Okay, Lens Help Please.

[fotografz]

Hi Marc, when the AF135/2DC arrives, could you post a picture or two from the lens? I'm curious to see how it performs. Thanks.

Kurt

Kurt, I used to use that lens before swapping to Canon. It's very sharp with the DC set to zero which is the way I used it 99% of the time and will again. I will play with it and post some shots for you when I test it ... including doing some DC stuff.

Stay tuned at the end of the week.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well I pulled another move yesterday that I hope made sense. I traded the Zeiss 50 1.4 and the Nikon 60 macro for the Zeiss 50 f2 macro. Ray called me and we talked about it and he really likes the 50 f2 both for macro and normal distances and thinks this is better than both of them. One less lens in the bag not a bad idea either. In my effort to get the ZD MF i had to give up the 17-35 to make it all work. Not that I wanted too and I only planned on getting a D3 and changed my mind and had to stretch my purse a lot to get the ZD something had to give. I will get that lens back at some point but right now it seems i am packed with Zeiss glass. 28 f2, 50 f2 and 85 1.4 and of course the 180 2.8. I had to give up the Nikon 24mm shift too but will replace that in the ZD. I truly hate selling gear to get other gear. Because i always want something back. The 17-35 is one of those.

 

[robmac]

From what I've seen from the 50/2 and read in LC's review - you should be a happy camper.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

That's what i am thinking also. Now with three systems I feel a little weak with lenses. Down to 4 for the M8 and Nikon 4 and Zd it will be 2 . The Leica just need my 12 back, Nikon my 17-35 back and the ZD need to get a 55mm. So i am not far away from being full strength again. I was just not prepared to buy the ZD but the price was so darn good , i had to be nuts not to jump on it. Life is full of compromises. I know been married a long time:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

 

[fotografz]

Well I pulled another move yesterday that I hope made sense. I traded the Zeiss 50 1.4 and the Nikon 60 macro for the Zeiss 50 f2 macro. Ray called me and we talked about it and he really likes the 50 f2 both for macro and normal distances and thinks this is better than both of them. One less lens in the bag not a bad idea either. In my effort to get the ZD MF i had to give up the 17-35 to make it all work. Not that I wanted too and I only planned on getting a D3 and changed my mind and had to stretch my purse a lot to get the ZD something had to give. I will get that lens back at some point but right now it seems i am packed with Zeiss glass. 28 f2, 50 f2 and 85 1.4 and of course the 180 2.8. I had to give up the Nikon 24mm shift too but will replace that in the ZD. I truly hate selling gear to get other gear. Because i always want something back. The 17-35 is one of those.

The move on the 50/1.4 was a good one. The Bokeh on the Zeiss 50/1.4 is awful, and it always has been even for the Zeiss N50/1.4 version. I got the 50/2 marco also : -) We'll have to compare notes.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Sounds good Marc

 

[jonoslack]

Hi There
Now I'm a Nikon victim as well. I went to 'look' today and came away with a D3 and the 14-24 and 24-70 . . . I also got a cheap 70-300 VR lens, as reports on the 70-200 don't sound promising, it's not a greatly used focal length for me anyway.
I want a small 50 as well - maybe the Zeiss f2 is the way to go, although the Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.4 sounds tempting (and it's cheap as chips here).

Hrumph, now I must tidy up my Leica lens collection (11 is too many) and get a little money back!

 

[Mitch Alland]

Hi There
Now I'm a Nikon victim as well...I also got a cheap 70-300 VR lens, as reports on the 70-200 don't sound promising, it's not a greatly used focal length for me anyway...

