know that the "total" focus throw of Ai 85/2.0 is that long.

Admitting that the rotation of nearly 3/4 turn between 0.85m and infinity is inconvenient, my main concern is the focus throw between 10 meters and infinity which is still too short on the Ais version as a relatively fast mid-tele.  That's why I always prefer Ai versions in general, so long as the optical designs remain the same.

In the closer range, Ais can be more convenient, though.

By the way, I just realized that the focus throw of 200/4.0 is slightly longer on Ais than on Ai.   :o :o :o
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: richardHaw on April 16, 2019, 14:40:02
ladies and gentlemen, the 135mm f/2 Ai  :o :o :o
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: the solitaire on April 16, 2019, 23:21:56
As far as rules go, in recent times I tend to put the 35mm f2 Nikkor-O in my camera bag a lot along with the 300 f2,8 Ai-S. Which rule does that comply with? Works for me either way ;)
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on April 16, 2019, 23:24:15
I didn't know that the "total" focus throw of Ai 85/2.0 is that long.

Admitting that the rotation of nearly 3/4 turn between 0.85m and infinity is inconvenient, my main concern is the focus throw between 10 meters and infinity which is still too short on the Ais version as a relatively fast mid-tele.  That's why I always prefer Ai versions in general, so long as the optical designs remain the same.

In the closer range, Ais can be more convenient, though.

By the way, I just realized that the focus throw of 200/4.0 is slightly longer on Ais than on Ai.   :o :o :o
The focus throw of the AIS and AI 200/4 is the same (205°) :)
There are a few AIS lenses with a longer focus throw than the AI counterparts, so sometimes the AIS is the preferred version:
- AIS 35/2.8 (120°) vs AI (100°), although the earlier AI version is even longer (195°) and probably better optically
- AIS 180/2.8 ED (190°) vs AI (170°)
- AIS 300/4.5 (180°) vs AI (150°), although that is due to the closer focus limit.

As for the AIS 85/2, I find the focus throw near infinity is adequate, but I agree it would be nice if were longer - focusing in this range is surprisingly difficult as even a small movement of the focus ring will shift focus a long way and it's not always obvious in the viewfinder. Especially since shots near infinity are often landscapes where critical sharpness is important.

This is a consequence of linear helical focusing - the range near infinity is bunched up while the close range is very spread out. To solve this problem you would need to have a non-linear focus cam to even out the focus range, but cams tend to be harder to manufacture and more prone to sample variation so are not used except for zooms and some specialist lenses.

Or how about a lens with two focus rings? One for fast focusing from near to far, the other for fine tuning, which would be useful for critical focus near infinity, and at close range could be good for focus stacking etc.

Lenses where the focal length changes while focusing can also spread out the focus scale more evenly. For example, AIS 105/4 micro and 105/2.8 both have the same focus throw (300°) from near to far, and both achieve the same magnification at close range (1:2). However the f/2.8 needs to focus closer (0.41m vs 0.48m) to get there because focal length reduces at close range due to CRC. Both have the same focus throw near infinity, but at close range the focus throw of the f/2.8 is more compressed compared to the f/4 version. The same effect could be used to even out the focus scale for non-macro lenses, although the effect is not very noticeable and probably not worth the effort unless there are some other benefits such as improved near-far optical performance.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Roland Vink on April 16, 2019, 23:26:27
As far as rules go, in recent times I tend to put the 35mm f2 Nikkor-O in my camera bag a lot along with the 300 f2,8 Ai-S. Which rule does that comply with? Works for me either way ;)
That appears to be the "solitaire 8x ratio between lens" rule :) :o
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Akira on April 16, 2019, 23:50:04
The focus throw of the AIS and AI 200/4 is the same (205°) :)
There are a few AIS lenses with a longer focus throw than the AI counterparts, so sometimes the AIS is the preferred version:
- AIS 35/2.8 (120°) vs AI (100°), although the earlier AI version is even longer (195°) and probably better optically
- AIS 180/2.8 ED (190°) vs AI (170°)
- AIS 300/4.5 (180°) vs AI (150°), although that is due to the closer focus limit.

As for the AIS 85/2, I find the focus throw near infinity is adequate, but I agree it would be nice if were longer - focusing in this range is surprisingly difficult as even a small movement of the focus ring will shift focus a long way and it's not always obvious in the viewfinder. Especially since shots near infinity are often landscapes where critical sharpness is important.

