Photography 35mm

Question:

To the group, Newbie Question I recently shot a Roll of Fuji Reala 100, and just loved the clarity. (My old Run of the mill Kodak Gold 200 is no comparison) Now I know what a 35mm is capable of !!! My question: How/if can I use it at 200 speed? What are the steps? I have a Nikon N65 with DX coding ONLY, but some have said that adjusting exposure values, could provide similar compensation to "pushing". So what do I do? What are the specific steps? In a lower light situation for pushing ISO100 to 200 do I: – Shoot in lower light and adjust the EV + or – 1? – Use the Flash? – How do I develop it?     As Rated? (Tell them nothing?)     Tell them I shot it at + or – 1?     Tell them to compensate + or – 1 Is what I am trying to do even viable? Thanks for any help. Ken

Response:

  You set minus one as your exposure compensation, thus under-exposing by one stop (equivalent of going from a 100 to a 200 speed film) Shoot all shots on the roll with this compensation. If you have to do further compensation, you must remember to re-set to that minus one afterward.     When you have the film processed ask for a "one stop push"  (again from 100 to 200). You should actually check before you shoot and make sure there is a lab in your area that can do this for you. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before  all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To the group, Newbie Question I recently shot a Roll of Fuji Reala 100, and just loved the clarity. (My old Run of the mill Kodak Gold 200 is no comparison) Now I know what a 35mm is capable of !!! My question: How/if can I use it at 200 speed? What are the steps? I have a Nikon N65 with DX coding ONLY, but some have said that adjusting exposure values, could provide similar compensation to "pushing". So what do I do? What are the specific steps? In a lower light situation for pushing ISO100 to 200 do I: – Shoot in lower light and adjust the EV + or – 1? – Use the Flash? – How do I develop it?     As Rated? (Tell them nothing?)     Tell them I shot it at + or – 1?     Tell them to compensate + or – 1 Is what I am trying to do even viable? Thanks for any help. Ken

Response:

Can’t remember if it was in this NG, or in a book or magazine, but, if you just ask for a "1-stop push" you might not get 100 to 200, depending on the lab?   eg. maybe 160, or so? Have you heard of this, or am I thinking of something else? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  You set minus one as your exposure compensation, thus under-exposing by one stop (equivalent of going from a 100 to a 200 speed film) Shoot all shots on the roll with this compensation. If you have to do further compensation, you must remember to re-set to that minus one afterward.    When you have the film processed ask for a "one stop push"  (again from 100 to 200). You should actually check before you shoot and make sure there is a lab in your area that can do this for you.

Response:

My lab seems to do a full stop – but not all films push to the same degree. Sometimes it’s better to expose at less than a full stop under and still process for one stop.    I shoot Elite 200 at 400 and 800 for one and two stop pushes, but many others set it to 320 and 640 for the same push – so the way one meters has a lot to do with it too. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Or thrill to sights you’ve never seen before  all that often Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro’s Home page http://tspadaro.homestead.com/Home.html

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can’t remember if it was in this NG, or in a book or magazine, but, if you just ask for a "1-stop push" you might not get 100 to 200, depending on the lab?   eg. maybe 160, or so? Have you heard of this, or am I thinking of something else?  You set minus one as your exposure compensation, thus under-exposing by one stop (equivalent of going from a 100 to a 200 speed film) Shoot all shots on the roll with this compensation. If you have to do further compensation, you must remember to re-set to that minus one afterward.    When you have the film processed ask for a "one stop push"  (again from 100 to 200). You should actually check before you shoot and make sure there is a lab in your area that can do this for you.

Response:

This intrigues me. I’ve tried many films from Agfa, Kodak, Fuji and Ilford and I find that Kodak Gold 200 works best for me. A few people recommended I should try Fuji Reala, so I did. I really don’t see what the fuss is all about. To me the prints I got from Reala seemed really lifeless. For a 36 exp. film that cost 60% of the cost of 3 rolls of 24 exp. Kodak Gold, I can really say "This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco" to Reala.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To the group, Newbie Question I recently shot a Roll of Fuji Reala 100, and just loved the clarity. (My old Run of the mill Kodak Gold 200 is no comparison) Now I know what a 35mm is capable of !!! My question: How/if can I use it at 200 speed? What are the steps? I have a Nikon N65 with DX coding ONLY, but some have said that adjusting exposure values, could provide similar compensation to "pushing". So what do I do? What are the specific steps? In a lower light situation for pushing ISO100 to 200 do I: – Shoot in lower light and adjust the EV + or – 1? – Use the Flash? – How do I develop it?     As Rated? (Tell them nothing?)     Tell them I shot it at + or – 1?     Tell them to compensate + or – 1 Is what I am trying to do even viable? Thanks for any help. Ken

Response:

       Well, 3 rolls of 24 is 72 exp so all things being equal, which they’re not, Reala should ideally cost only 50% of Gold. However, 1 roll of 24 costs $US 6.99, while 1 roll of 36 costs $US 8.99 to process. So we can subtract the 8.99×2 from 6.99×3 which puts Reala 2.97 into the black. Minus, of course, the actual 10% original cost. Now we come to the tax difference between 3 rolls and 1; but since I don’t believe there is a pencil sharp enough to unravel the mysterys of why they consistantly come out ahead, I’ll just write it off to breakage. Bob Hickey                      PS: Disregard all the above.

