The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Manual focus lenses

Godfrey

Well-known member
Following on from a few discussions on lenses and adapters etc. I need some educating, what are the must have manual focus lenses that will fit either with an adapter or native for the D800?

I've read about the Leica R 19mm, I have the Zeiss 21 and 135, I've found a 50 f1.2 that I'm tempted by, what else can I buy that is amazing and manual focus?
A couple of old favorites of mine:

Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8, Pre-AI :: I had one of the lenses on loan from my uncle in 1969-1970 and always remembered it fondly. Bought another a couple of years ago, it's still my favorite Nikon 85mm.

Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S (52mm filter) :: small, light ... always impressed me with its contrast and sharpness. The later 20/2.8 is supposed to be superior, but I had one and sold it to get the f/3.5. This was my ultra-wide on Nikon bodies from 1982 to 2002.

Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 :: one of *The* Nikon classics. I've seen it through at least three if not four revisions. It's always been a superb rendering lens.

Nikkor 180/2.8 ED AI-S :: a truly delightful fast tele. The ED version is critical, previous version was a bit soft at the edges of the frame.

I'm also enamored of the Micro-Nikkors ... I have a pre-AI 55/3.5 and AI-S 105/2.8 both of which are simply outstanding quality. The 200/4 ED-IF is another excellent performer.

Beyond those, if I ever bought a Nikon DSLR body, I would likely get some Leitax.com mounting flanges for my Leica R lenses (Summicron-R 50/2, Summilux-R 50/1.4, Summicron-R 90/2, Elmarit-R 135/2.8, and Elmarit-R 180/2.8). These are older series Leitz R lenses, they don't have the razor crispness of the more modern late 1980s and onwards APO models, but their rendering qualities are simply beautiful and quite distinct from the Nikkors and Zeiss alternatives. I use them today as my telephoto range on FourThirds format, or on the Leicaflex SL they were designed for.

G
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack as you and most others know well, the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens and the Nikon 28mm f1.4 are quite different beasts. Great samples of each are worth having but I can't imagine two dissimilar lenses when it comes to a "look". As much as I like the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 zoom for it's general overall performance, even on a D800 (aside from having to stop down to get sharp corners), if it's absolute performance that's needed close to or specifically at 35mm, especially at wide apertures, Guy nailed it with the Sigma 35mm.

For a gentle almost pastel like rendition under a variety of shooting situations, the Nikon 28mm f1.4 was one of my absolute favorites. Unfortunately fairly substantial sample variation exists with each and that's an important consideration. A mediocre sample of the 28mm was a big disappointment and often lacked what this lens was capable of, especially when shot at f1.4 and f2.

Dave (D&A)
To clarify: I am more than happy with my 17-35 at 35 as a GP shooting lens. What the Sigma would be is a look lens, probably always shot wide open. Granted, it is also very sharp and contrasty stopped down, but in the few image samples I've seen, it renders very painterly wide open.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Got a second here

Sigma 35mm 1.4. Here is my feeling your almost crazy not to buy this lens for 900 bucks. Its better than anything I seen in 35mm land that bolts on a Nikon, remember I sold my Zeiss 35 F2 for this. There simply is nothing sharper at 1.4 and it does have a nice look to it. This is not even my better copy of this lens , I sold this one for another and far better.

 
M

mjr

Guest
That 35 does look good, I've got an RX1 that I use for 35mm duties, I think it's hard to beat to be honest.

Thanks to you all for the suggestions, I now have some ebay action going on!

Cheers

Mat
 

D&A

Well-known member
To clarify: I am more than happy with my 17-35 at 35 as a GP shooting lens. What the Sigma would be is a look lens, probably always shot wide open. Granted, it is also very sharp and contrasty stopped down, but in the few image samples I've seen, it renders very painterly wide open.
Jack, I realize you like your 17-35mm f2.8. I remember when we were discussing the merits of this lens on the D800 (and I posted my mini synopsis). My comments were only to reflect on use of the Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs. the Nikon 28mm f1.4. Wide open I would agree the Sigma with it's normally contrasty and vivid look is tempered somewhat at f1.4 and does make for a modern yet lovely imagery.

The 28mm in comparison is definitely somewhat less sharp wide open and it's bokeh is somewhat behind the Sigma in my opinion, depending on subject shooting distance but it pastel like rendition exists well beyond f1.4. Both lenses do have a very different look but each has so many positive merits.

Dave (D&A)


P.S.---> I should have also said Guy couldn't be more right. For $900.00 the Sigma is a venerable bargain and a fantastic lens at any price point.
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Agree Dave but also I could turn this down the other way with negative clarity and pull back some vibrancy off it and you could have a different look as well. I can always soften for look. Why I like this lens
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Guy, I was just going to suggest posting the above image with about 16 points negative clarity and dropping saturation to about minus 8, and then zeroing out capture sharpening (all in C1 of course) :ROTFL:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Okay here are my settings. The image without red dots is normal processing pretty much. The Red dots image is going the other way towards the negative and softening up the look. I did not touch the sharpness levels which would be even more effective.