This is a consequence of linear helical focusing - the range near infinity is bunched up while the close range is very spread out. To solve this problem you would need to have a non-linear focus cam to even out the focus range, but cams tend to be harder to manufacture and more prone to sample variation so are not used except for zooms and some specialist lenses.

Or how about a lens with two focus rings? One for fast focusing from near to far, the other for fine tuning, which would be useful for critical focus near infinity, and at close range could be good for focus stacking etc.

Lenses where the focal length changes while focusing can also spread out the focus scale more evenly. For example, AIS 105/4 micro and 105/2.8 both have the same focus throw (300°) from near to far, and both achieve the same magnification at close range (1:2). However the f/2.8 needs to focus closer (0.41m vs 0.48m) to get there because focal length reduces at close range due to CRC. Both have the same focus throw near infinity, but at close range the focus throw of the f/2.8 is more compressed compared to the f/4 version. The same effect could be used to even out the focus scale for non-macro lenses, although the effect is not very noticeable and probably not worth the effort unless there are some other benefits such as improved near-far optical performance.

Roland, thank you for confirming the focus throw of 200/4.0.

I completely agree with you in terms of the cons of the linear helicoid.  It's shame that Nikon didn't employed the non-linear cam system on their IF telephoto lenses.  And, yes, the all-too short focus throw for the distance on Micro Nikkors are notorious, which prevents them from being true all rounder, at least to me...
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Kenneth Rich on April 17, 2019, 04:13:58
I am adopting Rorslett's Rule and it has saved me money and extra baggage already!  In addition to dropping the idea of getting the 85mm, I'm also dropping my plan to buy a twenty mm to replace the one I sold forty years ago!  Long live Rorslett's Rule!  Thank you. I need fewer lenses, not more.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Airy on April 17, 2019, 05:19:27
The Zeiss MP 50/2 suffers from the same issue - very short throw between 5m and infinite, very long throw at close range. Usability at long distances is however saved by the relative stiffness of the focussing, combined with total absence of dry friction or slack in the helicoid. It comes at a high price (narrow manufacturing tolerances...) and may degrade with time though.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: the solitaire on April 21, 2019, 11:49:18
That appears to be the "solitaire 8x ratio between lens" rule :) :o

It's more like the "Solitaires, whatever you do, bring a 300 f2,8" rule :)

I would not mind the 8x ratio between lens rule either, but with the 55mm I would have to bring a 400mm f3,5, which I do not yet own ;)

Now if anyone would be willing to trade my 300 f2,8 for a 200 f2, I could adhere to Bjorns rule and bring a 55 f1,2 or f3,5, the 105 f2,5 and 200 f2. Any takers? :D
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: ch96066 on October 11, 2019, 16:43:48
While the DF is not on my 'arsenal' yet, I will definitely agree with the basic premise of the rule. Simplify and know why something is used (i.e. what it can bring as a rule to realize the intention of the photo).

In my case I use (on FX terms)
On assignments my go to kit is: 28 2.8 ai-s or 18-35G / Sigma 85 1.4 DG HSM / AFS 80-200 or Sigma 150 2.8 macro (if MFD space is restricted) or 70-300VR (for theater)
On travel 28-300 VR. Tried the 2-3 lens kit solution and didnt work for me. Alternative is, if I think the travelling pace will allow for it, 18-35G and 300 f4 AFS (great lens for painting like compression)
On personal projects (=walking around) anything goes from fisheye to 150-500. The Voigtlander 58 1.4 retains a special place in my heart for its microcontrast and rendering.
Title: Re: Rorslett's Rule and Short Telephotos for the Df
Post by: Imagelover on October 12, 2019, 17:22:40
I also think that Bjørns rule is great in order to carry less equipment. But I almost always carry my Nikon bag with the following Nikkor lenses: 28mm f3.5 AIS, 55mm f1.2 AI, AF 80mm f2.8 AIS (originally used with the Nikon F3AF camera), 105mm f2.5 AI, 105mm f4 AIS micro, 135mm 3.5 AIS and AF 200mm f3.5 ED-IF AIS (also for the F3 AF camera) - together with my Nikon Df. I don`t bodher using "low-light" lenses because I most often use a tripod. In my car`s compartment case I often also have either the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 AF-I or the Nikkor 400mm f2.8 AIS. Too many lenses to carry around? I agree! But they are all wonderful to use!