Response:

Even on Tuesdays? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –       Well, 3 rolls of 24 is 72 exp so all things being equal, which they’re not, Reala should ideally cost only 50% of Gold. However, 1 roll of 24 costs $US 6.99, while 1 roll of 36 costs $US 8.99 to process. So we can subtract the 8.99×2 from 6.99×3 which puts Reala 2.97 into the black. Minus, of course, the actual 10% original cost. Now we come to the tax difference between 3 rolls and 1; but since I don’t believe there is a pencil sharp enough to unravel the mysterys of why they consistantly come out ahead, I’ll just write it off to breakage. Bob Hickey                      PS: Disregard all the above.

Response:

     No; Tuesday is a far more more complex calculation, as Tuesday is sale day at Target and K-Mart, when it falls on a holiday week. Although the astute shopper will use the 10% discount as an indication of what film people are buying, and buy the other brand. It must be better or it too would be on sale. Note too, the stack of AOL CDs at every checkout counter, promising 14 free days of service, $75 free merchandise if one accepts an absolutely free Target credit card through AOL, which comes, of course, with a free subscription to AOL magazine, and a never ending opportunity to meet new people thru the telemarketing groups buying this information. Life is good. Bob Hickey

Response:

I’ve tried many films from Agfa, Kodak, Fuji and Ilford and I find that Kodak Gold 200 works best for me. A few people recommended I should try Fuji Reala, so I did. I really don’t see what the fuss is all about. To me the prints I got from Reala seemed really lifeless.

What kind of lab and what type of paper? To see the difference between Gold 200 and Reala, you would need to make 8×12 prints.  The difference is very evident in 20×30 enlargements. However Reala is hard for many labs to print.  If you can find an Agfa minilab using Agfa Prestige paper, I can almost guarantee good results. — Boycott talking smegheads, get your daily spin from http://bartcop.com !

Response:

….<cut…. Is what I am trying to do even viable? It may be viable, but I would not want to do it personally.  Only possible reason to do something like this, check that, can’t think of a ‘good’ reason to push Reala to 200(film’s latitude already there)???  MOF, not fond of any 200 speed stuff with so many excellent 400 speed films out there – many rivaling the grain index of 100 speed stuff!  That said, it is helpful if your camera allows you to mid-roll rewind and change film……. Shoot’em up, pushed, pulled, lens cap on, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest will love you for it!! Jim

Response:

What kind of lab and what type of paper?

I think it was a Kodak lab with the Royal Gold paper – but I could be wrong. To see the difference between Gold 200 and Reala, you would need to make 8×12 prints.  The difference is very evident in 20×30 enlargements. However Reala is hard for many labs to print.  If you can find an Agfa minilab using Agfa Prestige paper, I can almost guarantee good results.

Well, thanks for the advice. Maybe I’ll try it again soon. But why would it be difficult for many a lab to print?

Response:

However Reala is hard for many labs to print.  If you can find an Agfa minilab using Agfa Prestige paper, I can almost guarantee good results. Well, thanks for the advice. Maybe I’ll try it again soon. But why would it be difficult for many a lab to print?

Olive negative mask, low contrast, high saturation, Fuji instead of Kodak dyeset, not designed primarily for compatibility with Kodak film channels, etc. — Boycott talking smegheads, get your daily spin from http://bartcop.com !

Response:

Question:

There seem to be some great deals at my local camera shops on older non-AI Nikon lenses.  Some of them look almost new!   Are these of the same high quality as the later models, and if so, why aren’t more people using them with, say, an older used Nikon body?  It would seem that if you don’t care about programmed exposures and AF, this would be a good choice.  Has anyone done this?  I’d be curious about your results and opinions. Jim

Response:

No, in order to mount them on an AI camera you need to have them converted – some expense, time and hassle.  If you don’t you could damage the lens mount on the camera.  Optically the lenses are fine. Try to choose multicoated models. Fred Maplewood Photography

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There seem to be some great deals at my local camera shops on older non-AI Nikon lenses.  Some of them look almost new! Are these of the same high quality as the later models, and if so, why aren’t more people using them with, say, an older used Nikon body? It would seem that if you don’t care about programmed exposures and AF, this would be a good choice.  Has anyone done this?  I’d be curious about your results and opinions. Jim

Response:

Yes.  They are a relative bargain.  Most of the late non-AI lenses were multi-coated (usually a "C" was seen in the front ring designation). Optically, they are on a par with some of the current lenses, with the exception of the telephotos.  With ED glass in the later Nikkors, the earlier Nikkors (in the non-AI range) are not that great. As you suggest, using them on an earlier non-AI Nikon or Nikkormat is a fairly smart choice.  You can still get some of the Nikkors converted to AI but most of the conversion kits have been discontinued and are nearly impossible to find today. My favorite from that era,– the 24mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.5 P.C Dan

Response:

Yes they cost $25 to adapt and mount.  And a week or 10 days shipping both ways.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, in order to mount them on an AI camera you need to have them converted – some expense, time and hassle.  If you don’t you could damage the lens mount on the camera.  Optically the lenses are fine. Try to choose multicoated models. Fred Maplewood Photography There seem to be some great deals at my local camera shops on older non-AI Nikon lenses.  Some of them look almost new! Are these of the same high quality as the later models, and if so, why aren’t more people using them with, say, an older used Nikon body? It would seem that if you don’t care about programmed exposures and AF, this would be a good choice.  Has anyone done this?  I’d be curious about your results and opinions. Jim

Response:

My favorite from that era,– the 24mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.5 P.C

I bought yesterday a AI-modified Nikkor-P 105/2.5, the price was pretty fair. It is in very, very good condition and seem to be build like a tank.   I was told that "P" in the name of the lens is for single coat, and P.C is for multi coat. Am I right? However, I am looking forward to see pictures I shot yesterday!   Jussi

Response:

There seem to be some great deals at my local camera shops on older non-AI Nikon lenses.  Some of them look almost new!

