Lens Insight

[Bob]

Well, even if I have the very best sensor there are lenses I like for their particular look.
For example, if there were a lens available for the D800 that produced results such as this Cooke Optics Limited : Products : PS945 Large Format
it would be in my kit immediately.
Very best is not always defined as sharpest over-all or most contrasty. It is nice to have several options as it adds to your possibilities.
-bob

p.s.
The cooke portrait is my favorite lens of all time for portraits on 4x5

 

[IsakBergwall]

is it possible to mount the old hasselblad V lenses on the D800 or are they not up to the standard of the D800?

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Bob, I never owned the Cooke, but from what I can tell the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 is close. I have one in M42 mount; of course it's not really usable on a Nikon body. The thing with these lenses is the rendition comes from the aberrations, and they severely limit resolving power - in absolute lp/mm, not as a percentage of frame size. So the only way to get "more image" (or more accurately, more entropy) with a lens like this is to go up in image size.

This was shot some 7-8 years ago with the Vivitar on a Canon 1Ds2. My little guy passed on in January, at close to 17 so he had a good long run.

But, basically, there's never going to be a true Cooke-look lens for 35mm. You could mount one of course, but it would be very long and not produce a whole lot of usable image...

 

[Bob]

I suppose that a lens could be designed with the right amount of aberrations to generate a cooke-like image on 35mm digital, but I am afraid that the "quest for perfection" will probably make it a non-starter in the market.
One of the reasons I like the 105DC is not for its sharpness but for its look.
Honestly you need a lens like that for some of the boudoir subjects I shoot.
Maybe a sheet of crumpled cellophane of a double softar might help :ROTFL:
-bob

 

[Godfrey]

When I had Nikon, I used Nikkors...
When I had Canon, I used Canons...
When I had Olympus, I used Olympus...
When I had Pentax, I used Pentax...
And once upon a time, when I had Leica, I use all Leica lenses.

But today, I have a smattering of Nikkors to use on Olympus E-1, Ricoh GXR, and eventually Leica M bodies. I have a couple of odd-ball adaptations that only work on a Micro-FourThirds body. I have a couple of Olympus FourThirds SLR lenses for the Olympus E-1. I have a bunch of Voigtländer, M-Rokkor, and Leica lenses to use on the Ricoh GXR and Leica M bodies.

What does it all mean? Nothing really. I've just found lenses that I liked and that fit the bodies I had. Or I bought an interesting lens and then hunted up a body to use with it. I usually don't carry more than two or three lenses at the same time, ever, so I'll never have five different brands in my bag at the same time. Half of the cameras I'm using today are fixed-lens anyway.

And I'll always have lenses that I know and understand what to expect from ... which is, to me, the important part.

G

 

[D&A]

I suppose that a lens could be designed with the right amount of aberrations to generate a cooke-like image on 35mm digital, but I am afraid that the "quest for perfection" will probably make it a non-starter in the market.
One of the reasons I like the 105DC is not for its sharpness but for its look.
Honestly you need a lens like that for some of the boudoir subjects I shoot.
Maybe a sheet of crumpled cellophane of a double softar might help :ROTFL:
-bob

Bob, after reading the 1st of your two sentences above (and prior to getting to your 2nd sentence), the 105 & 135DC lenses popped into my head. It's lenses like these and some other similar ones that I could think of...that often are far superior for certain applications than the best performing, sharpest lensesof simi
At focal lengths. That's also the reason that for some, the Leica rangefinder system is so strong....for the variety of lenses that have a distinct signature in the way they draw an image. They too don't always fair well in bench test measurements.

Dave (D&A)

 

[D&A]

Jan, it's images like the one you posted and what it represents, that transcends the performance or any characteristic of the lens used to take the shot. Lovely portrait regardless what lens or camera was used. Sometimes our angst in lens selection is justified, but there are those times when it truly doesn't matter so much. This is one of those cases...what a sweet looking dog!!

Dave (D&A)

 

[gurtch]

D&A: Took the words right out of my mouth.
Dave in NJ

 

[Guy Mancuso]

After some movement in my lineup here is where I sit today but I have been really waiting for the Zeiss 135

So lineup
Samyang 14
Zeiss 25 F2
Nikon 24-70
Sigma 35 1.4
Nikon 60 macro
Nikon 85 1.8
Nikon 70-200 f4

But dont be surprised if the Zeiss 25 turns into a 21. I really want to compare theNikon at 24 and the Zeiss 25 and see what the difference is . Also dont be surprised if the 70-200 and 60 macro turns into a Zeiss 135 F2. Ill go back to the renting idea for the 70-200. I wanted that Zeiss 135 all along just had to wait for it. Im sick in the bloody head

 

[tashley]

You and I have a very similar lineup!
Sammy 14
Zeiss 21
Nikon PC-E 24
Nikon 28 F1.8
Sigma 35 1.4
Leica R Cron 50mm
Nikon 85 F1.8
Nikon 24-70G
Nikon 70-200 F4
Nikon TC IIIE converter

Of those, the 'cold dead hands' lenses are the Leica, the Sammy and the Nikon 85. The mistake was the 24mm PC.

I just swapped out of the 24-120 into the 24-70 and I must say, it is a very very weird lens. It's field of focus at 24mm is utterly bizarre and it has pretty much no character other than a lot of aberration and distortion at some parts of the range. I am sure it will grow on me, it is so widely and highly respected, but my first day of shooting with it was a total WTF and I think I prefer the Tamron 24-70VR I had for a while...

