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!
It is a very sharp lens. But it has yellow/green tint in its color rendering compared with the newer Nikon AF-D 180/2.8 ED-IF.The Nikon 180 2.8 ED Ais is a sharp lens. I had one for several years but moved it out because the focal length doesn't really work for me.
I used the 180/28 Nikkors (all kinds) on film cameras, and was generally very happy with them. Then I tried an ED AIS lens on an Olympus EM-5 and on the M240 and was rather disappointed. In modern terms, it's rather low contrast and a bit soft wide open as well as having CA, and needs stopping down; preferably two stops.
I now use a Cosina/Voiglander 180/4 APO that was made in small numbers until recently. Short of the Apo-Elmarit it's probably the best 180, and is a lot smaller and focusses to 4'. The 180/3.4 Apo is better at infinity (very slightly) but not nearly as good at shorter distances, is a lot bigger and doesn't focus close at all.
In any case, the Nikon 180 ED AIS is rather poor on digital cameras.
Henning
Um, the E-1 has what I have always heard referred to as a fairly strong AA filter. It needs it for the 5Mpixel resolution sensor....
... Since these were shot with the 5 MP Kodak CCD sensor of the E-1, with a fairly weak AA filter, you can think of them as down-sampled 4x from today's sensors. ..
I wish there was an AA filter blog or website that you could rely upon for inside dope on this, since the manufacturers don't seem to want to tell us. The questions of whether software corrections for CA, distortion and whatever else are achieving great MTF curves and Imatest numbers, and at what cost in image integrity, is equally shrouded in mystery.LOL! Apples, oranges, and kumquats!
Um, the E-1 has what I have always heard referred to as a fairly strong AA filter. It needs it for the 5Mpixel resolution sensor.
The E-M1 reputedly has no AA filter on its 16Mpixel sensor.
... None of which says that it had a heavy, a light, or no AA filter. ;-)I wish there was an AA filter blog or website that you could rely upon for inside dope on this, since the manufacturers don't seem to want to tell us. The questions of whether software corrections for CA, distortion and whatever else are achieving great MTF curves and Imatest numbers, and at what cost in image integrity, is equally shrouded in mystery.
When I had an E-1, I did quite a lot of pixel-peeping as I was doing beta testing of Capture One 3 or 4 and later, Raw Shooter (which was sold to Adobe and folded into LightRoom). Images could be sharp or, for small red objects like distant anemone blooms or a field of poppies, maddeningly fuzzy, and I never figured out why. There was frequently mosaic or pattern noise, which Phase One worked hard to get rid of. And Moire.
Kumquats can be tasty.
scott
Is this Leica?Has anyone used both or either of these? I can get either for about the same price and in similar "EX" condition... Just was curious as to haw they compare.
I've had and used both extensively over the years. The Nikkor in this instance proved more pleasing to me.Has anyone used both or either of these? I can get either for about the same price and in similar "EX" condition... Just was curious as to haw they compare.