NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: BruceSD on March 15, 2020, 17:21:52
-
.
My favorite camera gear seller in the USA is Roberts Camera in Indiana. And no, I'm not associated with Roberts in any way.
They recently listed for sale on Ebay my "bokeh dream" lens, the Nikkor 300mm f/2 AIS - https://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-AIS-300mm-F2-ED-IF-Lens-300-2-RARE-Lens-Only-424/143549630575?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649
Only $24,000. Only 424 ever made. So rare that I could not find a single image taken with this lens on Linkedin.
If only I'd win the lottery.... :-\
-
Birna has it.....and the special made teleconverter for it (TC14-C).
Maybe consider a 200/2 which is much cheaper and also has a nice bokeh :-)
-
Birna has it.....and the special made teleconverter for it (TC14-C).
Maybe consider a 200/2 which is much cheaper and also has a nice bokeh :-)
Yes, the 2/200 is very nice and it is not too heavy. After one year in the Gym three times a week I do work with it more often than not ...
-
Yes, and if it is a newer version it has VR and can be used handheld for maybe portraits.
Don't think you would consider using the 300/2 handheld. It would probably require at least 5 days at week in the gym….
-
.
Yeah, the 300/2 at 17 pounds would be too much for me to handhold.
Frank, nice photo you posted of the tree. Thanks for posting.
I am already saving up for a 200/2 lens. Maybe next year.....
-
Any 400/2.8, 600/4 or 800/5.6 lens has an entrance pupil roughly the same as the 300/2 lens, and longer focal length (narrower angle of view), so their ability to blur away the background is the same or greater, if that is what you want. Apart from the original AI-S versions all are AF so are easier to focus, and also considerably lighter.
The listing also suggests only 424 were made because the serial number is 181424. That implies the first lens was no.181001. Actually the series started at 181121, so this is only the 304th lens made. The highest confirmed serial number is 182561 which suggests at least 441 units were made, assuming there are no gaps in the series.
-
Yes, the 2/200 is very nice and it is not too heavy. After one year in the Gym three times a week I do work with it more often than not ...
Frank, I love this!
-
Any 400/2.8, 600/4 or 800/5.6 lens has an entrance pupil roughly the same as the 300/2 lens, and longer focal length (narrower angle of view), so their ability to blur away the background is the same or greater, if that is what you want. Apart from the original AI-S versions all are AF so are easier to focus, and also considerably lighter.
Roland, thank you for posting. I always learn so much from your posts.
The 300/2 lens has a blur index (focal/largest aperture) of 150. That's the same as the 600/4 lens. While the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have blur index's of 143 and therefore would produce slightly less blur. While the 200/2 has a blur index of 100, producing much less blur than any of these other lenses, but of course it's much cheaper and lighter.
The reason that I got excited about the 300/2 that's on Ebay is that I'm not a big fan of 400, 600 and 800 supertelephotos lens. For me, the 300mm focal is about as long as I like to shoot.
-
I regard the difference between 150 and 143 as trivial, and it does not take into account the difference in focal length. Consider this comparison: a 50mm lens at f/2 and 200mm lens at f/8. Both have the same "blur index" of 25, but the 200mm lens will have a less busy background because the angle of view is narrower. But I understand that 300mm is the right focal length for you.
And it's not just about quantity, but also quality. Some lenses might have a large "blur index" but the backgrounds can still appear rough while others have background blurs which blend together more smoothly. If you are familiar with the DC lenses you will know that you can adjust the smoothness of the background blur by moving the DC ring between "R" (Rear - smooth background) and "F" (Fore - smooth foreground), even while the "blur index" remains the same.
-
.
Thanks much for the comments. I fully agree.
I already own the 105 DC Nikkor.
-
That lens is so large as to be nearly impractical. And sometimes bigger is not necessarily better. Don't forget that you can get the same amount of blur with a smaller aperture lens focused closer. In this case, of course, the subject will be larger in frame for the same amount of blur, but this is not always a bad thing, and when focusing on subjects closer, often the smaller aperture lens is preferable to keep the blur from turning the background into unrecognizable mush.
I have my own story about this. I do have my dream bokeh lens. An English company named Dallmeyer made a series of lenses called "Super-Six", so called because all use a double gauss design of six elements in four groups. These lenses are legendary for their very characteristic bokeh. The series runs from 1 inch to 8 inches, all f1.9 except the 8 inch, which is f 2.0. I first bought a one inch, then was fortunate enough to manage to get a four inch. That is 102mm f1.9, relatively fast. That lens was, very unfortunately, stolen. Later I stumbled across an 8 inch and managed to get it. This is a 204mm f2.0, which is very fast for this focal length, and more so for a double gauss lens that covers 6"x9". It is fairly monstrous, weighing in at around eight pounds. Handholding it is like lifting weights.
While the 8 inch is exceptional and much more valuable than the 4 inch, There are many situations in which the wide aperture at that focal length is just too extreme. I have to stand so far back from every subject to NOT blur the background into nothing that it is certainly less useful than the 4 inch in many situations. Granted, the 8 inch can do things that the 4 inch cannot, but it is also a difference of a lens that is easy to handhold and transport at about one pound, compared to a monster that takes up the whole camera bag and weighs eight times that. The 300mm f2 would give you a few exceptional shots, and most of the time you would simply leave it at home.
Here are a few examples, first three shots with the 4 inch and then three shots with the 8 inch
-
.
Toby, I see what you mean. Thanks for posting.
Between the 4 inch and the 8 inch, to my eye, I slightly prefer the softer bokeh balls of the 4 inch to the more "soap-bubblish" bokeh balls of the 8 inch.
