LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[bjornthun]

I have used both the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 as well as a 70-200/2.8, and I can say from experience that the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 handles much better than the zoom. So, I would choose the old AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 over the Sigma 180/2.8 at 1.63 kg. Indeed, the Micro Nikkors I liked the best are the 85/2.8 PC Micro Nikkor and the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4.

I suppose that the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 needs to have the AF/MF collar taped down, but the AF is so slow that leaving the lens in MF mode is no loss at all.

The tripod socket of the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 is from the time before the bean counters completely took over the design of tripod collars.

[Erik Lund]

Yes, as proved here by a lot of images a short amount of extension, say 10- 25mm extension can be masked by stopping down and give satisfactory IQ, however that is not a lot of extension for a 300mm lens, and when adding 50mm of extension IQ falls apart resulting in heavily curved field curvature and corners washing out. Usable in some cases of course,,,

When you add extension to an IF design, all of the finely calculated movements of the individual lens elements, IF CRC gets messed up,,, That's why unit focusing lenses are by far preferred for use with extension!

[Macro_Cosmos]

I use a good TC for birds.

The full set of extension tubes, for long range macro, is too flimsy to take the massive lens.
However, just a tiny extension tube changed my minimal focus distance on the 300 VR II from 7.2 feet away (too far) to about 2-3' away.
This is perfect for flowers, and butterflies on flowers, while the image quality remains superb.

Since a picture's worth a thousand words, I will post the images when I get around to doing an actual comparison.

Awesome! I look forward to such a comparison. I've tried my 300/4D with extension tubes to get closer to birds, and had barely any success. Not bad though!
Cockatoo by Daniel Han, on Flickr

I personally don't care about AF accuracy and VR on a macro lens. I am buying the lens for macro only. For anything else, I have my 70-200 FL ready. The Sigma seems massive, but the Nikkor isn't exactly light weight either. The difference between f2.8 and f4 isn't a deal-breaker for me either, I'll be shooting macros at an f-stop of 8 and above anyway. Not looking for something to double as a portrait lens. Would be great if I can get both out and have a play myself, but I don't know anyone with either of the 2 lenses mentioned.

[brent_e]

The choice of 'Nikongear' as a site name is based on history, not gear preference as such.

Our community includes top photographers and gear heads in a healthy mixture. Most members in either group, or intermediately positioned, understand only too well they cannot buy gear to become better photographers. Manufacturers and photo dealers are very grateful to those who don't.

I should get this tattooed to me somewhere.   

[John Koerner]

I should get this tattooed to me somewhere.

Those are a lot of words to get tattooed ... especially when they're not entirely correct.

Don't believe me? Consider these two truths:

1. Some kind of gear is required in order to be "a photographer" at all;
2. Once you have that part down, certain enhanced gear is required to enter certain photographic subsets at all.

If you doubt that, try to take a single photo without "the gear" to do so.

After you admit that you need a camera, and some basic lenses (or a cell phone) to take photos at all ... then try to take an up-close image of a fly's eye, without macro gear, or try to take a photo of a bird 200 yds away, without a telephoto lens.

The truth is, gear is required to take photos.
The other truth is, no matter how good your technique, certain photographic pursuits cannot be accomplished at all without the required gear to do so.

The final truth is, as technique progresses, so too does the desire for better gear ... to match that better technique.

Can you name a single, successful photographer who operates with "the first lenses he bought" as a beginner?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.

Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.

I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own. Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.

[Steven Paulsen]

It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.

Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.

I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own. Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.

<chuckle>

It is entertaining to guess the ages of members who feel strongly about the superiority of glass in one's sack. Mr. Bear must have an opinion on which type of pin holed body cap renders the best images. (Did you ever line the inside with reflective foil?)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It is indeed possible to take a photograph even without a pinhole.

Pinhole size and geometry have been well studied and modelled, so no big surprises there. Go to some of the pinhole resource sites and explore the stuff they provide.

[John Koerner]

It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.