Okay first one is normal



Going softer

 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Both still look pretty crisp -- at least at web size. I'd back sharpening all the way off to zero and open the shadows a little by sliding the mid level slider over left to about 0.06 or 0.08, and finally I'd just clip the highlights a skosh to add some glow.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yea for even more drastic you could lower the contrast and that would give a more veiled look. It depends on what your after. No lens in 35mm is this good wide open. Our 35mm Leica R lenses would never ever be this good wide open , way too many lens aberrations. So if you want to match the leica you have to get drastic calming this thing down because the Leica R never would come close to this wide open. Stopped down to like 2.8 the Leica would match the Sigma wide open as far as contrast and sharpness. We need to remember the R Lux lenses it was lens aberrations wide open that created that ghostly look. Reality is it was technically bad. But we liked how it looked
 

D&A

Well-known member
Okay off to Tempe Camera. Anyone got handcuffs , I'm feeling a itch
Hmmm, Guy, what's on the menu at Tempe today :).

Jack and Guy, I realize the adjustment to that Sigma 35mm image was simple a quick and fast exercise on what could be done. If you don't mind me saying, even keeping in mind its simply a web sized image, I'm not sure what the additional adjustments image wise did to give this lens (or image) a "look". Yes it toned down the contrast and clarity but emulating some of the qualities we derive in lenses that have aberrations and a quality that is readily recognizable, can more often not be created simply with post processing....at least not always.


Take the Mandler designed Leica 50mm Lux pre asph and try creating it's look with the 50mm Lux asph. It's sort of like trying to create an artificial "glow" simply through software.

Even the look of the 75mm Lux at f2 can't be easily duplicated with the Leica 75mm cron shot wide open. I once tried that and maybe my skills were at fault.

The Nikon 28mm f1.4 has a good amount of clarity and no veiling in my opinion...maybe not the clarity of the Sigma but it's images can sparkle in a gentle soft of way and the saturation achieved with the 28mm astonished me at times without going over the top, but it was never veiled (such as the bit of veiling seen in your adjusted image with the Sigma.

Again just some personal observations and as we all know, this is all very subjective...there's no right or wrong.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Dave, I agree that it's really difficult -- actually I will say it's impossible -- to replicate in post the special look that spherical aberrations add to old, fast glass images. But that's precisely why I like the 50/1.2 and the 105DC :D

As re this Sigma 35, it's quite possibly too darn good wide open to deliver what I'm looking for, and I may in fact be stuck going after a 35 Lux R and converting it…
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I agree guys today these lenses are to well corrected. You can get close but not totally there. The 35 lux needs a lot if shaving for the D800 like my 19 r your back to stop down operation. Seems as we go forward in technology we take a couple steps back to get what you want. This is exactly the reason I'm looking at the Sony A7r as in reality it's a digital back that can fit a load of special glass that's tough to bolt on our Nikons. I have this crazy idea of converting my Nikon kit into strictly PR and AF needs and build a Sony kit for real work with Leica R and M glass. Sounds crazy I know but the Sony has real options like this.

I'm not jumping on anything like that till I see who jumps next like Sony did. I'll wait till Q1 and see what's out there. I finally see some options out there.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Oh and I was good at Tempe camera. Just rented a lens.

Funny story I saw Joe the owner for many years and we where talking about how long I been a customer. I guessed 20 reality 30 years. Joe said to me Guy your about the only guy left after all these years, everyone else out of business. Pretty interesting and sad at the same time.

Also Nikon pulled there whole repair from him after a million years doing there repairs and took it in house. For him that was hell as he was about one if the biggest Nikon repair shops in the states. Sucks
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave, I agree that it's really difficult -- actually I will say it's impossible -- to replicate in post the special look that spherical aberrations add to old, fast glass images. But that's precisely why I like the 50/1.2 and the 105DC :D

As re this Sigma 35, it's quite possibly too darn good wide open to deliver what I'm looking for, and I may in fact be stuck going after a 35 Lux R and converting it…
Me too Jack! Love both the current MF 50mm f1.2 AIS and both DC lenses, the 105mm and 135mm. One thing I can't strongly recommend enough, is if you happen upon a good buy in the Nikon 28mm f1.4, try it out with th provision it's returnable. The aspherical element was hand ground/polished and no two are alike. In fact some copies are rather mundane in performance.

As an aside, my previous post was fraught with all sorts of grammatical mistakes and inverted words that significantly altered what I was trying to express. I quickly made some corrections so it now makes a modicum of sense.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Oh and I was good at Tempe camera. Just rented a lens.

Funny story I saw Joe the owner for many years and we where talking about how long I been a customer. I guessed 20 reality 30 years. Joe said to me Guy your about the only guy left after all these years, everyone else out of business. Pretty interesting and sad at the same time.

Also Nikon pulled there whole repair from him after a million years doing there repairs and took it in house. For him that was hell as he was about one if the biggest Nikon repair shops in the states. Sucks
Yes, quite sad to see what has happened to many of the independent camera dealers. It was hard enough for them to compete with B&H, Adorama etc., but now have to suffer the indignity of big box stores like Best Buy. Many of the advantages they held as a local trusted readily available source of equipment has been washed away by the corporate bottom line of the big camera companies.

Think how many were loyal to the companies they served and now are out of business or hanging on by a thread. Same thing for many excellent professional photographer who no longer are in the trade. Very sad indeed.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top