Did you notice any with the old "Passed" sticker which has turned to "Failed" with age? It’s ingenious. Are these of the same high quality as the later models, and if so, why aren’t more people using them with, say, an older used Nikon body?  It would seem that if you don’t care about programmed exposures and AF, this would be a good choice.  Has anyone done this?  I’d be curious about your results and opinions.

My guess is that so many people avoid them because most of the good old Nikon lenses are missing a hyphen. Modernsters are conditioned to buy lenses with "-" in the designation. Zooms. Not all old Nikon lenses were great. You can pick up a 35mm F2 for $50, an adequate lens for a great price. Carefull with the 300mm F4.5. There were a few variations. Old ones can be had for $125, while the ED IF might run you $600 in EX+ condition. The 1000mm reflex lens was generally better (better contrast) than the 500 reflex! It goes on and on. And on. Can you narrow your interest to a few focal lengths so we can make real comments?

Response:

I was told that "P" in the name of the lens is for single coat, and P.C is for multi coat. Am I right?

P stands for "penta-" (five elements).  The "C" indicates Nikon Integrated Coating (multicoating).  So… strictly speaking no, but your conclusions are correct. Other Nikkors, say the 50/2 second version, have different letters (Nikkor-H in this case).  The Nikkor-H is single-coated, -HC multicoated. The first letter could be any of several letters (H, Q, N, S, P being most common). Jim

Response:

The 105mm f/2.5 lens has a P which represents PENTA,–five elements.  The "C" is there to specify the multi-coating. For several years, Nikkor lenses were labeled with the number of elements they contained.  Why, I have no idea.  Perhaps a marketing trick to convince you that more was better.   Dan Lindsay

Response:

There seem to be some great deals at my local camera shops on older non-AI Nikon lenses.  Some of them look almost new!  

I own a few… I bought some and my father bought the rest, They have all been converted to AI and all work well on my N90s. What do I notice…         My 55mm F.35 macro won’t flare no matter what Ido.         My 135m F3.5 while not recognized as a great lens                 still takes some fine shots.         My 28m produces great shots.         I can’t see the aperature in the view finder         My old converted non-AI’s show incredible resolution,         sharp   ness adn contreast.  Some my current model         zooms flair if the sun is even slightly near the center of the photo.

Response:

Question:

Hello, I’ve been looking at purchasing an extra wide angle lens for my K1000. I already have a Cosina 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/1.7 & a 70-210mm. I have been using the 28mm alot but really would like something abit wider for those landscape shots that i like to do. I’ve been looking at the Vivitar Wide Angle 24mm/f2.8 from B&H for ~US$80.00. Has anyone tried this lens, or better still are there any reviews on it? tia

Response:

i’ve uesed the MF version b4….. it’s really worth trying for its low cost while still give u very acceptable quality! but personally i believe u wont find much difference between the 24mm and the 28mm… so i suggest u go something like 20mm or less i’ve also tried the vivitar 19mm/f3.5 MF, but this lens is quite disappointing in terms of color and contrast…. its ok when performing in bright light condition but really disappoints me when the light is dim…. so i sold both of them and bought the expensive nikkor 20mm/f2.8. this lens offers better color and contrast with less distortion(but anyway there’re still some). to be honest i dont feel it worths 4 times the vivitar….. maybe u can try the tokina 17mm where i havent tested it myself. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I’ve been looking at purchasing an extra wide angle lens for my K1000. I already have a Cosina 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/1.7 & a 70-210mm. I have been using the 28mm alot but really would like something abit wider for those landscape shots that i like to do. I’ve been looking at the Vivitar Wide Angle 24mm/f2.8 from B&H for ~US$80.00. Has anyone tried this lens, or better still are there any reviews on it? tia

Response:

. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I’ve been looking at purchasing an extra wide angle lens for my K1000. I already have a Cosina 28mm/f2.8, 50mm/1.7 & a 70-210mm. I have been using the 28mm alot but really would like something abit wider for those landscape shots that i like to do. I’ve been looking at the Vivitar Wide Angle 24mm/f2.8 from B&H for ~US$80.00. Has anyone tried this lens, or better still are there any reviews on it? tia

. . Why limit yourself to one focal length? The Vivitar 17mm-28mm f/4-4.5 ~US$100.00-130.00 (used) or Series 1 19-35mm f/3.5

Question:

hi! i’m in need of a little assistance. i was buying my first SLR camera back in early march. i picked out broadway photo out of the march issue of popular photography. you can read all about what happened from my earlier post at http://www.photoshopper.com/forum/35mm/30811.html. the bottom line is that they pulled a bait and switch on me a few minutes before the closed and i figured out they were trying to sell me crappier lens for more after i got off the phone. i called back to change my order immediately the following morning and was told my order already shipped (i found out later that was a lie). they told me to "take it easy" and call back on monday and to "give the camera a try, you’ll love it!" i was smart enought to take advice from a newsgroup and refused shipment on the package. unfortunately, the company is trying to stick me with about $60 worth of shipping and restocking fees. i contested the charge with my credit card company, but they said there isn’t anything they can do and that "the merchant is under no obligation to credit shipping, handling, and/or restocking fees when orders are returned or canceled." i thought that they would not bill me because of the "bait and switch." now what do i do? i just filed a complaint with the new york city consumer affairs office. i thought i might also write popular photography and try to get them to put pressure on broadway photography to refund my shipping and restocking fees. do you have any other ideas? anyone out there familiar with new york consumer law? i’m no lawyer, but according to the law at http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/ny/nycl.html, i should be able to not owe the company anything. any help or suggestions is most appreciated. i’m avowed to fight this matter until the bloody end! john

