!DAILY UPDATES! May. 366 days: your 2016 in photographs

[John Geerts]

May 9th 2016   Sunny and warm

Got a lensbaby 3G for a few bucks, probably the most ugly lens around.         But surprisingly sharp in the center. Nice to play with

Df - Lensbaby 3G  50/2

[the solitaire]

So do i still like the afd 80-200/2.8, Buddy, nice round touch.

The AF-D 80-200 f2,8 most certainly is a nice lens. Even at T*3,4 it renders very pleasing OoF backgrounds, has pretty decent sharpness even wide open. I often wish the actual light transmission of the lens was closer to f3 then f3,5 but even the way it is the lens is more then usable for a PJ approach to things and when maximizing effect it can hold it's own against the newer f2,8 zooms in most cases.

I might replace it with a Sigma 120-300 f2,8 in the future and I might regret that decision. Still, the need for speed is calling

[John Geerts]

I have the non-D version of the 80-200/2.8, which should be optically the same as the D. It's a bit large to walk-around for PJ approach. I usually take the 105/1.8 or the 85/1.8 K instead. For longer reach the AF 180/2.8 is far more better than the zoom.

[Bruno Schroder]

These planes are huge
Edit: Even on the wrong side Can't edit it on the phone.

[Lars Hansen]

Yesterday - May 8. Like Bruno I went for white flowers .. a lot of them. My neighbours Magnolia tree.

[the solitaire]

I have the non-D version of the 80-200/2.8, which should be optically the same as the D. It's a bit large to walk-around for PJ approach. I usually take the 105/1.8 or the 85/1.8 K instead. For longer reach the AF 180/2.8 is far more better than the zoom.

It should indeed be optically identical, including the ED element. My girlfriend uses the 180mm f2,8 AF-D a lot and it is indeed worlds better then the 80-200. The 80-200 balances well on my D3 where the 180 f2,8 feels a bit small. I would like to buy an 80-200 f4 as walk around tele for the D3 but I am not certain how much use it will see with the 105 f2,5, 135 f2,8 and 85 f1,4 also in my bag. Lot's of duplicates there, and the main reason the zoom is still here is because of the flexibility it adds

[John Geerts]

Yes, I understand completely     Zooms have their own quality. The 80-200/4.5 C is my preferred one at the moment for longer reach as it has a special 'vintage' look,  a bit hard to explain why.

[the solitaire]

I do know what you mean. The 135mm f3,5 Nikkor-Q.C gives me the same. The 5cm f2 Nikkor-S is also good at looking "vintage" at close distance. From what others have shown me the 5,8cm f1,4 is the king of vintage under the F mount Nikkors. Would love to play around with a copy of that lens at some point. Not sure if I would like it's rendering enough to give it a permanent place in my bag

[John Geerts]

Thanks for explaining.  Hadn't heard about the 5.8/1.4 but have an old 50/1.4, but pretty useless for street photography wide open, especially against the sun   

Another daily Photo with a special lens:  Not really vintage, more French cinema-style, sharpness combined with softness,  great colour rendering and light-transmission, ability with close focus and gorgeous bokeh;  and that is perhaps why I like the Angelieux 35-70/2.5 so much

'Muzen-park' next to Fontys Art school

[Fons Baerken]

Great lenses the Angenieux

[Fons Baerken]

May 10 2016

[Asle F]

View from my bedroom window.


Hallingskarvet by Asle Feten, on Flickr

[John Geerts]

May 10th 2016  Cloudy, rain is expected.

As I mentioned the Nikkor-s Auto 50 1.4  yesterday, some shots. It's very suitable for portraits and close-ups

[John Geerts]

Looks very cold, Asle 

Yes, Fons, especially the Angenieux 35-70mm 2.5-3.3. Built according to Leitz specs, but Leitz decided to collaborate with Minolta, so Angenieux released it under the own name. A very remarkable zoom, in many ways.

[Bruno Schroder]

View from my bedroom window.

Asle, that's not fair .
View from my own bedroom window, while I should have been in Scotland instead.
At least, I have some flare