Okay, to split hairs ... a good photograph ...

Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.

Show me a single, highly-detailed photograph of a bird in flight, using a wide-angle ...

I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own.

Not really. If you want to cover yourself in grass, lay is a field, and put "bird food" in front of you ... that would be one way of bridging the "long lens" need for detailed bird photographs 

But it's still not a nature shot; it's a staged "bait" shot.

In order to get authentic bird shots "in situ," you need to spend some $$ on the gear that will enable you to do so.

Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.

Mmmm, that is "art," is subjective ... (one man's trash is another man's treasure ...)

I do agree, that (with a great eye, and photographic skill) an artist will make art, even with mediocre lenses ... providing his desires are within common (24-100mm) focal ranges.

But a man with specialized desires (very long range and/or very close-up) needs the specialized gear to achieve his goals.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

You are entitled your views. I don't share them. Let it be with that.

NG is not a place to for rebuttals however tempting they might be.

[John Koerner]

You are entitled your views. I don't share them. Let it be with that.

Fair enough.

NG is not a place to for rebuttals however tempting they might be.

You can rebut ... but I should "agree or be quiet," is that it? 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Is it important to twist everything? Is this a battle you cannot afford to lose? I could have argued against all your points in the earlier post, with examples, but to what end? Serves no purpose and only poisons the communication. So I let it slide.

You have had many opportunities on this site to bring forth your views. As long as you stay within our Guide Lines, that situation will not change. You are not treated differently to other members.

Any further contribution to this thread has to deal with the topic at hand, please. Also try to read contributions from non-native English speakers with an open mind.

[John Koerner]

The thing about "the truth" is that it contains paradox.

On the one hand, you're right: better equipment doesn't give better skill.

On the other hand, better equipment (in particular, ultra-long or ultra-close) will allow you to take photos that cannot be taken with skill alone.

It's easy to argue one side, or the other, but both in fact are correct. Cheers.

[simsurace]

I think all your disagreements stem from the fact that you are competing in very different markets and therefore have different premises on which you base your arguments. Therefore, you will never reach a consensus. IMHO both Bjørn and John make valid points based on their individual premises, but neither can be generally applied to all types of photography or photographers.

Back to the question of standardized tests: I think an important thing is to consider that lenses are not a random collection of elements, but they are being designed to optimize certain things. It behooves us to check whether they reach the performance that is advertised, and for certain applications, these parameters are exactly what one is looking for. Or, put, differently, we can try to understand what were the parameters that had the most priority in lens design.

[brent_e]

Those are a lot of words to get tattooed ... especially when they're not entirely correct.

Don't believe me? Consider these two truths:

1. Some kind of gear is required in order to be "a photographer" at all;
2. Once you have that part down, certain enhanced gear is required to enter certain photographic subsets at all.

If you doubt that, try to take a single photo without "the gear" to do so.

After you admit that you need a camera, and some basic lenses (or a cell phone) to take photos at all ... then try to take an up-close image of a fly's eye, without macro gear, or try to take a photo of a bird 200 yds away, without a telephoto lens.

The truth is, gear is required to take photos.
The other truth is, no matter how good your technique, certain photographic pursuits cannot be accomplished at all without the required gear to do so.

The final truth is, as technique progresses, so too does the desire for better gear ... to match that better technique.

Can you name a single, successful photographer who operates with "the first lenses he bought" as a beginner?

I understand where you're coming from, John.  I agree with you, as well.  I think you're missing what I'm saying, though.  I see folks here and other places that get beautiful pictures and then try to find the lens that they got those pictures with.  It's led to a few purchases (most of which I don't actually regret).  What I was getting at is that owning a lens that has good qualities doesn't guarantee that it will render gorgeous images no matter where you point it. Buying an 85 1.4 won't turn me into a pro portrait photographer.   
Macro is one place where a few purchases have helped me a lot (BR2A, extension tubes, etc etc). 

interesting discussion, folks.  thank you for it!

Brent