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Don’t forget to run this up the chain of command at the credit card company. There are way too many credit card companies that want your business to settle with one that does not service you when you need it.  Good luck. Your credit card company are the ones not backing you here and they should. Put in a letter exactly what happened, including the conversations in the initial order to Broadway, the subsequent callback to cancel, and include time and date of everything and send it to the credit card company and copy to Broadway Camera and a copy to Consumer Affairs.  If you did not accept and verify terms with Broadway Camera and especially if they truly lied about the shipping then you had every right to refuse shipment and any good credit card company should protect you. Good advice. Detail the trasnactions clearly and do it chronologically. Then send it registered or certified (i.e. a signed receipt) with copies to Broadway, Popular Photography and your local consumer office. Pierre  And the New York State District Attorney’s office "Consumer Fraud

department. — Digital Photo restoration in Chapel Hill N.C. http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony   NEW — The Teleconverter Page  &           The Night Gallery Before you buy.

Response:

Don’t forget to run this up the chain of command at the credit card company. There are way too many credit card companies that want your business to settle with one that does not service you when you need it.  Good luck.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Your credit card company are the ones not backing you here and they should. Put in a letter exactly what happened, including the conversations in the initial order to Broadway, the subsequent callback to cancel, and include time and date of everything and send it to the credit card company and copy to Broadway Camera and a copy to Consumer Affairs.  If you did not accept and verify terms with Broadway Camera and especially if they truly lied about the shipping then you had every right to refuse shipment and any good credit card company should protect you. Good advice. Detail the trasnactions clearly and do it chronologically. Then send it registered or certified (i.e. a signed receipt) with copies to Broadway, Popular Photography and your local consumer office. Pierre

Response:

i contested the charge with my credit card company, but they said there isn’t anything they can do and that "the merchant is under no obligation to credit shipping, handling, and/or restocking fees when orders are returned or canceled." i thought that they would not bill me because of the "bait and switch."

You played this card badly. Luckily, you can play it again! "I did not authorize this charge." If everyone does this, these scum go away. Earl F.

Response:

Your credit card company are the ones not backing you here and they should. Put in a letter exactly what happened, including the conversations in the initial order to Broadway, the subsequent callback to cancel, and include time and date of everything and send it to the credit card company and copy to Broadway Camera and a copy to Consumer Affairs.  If you did not accept and verify terms with Broadway Camera and especially if they truly lied about the shipping then you had every right to refuse shipment and any good credit card company should protect you.

Good advice. Detail the trasnactions clearly and do it chronologically. Then send it registered or certified (i.e. a signed receipt) with copies to Broadway, Popular Photography and your local consumer office. Pierre

Response:

Question:

 desperate for a zoom?? try the 28-105 – it lies mid way in the price/quality scale – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,      I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that).  My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with.  I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc.  But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead?  It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality,etc will be very much appreciated!! * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.  Smart is Beautiful

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Deckard, All lenses involve compromises.  Primes are optically superior, lightweight, fast and relatively inexpensive, but they are limited to one focal length.  Zooms are more versatile, but they are heavier, slower and more expensive. Personally, I prefer fast prime lenses, and I also believe that wide angle is generally more useful than telephoto.  Hence, my recommendation would be the Nikkor 35mm/f2, which can be gotten relatively cheaply. This is a moderate wide angle lens which can be used for a broad range of photographic purposes ranging from travel to portraits (not too close.)  As you mature, you can add other primes or even zooms to your collection, but I am confident that you will love the 35/2 once you learn how to see with it.

this is good reasoning for a beginner……

Response:

For what it’s worth, I started off with a 28-105 and 75-300.  They weren’t very expensive for my Canon A2, and I ended up paying something near $1100 a few years back.  I like to shoot motorcycle events, which I mostly use the 75-300 lens.  To do indoor shots of people, I just picked up a Sigma 105mm Macro lens, which is very nice. I will say that unless you have the time to "frame up" your shot, a zoom would likely be your best bet to start off with.  Posed pictures are best for a fixed lens, but quick, "grab the moment" pictures are tough.

Response:

Deckard, All lenses involve compromises.  Primes are optically superior, lightweight, fast and relatively inexpensive, but they are limited to one focal length.  Zooms are more versatile, but they are heavier, slower and more expensive. Personally, I prefer fast prime lenses, and I also believe that wide angle is generally more useful than telephoto.  Hence, my recommendation would be the Nikkor 35mm/f2, which can be gotten relatively cheaply. This is a moderate wide angle lens which can be used for a broad range of photographic purposes ranging from travel to portraits (not too close.)  As you mature, you can add other primes or even zooms to your collection, but I am confident that you will love the 35/2 once you learn how to see with it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that). My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with. I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc. But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm. Likewise you won’t be able to get some shots you’d like with the zoom, either. There is no such thing as a universal lens. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead? It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me. As a rule of thumb, for good sharpness, you should stop down at least 2 stops from max aperture. That puts you at f11. In sunlight, with ISO 100 film, that gives an exposure of 1/250 second. Perfectly adequate for bright sunny days, and you can still open up a stop or so. But on a cloudy day, or indoors using available light, an f5.6 zoom is very marginal. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality, etc will be very much appreciated!! It seems you understand the issues. There’s no question that I’d prefer the 50mm 1.8, but others would have different preferences. If you don’t get the 50mm right away, I’d put it on the short list of things to buy soon (if nothing else, try borrow one for a quick peek through the viewfinder — notice how bright it is, and how things snap in and out of focus so clearly). It’s very inexpensive and very high quality — such a bargain! —

Before you buy.