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

I recently rented the Nikon 24mm f/1.4G (LensRentals) to see if AF capability and resolution would outweigh the micro contrast of the manual ZF.2 21mm. I shot two identical images and found the center resolution of the 24mmG to be excellent and micro contrast can be tweaked to a degree, but not quite the same as the ZF.2. The extreme edges were where the difference showed. The 21mm Zf.2 were really good and any wave or distortion was tweeked nicely. Branches on trees miles away maintained excellent acuity.
For an all around excellent lens the Nikon 24mm1.4 G is fantastic, but if i'm going to use AF it will probably be in the 35-50mm range for the wide action photos.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Exactly why I got the Sigma 35mm 1.4

 

[KeithL]

Unless Tim, or anyone else, can convince me there's a way to critically focus the Leica M240 on an off-centre subject then it looks increasingly like I'll be picking up a D800E together with a 14-24/f2.8 and a 85/f1.8G in the very near future.

As an aside, can anyone point me towards an image comparison between the 14-24 and the ZF.2 21mm on a D800 or D800E?

 

[Jan Brittenson]

How hard is it to get a Sammy 14 that performs?

 

[tashley]

How hard is it to get a Sammy 14 that performs?

I got lucky first time and as anyone who knows me well will tell you, that almost never happens! Most people seem to get a good one first or second attempt as far as I hear.

 

[tashley]

Unless Tim, or anyone else, can convince me there's a way to critically focus the Leica M240 on an off-centre subject then it looks increasingly like I'll be picking up a D800E together with a 14-24/f2.8 and a 85/f1.8G in the very near future.

As an aside, can anyone point me towards an image comparison between the 14-24 and the ZF.2 21mm on a D800 or D800E?

Keith, I will be looking into the new M in depth very very soon ;-)

In the meantime: if what you mean is 'critically' as in 'perfectly then obviously it depends on two things: the particular lens and the Live View.

Flatter field lenses on a really well-adjusted rangefinder can do this by very careful F&R but I suspect you mean more critical than that (or more reliably so) in which case it'll depend on the exact part of the FOV through which you can Live View focus at full magnification, and how clear the screen is. But if you think the D800 will certainly be easier, you might be wrong. I don't, these days, ever trust focus points on the D800 other than the central cross hair ones. F&R isn't usually good enough due to the fact that so many of the lenses have curved fields of focus. And the magnified Live View is good in that you can place it anywhere in the frame but bad in that it really is quite unclear.

WRT the comparison you need, Lloyd Chambers has a lot of that stuff but the exact comparison you need, on a D800E, isn't there AFAIK.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I have acquired a D800E (it arrived today), along with Sigma 85mm f1.4 and Nkkor 24mm PC-E D3.5D, Like Guy, I come from / still have medium format digital and expect - unrealistically I suspect - similar lens quality in 35mm format. The Sigma delivers, the 24mm PC-E the jury is still out on. I am now looking for a medium standard zoom and wonder if the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR is up to the job. I have already seen a number of my test shots are showing signs of camera shake, and VR looks a good bet and that lens looks to match the equivalent Nikon.

However, what really matters now is quality, quality, quality. I see no reason not to expect edge to edge to performance, and if its out there, I want it, preferebaly from Nikon but otherwise another manufacturer. Would the Tamron be a mistake? Should I stick to primes? There is a lot of choice....

I have always been a fan of Nikon, used to use an F100 and latterly a D700 for a while. I expect near-Hassy performance but with better high ISO.

Quentin

 

[KeithL]

Keith, I will be looking into the new M in depth very very soon ;-)

In the meantime: if what you mean is 'critically' as in 'perfectly then obviously it depends on two things: the particular lens and the Live View.

Flatter field lenses on a really well-adjusted rangefinder can do this by very careful F&R but I suspect you mean more critical than that (or more reliably so) in which case it'll depend on the exact part of the FOV through which you can Live View focus at full magnification, and how clear the screen is. But if you think the D800 will certainly be easier, you might be wrong. I don't, these days, ever trust focus points on the D800 other than the central cross hair ones. F&R isn't usually good enough due to the fact that so many of the lenses have curved fields of focus. And the magnified Live View is good in that you can place it anywhere in the frame but bad in that it really is quite unclear.

Tim, critically as in reliably so.

My understanding is that M240 magnified liveview is limited to the centre of the screen. Great if this coincides with the subject but useless if it doesn't. Hoorah for the introduction, boo for the implementation. I'd love to know if this limitation was known to Leica from the outset or if it snuck up on them and bit them on their bum. Leica have progressed from centre point rangefinder to centre point magnified liveview.

I'm certainly not expecting the D800's liveview to be anything like perfect or to be anything like as good as Canon's, but at least it gives you a chance by allowing you to place focus within the frame. AF, micro adjust and a reasonable viewfinder add to those chances.

Should add, I'm looking forward to your test.

 

[Godfrey]

Unless Tim, or anyone else, can convince me there's a way to critically focus the Leica M240 on an off-centre subject ...

I don't know that I can convince you. And I don't understand Tashley's ambivalence.

But the ability to critically, precisely focus using Live View on off-center subjects is precisely why I prefer to use a Live View camera for any macro and tabletop work, basically any subject matter that requires the camera be locked in position carefully. It does this job as well as or better than using a 4x5 inch ground glass with magnifier, IMO, and far far better than any kind of AF system I've ever used.

The new M uses the same EVF that I have for the X2 and Olympus Micro-FourThirds cameras. It's a very good EVF with excellent sharpness, very easy to focus manually with, even on the X2 which has a relatively clumsy focus by wire control on manual focus. And I bet the new M's LCD is quite up to the task as well.

G

 

[KeithL]

I don't know that I can convince you. And I don't understand Tashley's ambivalence.

But the ability to critically, precisely focus using Live View on off-center subjects is precisely why I prefer to use a Live View camera for any macro and tabletop work, basically any subject matter that requires the camera be locked in position carefully.
G

Ah, good old focus and recompose