Dave
-
Hi Dave,
Actually this really depends on the amount of defocus. The 4 inch can have very hard bokeh if less defocused, like this:
-
So you cannot afford it- Not unlike most of the people on this site. Move on, let it go, you probably will never afford it, unless a positive quirk of fate strikes. . . . a lotto win, a wealthy old grand parent leaving you an inheritance . . . . Are you a better image maker than the lenses you can afford? There must be a thousand lenses you may be able to buy. A hundred of them will be portrait lenses that will do the job. Fantasies can be fun, or they can be destructive of our soul peace. Good luck in your search for a portrait lens that is obtainable.
-
I might suggest projection lenses, many of which have very large apertures for not too much money. Edges might be soft in the Petzval types, but in portraits this can actually be a plus. Here are a couple of examples from an old Angenieux 100mm f1.2 lens that cost a few hundred dollars, and covers full frame very nicely
-
Here is link to more on the lens
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=8510.msg140137#msg140137
The above images has very different Bokeh IMHO and no where close to the 300mm f/2 - consider posting those in another thread,,,
-
Roland, thank you for posting. I always learn so much from your posts.
The 300/2 lens has a blur index (focal/largest aperture) of 150. That's the same as the 600/4 lens. While the 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have blur index's of 143 and therefore would produce slightly less blur. While the 200/2 has a blur index of 100, producing much less blur than any of these other lenses, but of course it's much cheaper and lighter.
The reason that I got excited about the 300/2 that's on Ebay is that I'm not a big fan of 400, 600 and 800 supertelephotos lens. For me, the 300mm focal is about as long as I like to shoot.
What would the blur factor be on a 300mm f/2.8 my guess on above mentioned numbers around 130?
-
What would the blur factor be on a 300mm f/2.8 my guess on above mentioned numbers around 130?
“Blur index” seems to be defined as focal length/largest aperture so 300mm f/2 = 150. 300/2.8 = 107. However, since f stop is focal length over entrance pupil, this “blur index” is really:
Focal length/(focal length/entrance pupil)
which can be simplified to:
Entrance pupil(in mm)
Focal length drops out of the equation altogether.
I’m not certain how useful such an index is.
-
Some lenses also seems to blur more than blur index indicates because lens has some imperfections in the optical design like the 85/1.5 Helios 40 which can give some nice bokeh results if used wide open.
-
Some lenses also seems to blur more than blur index indicates because lens has some imperfections in the optical design like the 85/1.5 Helios 40 which can give some nice bokeh results if used wide open.
To me quality of blur is more important than the “index”. Subject isolation can be controlled by distance and framing. The existence of the DC lenses shows that blur properties are independent of blur index.
-
Bruce, go for the 200/2 VR II, it has one of the best Bokehs if not THE best ever, and it is cheaper. I bought mine used (like new) for 3200 Euro. Bokeh quality is not only a functoin of indices.
-
.
Blur quality and blur quantity are two separate characteristics.
Blur Index is simply a rough estimation of the quantity of blur. It can be used to get a ballpark feel for amount of blur produced by lenses of the same relative focal length.
-
Bruce, go for the 200/2 VR II, it has one of the best Bokehs if not THE best ever, and it is cheaper. I bought mine used (like new) for 3200 Euro. Bokeh quality is not only a functoin of indices.
Thanks for the recommendation.
I hope to sell some gear to help fund a new 200/2. However, I'll likely go with the AIS version as I am strictly a manual focus guy.
Given what's going on out there with the virus, I don't expect my used photo gear to sell as well as it might have before all of this frenzy started.
-
You ought to get the AFS200/2 and use it as a manual-focusing lens. which is what I do all the time. I did own the 200/2 AIS and it is a very nice lens, but the AFS model is much better in optical terms and very easy to focus manually too.
Do replace the lens hood on the AFS 200 with something narrower than the stock hood, though. I used a hood from one of my 300/2.8 lenses.
-
You might find this article on the development of the AI 200/2 interesting: https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0031/index.htm.
The AIS version has the same optics (maybe coatings slightly better)
-
It is difficult to evaluate the lens when the sample images in the article are full of noise (it blurs the details)?
And why do they use a 135/2 for sample2 image.....or is it an error in the text below the image?
I think I can make a better shot with my D5200 and a Nikkor 200/4 :-)
-
It is difficult to evaluate the lens when the sample images in the article are full of noise (it blurs the details)?
And why do they use a 135/2 for sample2 image.....or is it an error in the text below the image?
I think I can make a better shot with my D5200 and a Nikkor 200/4 :-)
Sure it is not digitized film? Reminds me of 400ASA
-
I just find it strange that an official Nikon site that want to demonstrate a top notch lens can't show better samples :-)
I remember my Provia 100 and Velvia 100 scanned slides to be much better than this using a Coolscan 9000.
And maybe time has run from D50 (2nd sample) so a D5200 is far superior…...it seems so....
Apart from that I found that a $100 Nikkor-Q 200/4 has great bokeh also……
Nice thing about a D5200 and similar low end DSLRs is that you can mount non-AI lenses because it has no AI-ring to be "jammed".
-
My understanding is that the 1001 Nights series is an undertaking mainly by initiative of retired and former employees. The illustrations are definitively not taken by professional photographers. The facts presented though draw on inside sources so make for a worthwhile read.
-
This afternoon, Monday 28th of December, I took with me the AI-S Nikkor 300mm f/2 IF-ED together with a Nikon TC-301 teleconverter. I took some shots with that combo, the first shown here at aperture f/2, the second at f/5.6. Just wanted to show you the two images. Exposure was 5 sec. at f/2, 30 sec. at f/5.6.
-
Here is the f/5.6 shot (with TC-301).
-
I'm trying to figure out what it was that you focused on. It is hard to understand what is being demonstrated with these shots.
-
The rendering of the lens/TC-301 and the depth of field at two different apertures was my "main goal".