Response:

I like your choices except I would substitute the Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens.  This is a good lens that’s brighter than the one your looking at. Also more expensive, I believe. I have this lens in my camera bag along with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, and I’ve been completely happy with both. Depending on your budget, you could start with the 35-70mm as your sole lens since the range includes 50mm.  Then you can buy a 50mm prime lens later if you feel you need one. Bill Welch – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,       I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that).  My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with.  I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc.  But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead?  It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality,etc will be very much appreciated!! * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find

related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.  Smart is Beautiful —

Response:

Hello,       I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that).  My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with.  I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc.  But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm.

Likewise you won’t be able to get some shots you’d like with the zoom, either.  There is no such thing as a universal lens. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead?  It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me.

As a rule of thumb, for good sharpness, you should stop down at least 2 stops from max aperture.  That puts you at f11.  In sunlight, with ISO 100 film, that gives an exposure of 1/250 second.  Perfectly adequate for bright sunny days, and you can still open up a stop or so.  But on a cloudy day, or indoors using available light, an f5.6 zoom is very marginal. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality, etc will be very much appreciated!!

It seems you understand the issues.  There’s no question that I’d prefer the 50mm 1.8, but others would have different preferences.  If you don’t get the 50mm right away, I’d put it on the short list of things to buy soon (if nothing else, try borrow one for a quick peek through the viewfinder — notice how bright it is, and how things snap in and out of focus so clearly).  It’s very inexpensive and very high quality — such a bargain! –Rich

Response:

    You have the right idea about the lenses, the problem is you have answered your own question.  Now you need to decide.  Personally from what you have said about yourself and your plans for photography, I would suggest the zoom.  You may be able to make up the speed loss with faster film for now and if you find you need more speed then you can go with a 50 mm 1.4, even faster.  For day to day use the zoom should do just fine. Joe M 26 + 6 = 1 – It’s Irish math

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello,      I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that).  My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with.  I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc.  But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead?  It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality,etc will be very much appreciated!!

The 50mm is a lot faster but the 28-80 is more flexible for snapshots. If your budget’s tight, why do you want an N70?  See my other post about the FM10.  For $199.95 you get an all-manual camera with an admittedly slow 35-70.  You can add a 50/1.8 to that and still have spent less than you’d spend on the N70 body with no lens at all.

Response:

Hello,       I’m thinking of taking up photography as an outlet for creativity instead of just point-and-shooting (although there’s nothing wrong with that).  My budget’s pretty tight but I’ve got enough for a Nikon N70 and was wondering what might be the best lens to start with.  I’ve read that it’s wiser to begin with a 50mm 1.8 since it’s fast and the normal degree is good to get a rough idea on composition,etc.  But there’s the worry that I’ll not be able to get some of the shots I’d like with just a 50mm. So should I get a zoom 28-80mmD F/3.5-5.6 instead?  It’ll offer greater flexibility but 5.6 sounds a tad slow to me. Any advice on which of the 2 lenses to get, their relative picture quality,etc will be very much appreciated!! * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.  Smart is Beautiful

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Quels sont les meilleures marques d’appareils photographiques

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I always would to know why Olympus, a great camera maker with good reputation with your Zuiko lenses, failed in the AF SLR market… I believe the OM-30 actually came before the OM-4Ti and OM-3Ti, chronologically. As for AF, it seems that since Olympus didn’t have the patents and thus they started behind Minolta (and Nikon).  Trouble was, there were too many makers of 35mm cameras and not enough buyers!  Wisely, I think, they decided to stay making money in line with their expertise, namely making things small and good.  They have tried to make their niche with the ‘ZLR’ after Yashica gave up on it.  They do seem to have found their mark with making digital cameras, though. -dan Olympus may have failed with AF in the OM system, but I would certainly not call what they have achieved with the IS system a failure. Check out http://www.veluwen.demon.nl/om-sif/is-series/is-series.htm to see for yourself. Per Nordenberg

        I agree with you! I know the IS line and I think that is a great success in design and performance.         But I don

Question:

Current issue of Outdoor Photography was very favorable on this camera. I am thinking of it as my "landscape" camera. As opposed to going with a wide angle 35MM lens (such as the 17-35 Canon) I am thinking that this will take "truer" wide angle pictures. Also, getting Panoramic is a plus. Any comments?

Response:

Current issue of Outdoor Photography was very favorable on this camera. I am thinking of it as my "landscape" camera. As opposed to going with a wide angle 35MM lens (such as the 17-35 Canon) I am thinking that this will take "truer" wide angle pictures. Also, getting Panoramic is a plus. Any comments?