Jono, congratulations on your new camera; but I must step in to defend the honour of the 70-200 lens, which I find spectacular. I've seen a few reports on the Nikon Forum on photo.net in which some people felt that the corners were not sharp, but I haven't seen this. As this is not an important focal length for you the 70-300 should be adequate for you, but otherwise I would have said you'd made a mistake.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, congratulations on your new camera; but I must step in to defend the honour of the 70-200 lens, which I find spectacular. I've seen a few reports on the Nikon Forum on photo.net in which some people felt that the corners were not sharp, but I haven't seen this. As this is not an important focal length for you the 70-300 should be adequate for you, but otherwise I would have said you'd made a mistake.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

HI Mitch - I'm sorry, you missed my point.
I used to own this lens with my D2x and D200, it was splendid. The criticism is with the full frame sensor.

Here is an example:

naturfotograph

Bjorn is not a guy to criticise unnecessarily, I've seen other reports as well. Certainly the 70-300 isn't such a good lens, but it's also around 1/4 the price, and it does have a good writeup - It'll do the job until I can work out something better.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Jono, thanks for the explanation: I read the Björn's take on this and I'm sure he must be right on the problems of this lens on the D3, of which I wasn't aware.

On another subject: in another thread I reported that Thom Hogan thinks that the pixel density of the D300 is good for cropping and that for cropping the D300 is better in this way than the D3. As I find that I'm now cropping most of my D300 shots because I have gotten used to and prefer for compositional reasons the 4:3 aspect ratio of the Ricoh cameras to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the D300, I found this interesting. Do you have a view on this alleged pixel density advantage for copping of the D300?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, thanks for the explanation: I read the Björn's take on this and I'm sure he must be right on the problems of this lens on the D3, of which I wasn't aware.

On another subject: in another thread I reported that Thom Hogan thinks that the pixel density of the D300 is good for cropping and that for cropping the D300 is better in this way than the D3. As I find that I'm now cropping most of my D300 shots because I have gotten used to and prefer for compositional reasons the 4:3 aspect ratio of the Ricoh cameras to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the D300, I found this interesting. Do you have a view on this alleged pixel density advantage for copping of the D300?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

HI Mitch
sorry to be unclear on the 70-200
I think this cropping bit (which Bjorn is also into) is more to do with field of view / lens than anything else. i.e. if you have a given lens, then you'll have higher definition per field of view with a smaller sensor camera.
If it's that you're better cropping with a smaller sensor camera (with a higher pixel density), then I have to admit to being a little confused . . . but then, I'm often a little confused!

 

[fotografz]

200/2 is here. I like it.

 

[robmac]

Jono - congrats. Let us know what you think when you get some 'film' thru it.
If you go the 50/2 ZF route, from all reports it's is arguably the best of the ZF line. Little or no CA (something my 35 and 100 did suffer from), sharp, macro (and F2) selective focus ability, little or no distortion, good bokeh... I'm out of ZF now, but if I went back - the 50 would be my choice.

 

[jonoslack]

200/2 is here. I like it.

:clap:

Hi Marc
I'd like it too, but I'd use it about once a month, and at that price and size . . . . Next year maybe!

 

[jonoslack]

Jono - congrats. Let us know what you think when you get some 'film' thru it.
If you go the 50/2 ZF route, from all reports it's is arguably the best of the ZF line. Little or no CA (something my 35 and 100 did suffer from), sharp, macro (and F2) selective focus ability, little or no distortion, good bokeh... I'm out of ZF now, but if I went back - the 50 would be my choice.

Thank you Rob.
Just now I'm rather seduced by the AF - it's so quick and accurate, I'm tempted by the Voigtlander 50 1.4, but can't decide on a macro just yet - the close focusing on the 24-70 will do for the spring flowers right now . . . and it would be diplomatic to tidy up my lens collection a bit before buying anything else (I got the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-300 cheapo)

The car goes for it's first service tomorrow . .. I just hope they don't think I need new tyres (19" oh noooo!)

 

[fotografz]

:clap:

Hi Marc
I'd like it too, but I'd use it about once a month, and at that price and size . . . . Next year maybe!