The XPan is a curious camera. I’ve owned one for a few months now and have both liked and disliked it. The good things are: 1) The ability to mix normal and panoramic frames is excellent. I used the XPan as the only 35mm camera on my trip to the Southwest USA in April and felt like having two focal lengths with just the one 45mm lens I had. Also, you get (sort of a) medium format quality with a relativity small camera, whenever you want it. 2) I have been surprised that with the XPan I can take hand-held shots with much longer shutter speeds than with a SLR camera. I’ve even taken 1/8 sec hand-held shots with it and managed to keep them sharp. The lack of mirror flap really seems to make a difference (or maybe its the heaviness of the XPan that also helps). 3) I found the rangefinder focusing to the much better what I had anticipated. It seems that my focusing accuracy it better (compared to a SLR matte screen/split prism focusing), especially at long distances. The bringthness of the viewfinder helps also here. However, there are also some shortcomings: 1) When using the 45mm lens in the panoramic mode, the light fall-off on the sides of the image is noticeable and you’ll need to buy and use the centre filter that eats one stop of the lens’ speed. This means you’ll have an effective speed of f5,6 as the fastest aperture you can use. 2) In my opinion Hasselblad made a big mistake in not including the shutter speed in the viewfinder. The metered shutter speed is indicated only on the back panel LCD. This means that when I take a photo, I need to press the shutter release button halfway to take a reading, keep the button halfway pressed, look the back panel LCD for shutter speed and if it’s too long for me to hold, change to aperture and redo the whole thing (if I’m not willing to figure out the new shutter speed in my head). This makes it difficult to use the camera for quick shots, unless the lighting conditions are well known in beforehand. Anyway, it seems to be a great camera and the panoramic image format stirs you mind to think you subjects in a new way. I have two pictures taken with the XPan on my webpage, the first one can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/8943/p114.html) and the second one is right next to it. They are both taken without the correcting centre filter (you’ll see the darkening in the corners due to the light fall-off).     -Mikko Oksalahti

Response:

The sun ray photo #3 is awesome! The rest are great too! GW. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have two pictures taken with the XPan on my webpage, the first one can be found here (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/8943/p114.html) and the second one is right next to it. They are both taken without the correcting centre filter (you’ll see the darkening in the corners due to the light fall-off).     -Mikko Oksalahti

Response:

Kevin, Remember than when in panoramic mode the XPan is a wide-format camera, not a wide-angle camera. I have an XPan and am working on a review for a major magazine.  So far I’m a very satified user. Have a a look at my web and follow the links, for some comments and XPan pictures. Michael

Response:

Current issue of Outdoor Photography was very favorable on this camera. I am thinking of it as my "landscape" camera. As opposed to going with a wide angle 35MM lens (such as the 17-35 Canon) I am thinking that this will take "truer" wide angle pictures. Also, getting Panoramic is a plus. Any comments?

How about a Fuji GWS690III medium format camera instead?  It will give you a negative about 85mm wide.  You can crop off the top and bottom and still end up with a larger negative than the XPan.  The Fuji has a 65mm lens (equivalent to a 28mm on a 35mm camera).  The XPan has a 45mm lens, but only produces a neg 65mm wide.  The Fuji also costs much less, and you get the bonus of a full 6×9cm negative (about 6x larger than 35mm) when you don’t want a panoramic shot.  Downside: no meter in the Fuji and no interchangeable lenses.  However, you could buy the GW690III (90mm lens) and the GWS690III and a light meter and have no more money tied up than the XPan with both lenses. BTW, the XPan is made by Fuji. RR

Response:

I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the Hassey SWCM and the Xpan.   The Xpan with its 45mm lens on a 66mm wide format must be close to the 38mm lens on the 55mm wide frame.  My question is the Xpan image close to the SWCM image it were cropped in the same ratio? Joe McCary

Response:

Question:

[] The hood is a two section screw-on BUT even with just the wide angle [] section, Nikon only specifies use with 35mm  and longer lenses.   So if you [] plan to use the polarizer hood only with a 20 or 24 or 28, don’t buy it. Yeah, I’ve seen this hood.  Heh, I find myself picturing what an effective lens hood might look like that would work on a 20mm, but flare out from 72mm.   It could be as wide as the camera… [] Also, don’t plan to stack the polarizer with other filters on a wide angle [] lens or you will have vignetting problems. Is this true even with the Nikon stepping-up filter (from 62 to 72 mm)? Chris — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think,  all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the  friends I want to see." — John Burroughs [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

You can verify yourself.  Go outside on a nice blue-sky day.  Look at the sky through your filter at right angles to the sun’s position.  Now try it closer or further from the sun’s position.  The darkening of the blue is much more noticeable at 90 degrees to the sun’s position.  The 20 is so wide some of the areas could appear darker than others. wes jansen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m in the same boat. I’ve read all of the other replies, but have a completely different scenario to offer (NEW INFO: PLEASE READ) The paperwork that came with my Nikon 62mm polarizer (which steps up to 72mm) does *not* claim vignetting with the Nikkor AF 20mm 2.8D lens. There’s a list of lenses that it will cause vignetting and this isn’t on it. The paperwork DOES however say that the filter should not be used with this lens.  When I queried my retailer, he said that it’s because the lens is simply too wide to get full coverage from the filter. In other words, the angle of view captures more of the scene than filter can affect. As an example, he said that if you had sky across your entire frame and you set the filter to darken the sky as close to the middle as you can, you would see areas to each side that are un-affected. Can someone verify this?   I’m trying to evaluated it as soon as possible so that I can still return it for a full refund/exchange, and I haven’t had a chance to shoot a roll with it yet. [] Dear Friends, [] [] I recently baught a Polarizing FIlter for the above lens (on my F5), [] because of the potential benefits for landscape shots, etc. However, in the [] manual of the filter, NIkon states, that a Polarizing Filter creates [] "vignetting" on the 20 mm lens. [] [] Does anybody have experience, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really [] is ? [] Does it make sense  to use the filter after all ? [] [] Thanks for your valued comments, [] [] Thomas from Singapore [] — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the friends I want to see." — John Burroughs [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