Yeah, definitely an expensive specialty lens. I have two key uses for it in mind ... wedding ceremony shots with the 1.4X, and wedding reception dance shots
as a 200/2. I used to use my Canon 200/1.8 for some commercial shots, but I wished it were an IS at times.

I still have to bench test it to make sure the focus is spot on ... but it seems to be.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Marc nice thing is you can fine tune your AF to that lens in the menu. Pretty darn cool if you ask me

 

[kit laughlin]

To Marc, re. my lens lineup:

14-24/2.8. Best wide I have ever used (speaking as an ex 21/2.8 Distagon owner)

24-70/2.8. Equally great.

70-200 VR. I shoot this wide open all the time for forestry commercial work.

1.4 TC Mk II. You lose a stop, but IQ is virtually identical. This extender used on the 70-200 (so, 100–280) makes sharper images on the D3 than the 70-200 on the D300. This surprised me.

Zeiss ZF macro 50/2 and 100/2. Enough folk have raved about these lenses so can save me typing this again

24/3.5 TS. This is in another universe compared to Canon's offering at this focal length

18-70/3.5-4.5 DX. Amazing for the money on the D300.

24-85/3.5-4.5. Equally good on either—small, light, cheezy, and optically excellent.

28-105/3.5-4.5. Cheap, rugged, good on either.

As some here may see, I have pared my lenses right down, but this is the best kit I have ever used, in over 30 years of photography.

I am waiting for the DP-1 and the E-420 plus pancake to arrive, strictly for walking around and amusing myself. Cheers to all, KL

 

[fotografz]

To Marc, re. my lens lineup:

14-24/2.8. Best wide I have ever used (speaking as an ex 21/2.8 Distagon owner)

24-70/2.8. Equally great.

70-200 VR. I shoot this wide open all the time for forestry commercial work.

1.4 TC Mk II. You lose a stop, but IQ is virtually identical. This extender used on the 70-200 (so, 100–280) makes sharper images on the D3 than the 70-200 on the D300. This surprised me.

Zeiss ZF macro 50/2 and 100/2. Enough folk have raved about these lenses so can save me typing this again

24/3.5 TS. This is in another universe compared to Canon's offering at this focal length

18-70/3.5-4.5 DX. Amazing for the money on the D300.

24-85/3.5-4.5. Equally good on either—small, light, cheezy, and optically excellent.

28-105/3.5-4.5. Cheap, rugged, good on either.

As some here may see, I have pared my lenses right down, but this is the best kit I have ever used, in over 30 years of photography.

I am waiting for the DP-1 and the E-420 plus pancake to arrive, strictly for walking around and amusing myself. Cheers to all, KL

Nice kit Kit, (sorry, had to say it : -) A few observations, and a question for you:

For me, moving to Nikon was a heavy financial decision, since I'm not divesting myself of the Canon gear except for a few less used lenses and a 1DMKIII body.

I've always liked Nikon, and am glad they have finally gone FF and provided one whopper of a jump in high ISO performance considering where they were before. That Zeiss also offers a nice lens line up in F mount played a role in the decision.

I am building my Nikon kit based on my needs and adding things that can help me better express my style while giving me an edge in certain areas of IQ. Super wide angle and perspective control are lesser used applications that I leave to other more capable pieces of gear. My interest lies in maximizing what the D3 already does so well ... available light work using high ISOs. Thus, the choice of f/2 prime optics or faster. My Canon and Leica M8 kits are built on the same principle.

That said, it's always wise to have a general application lens in the line up ... which I've yet to secure. With my Canon system that lens is a Zeiss N24-85/3.5 with a fully coupled Canon AF mount.

For the Nikon, I am at a loss. The new 24-70/2.8 is most likely the choice ... but I wish it were at least a 24-85 and a VR lens.

Kit, does the front barrel of the 24-70 extend in and out of the lens lke the Canon version? I found this to be the Achilles heel of those type lenses over time.

 

[deepdiver]

Another shot with Nikon D50 + 200mm F2VR AFS