I think I’ve already answered this question but I’ll have at it again.  The amount of polarized light in the sky is dependent on the angle between the Sun and you.  As you get closer to 90 degrees from the sun the polarizer will have a greater effect.  As you move further away from 90 degrees it will have less.  If you have a wide angle of coverage you’ll get a varied amount of polarized light filtration simply because you’re taking in a lot of sky at varying angles to the Sun.  You should see the effect of a polarizer on my Nikkor 18mm.  It’s as though half the sky is darker than the other half and you can move the dark half anywhere in the frame you like by just swinging the camera.  Polarizers aren’t a great idea with ultrawides.  I rarely use polarizers to darken the sky and never with ultrawides. It’s not the fault of the filter or the lens.  It’s the nature of optics. Fred Maplewood Photography http://www.maplewoodphoto.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I’m in the same boat. I’ve read all of the other replies, but have a completely different scenario to offer (NEW INFO: PLEASE READ) The paperwork that came with my Nikon 62mm polarizer (which steps up to 72mm) does *not* claim vignetting with the Nikkor AF 20mm 2.8D lens. There’s a list of lenses that it will cause vignetting and this isn’t on it. The paperwork DOES however say that the filter should not be used with this lens.  When I queried my retailer, he said that it’s because the lens is simply too wide to get full coverage from the filter. In other words, the angle of view captures more of the scene than filter can affect. As an example, he said that if you had sky across your entire frame and you set the filter to darken the sky as close to the middle as you can, you would see areas to each side that are un-affected. Can someone verify this?   I’m trying to evaluated it as soon as possible so that I can still return it for a full

refund/exchange, and I haven’t had a chance to shoot a roll with it yet. [] Dear Friends, [] [] I recently baught a Polarizing FIlter for the above lens (on my F5), [] because of the potential benefits for landscape shots,

etc. However, in the – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -[] manual of the filter, NIkon states, that a Polarizing Filter creates [] "vignetting" on the 20 mm lens. [] [] Does anybody have experience, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really [] is ? [] Does it make sense  to use the filter after all ? [] [] Thanks for your valued comments, [] [] Thomas from Singapore [] — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the friends I want to see." — John Burroughs

.. [These opinions are personal views only and only my

personal views]

Response:

        [...] [] I have used the Nikon 62mm Polarizing Filter with no problems at all.  This [] filter is larger and requires it’s own hood (HN-26 I believe).   Rich, is that lens hood a screw-on or slip-on? [] I have never [] tried stacking it on another filter.  It used alone you will not have any [] vignetting problems. The thing that peeves me is that the Nikon documentation insert that comes in the box is very light on information. It says not to use it with the AF 20mm 2.8D but not why. It doesn’t list the mm dimensions of the outside (as far as I could find).  It doesn’t list compatible accessories such as lens hoods and it does not talk about screwing other filters on (though it does have inside threads on the front of the filter for doing just that).  Lastly, for $150 (discounted), you think it could have come with a lens cap, something that Nikon asks another $15 for.  Sheesh. Chris — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think,  all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the  friends I want to see." — John Burroughs [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

I’m in the same boat. I’ve read all of the other replies, but have a completely different scenario to offer (NEW INFO: PLEASE READ) The paperwork that came with my Nikon 62mm polarizer (which steps up to 72mm) does *not* claim vignetting with the Nikkor AF 20mm 2.8D lens. There’s a list of lenses that it will cause vignetting and this isn’t on it. The paperwork DOES however say that the filter should not be used with this lens.  When I queried my retailer, he said that it’s because the lens is simply too wide to get full coverage from the filter. In other words, the angle of view captures more of the scene than filter can affect. As an example, he said that if you had sky across your entire frame and you set the filter to darken the sky as close to the middle as you can, you would see areas to each side that are un-affected. Can someone verify this?   I’m trying to evaluated it as soon as possible so that I can still return it for a full refund/exchange, and I haven’t had a chance to shoot a roll with it yet. [] Dear Friends, [] [] I recently baught a Polarizing FIlter for the above lens (on my F5), [] because of the potential benefits for landscape shots, etc. However, in the [] manual of the filter, NIkon states, that a Polarizing Filter creates [] "vignetting" on the 20 mm lens. [] [] Does anybody have experience, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really [] is ? [] Does it make sense  to use the filter after all ? [] [] Thanks for your valued comments, [] [] Thomas from Singapore [] — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think,  all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the  friends I want to see." — John Burroughs [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

The hood is a two section screw-on BUT even with just the wide angle section, Nikon only specifies use with 35mm  and longer lenses.   So if you plan to use the polarizer hood only with a 20 or 24 or 28, don’t buy it. Also, don’t plan to stack the polarizer with other filters on a wide angle lens or you will have vignetting problems. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] [] I have used the Nikon 62mm Polarizing Filter with no problems at all. This [] filter is larger and requires it’s own hood (HN-26 I believe). Rich, is that lens hood a screw-on or slip-on? [] I have never [] tried stacking it on another filter.  It used alone you will not have any [] vignetting problems. The thing that peeves me is that the Nikon documentation insert that comes in the box is very light on information. It says not to use it with the AF 20mm 2.8D but not why. It doesn’t list the mm dimensions of the outside (as far as I could find).  It doesn’t list compatible accessories such as lens hoods and it does not talk about screwing other filters on (though it does have inside threads on the front of the filter for doing just that).  Lastly, for $150 (discounted), you think it could have come with a lens cap, something that Nikon asks another $15 for.  Sheesh. Chris — "I still find each day too short for all the thoughts I want to think, all the walks I want to take, all the books I want to read and all the friends I want to see." — John Burroughs [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really is ?

Take your camera and lens to store and try it..If you have to ,get a next size larger polarizar and a step up adaptor.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Friends, I recently baught a Polarizing FIlter for the above lens (on my F5), because of the potential benefits for landscape shots, etc. However, in the manual of the filter, NIkon states, that a Polarizing Filter creates "vignetting" on the 20 mm lens. Does anybody have experience, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really is ? Does it make sense  to use the filter after all ? Thanks for your valued comments,

I have used the Nikon 62mm Polarizing Filter with no problems at all.  This filter is larger and requires it’s own hood (HN-26 I believe).  I have never tried stacking it on another filter.  It used alone you will not have any vignetting problems. Rich

Response:

I own a Nikon 20 mm f2.8 and I use a Vivitra thin polarizer without any vigneting and it has a good price. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dear Friends, I recently baught a Polarizing FIlter for the above lens (on my F5), because of the potential benefits for landscape shots, etc. However, in the manual of the filter, NIkon states, that a Polarizing Filter creates "vignetting" on the 20 mm lens. Does anybody have experience, how severe this phenomen "vignetting" really is ? Does it make sense  to use the filter after all ? Thanks for your valued comments, Thomas from Singapore What do the pictures look like?

– Fernando Ortega Intentia Consulting S.A. Albacete, 1  3

Question:

I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them! Kevin

Response:

I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them. What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them. I just checked Photodo and the 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 is rated at 3.3

No, you made a mistake. It’s the Canon EF 100-300 5.6 which is rated 3.3

Response:

I do thinkk someone got my point

Response:

We will all defend our purchases, but in answer to "Who makes the best 35mm lenses?"  I first have to know if you mean lenses for 35mm cameras, or 35mm focal length lenses.  I assume you mean the former.  IF so, I’d say Zeiss do, closely followed by Leitz, then Nikon.  However, as the two German offerings cost a LOT more than the Nikkors, I’d say the Nikkors do when the value for money is added.  Nikkors are only slightly behind in sharpness, but offer higher acutance.     I’ve used Zeiss lenses, and yes, they are very good, but I wasn’t impressed with how much better then the Nikkors they were, so I chose to stay with Nikon.  Plus, Nikon have some bitching cameras to go with their lenses – Contax and Leica do not.  They’re well built, and certainly quality merchandise, but they’re outclassed by the performance of the Nikon bodies. I trust in technology and progress, and so do Nikon. David.

Response:

[] Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars.   WRONG PAL!  I think that "greatest" will create more wars than "best" hands down!

WRONG.  I think that "WRONG" creates more wars than "best" or "greatest". Randy Given http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc

Response:

I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them!

I use only gravitational lenses — and they are expensive! Randy Given http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc

Response:

I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them! I use only gravitational lenses — and they are expensive!

But the resolution! Ah, the resolution!

Response:

|No. Leica is the best. There are mystical differences between Zeiss |and Leica. You may not be able to see these differences in a mere |photograph, but they are there on a higher, spiritual level. | |Richard S. | I own some Nikkor glass, some Ziess glass and some Leica glass ( and a cheap pair of reading glasses from Costco!)  For my money (and believe me I have put plenty into glass), Ziess glass is equal to Leica glass. Both are supurb lens makers.  And as for Leica being above Ziess when comparing BEYOND mere photographs, right, believe that and I have a bridge I am offering in NYC! Joe McCary

Response:

I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them.

Response:

I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them. What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them.

I just checked Photodo and the 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 is rated at 3.3

Response:

Good, objective, non-inflamatory, and (almost accurate! Olympus: They have retreated to a more limited presence outside of Japan for 35mm slr’s. They are especially good for macro photography and some special lenses (200/2.0 for example).

It’s a 250/2. They also have a 350/2.8, and a world-class 180/2 that was chosen by NASA as the best lens to take abord the shuttle. Also world-class is the Zuiko 24mm shift and their 21/2. I believe the latter is the fastest super-wide available in any mount. In the slower speed, their 21/3.5 is considered by one tester to be the best performing Zuiko, equal to the best German glass. For depth of macro offerings, Olympus is unmatched, with a total of eleven available lenses, eight of which are currently in production, not to mention tons of support do-dads, such as telecsoping tubes, bellows, copiers, stages, illuminators, and four TTL macro flash systems, all with built-in modelling lighting. The three discontinued macro lenses (all bellows mount) can be had very reasonably. Finally, they make a 500/8 reflex lens that can be had for $650 or so, that tested second only to the $2,000 Questar. The people who have them love them, not not that many new people are getting into this system…

And those who love them will discourage new people from getting into Olympus — they don’t want the competition! I got into Olympus over 20 years ago for their (lack of) size/weight, and the breadth of their macro offerings, and I’m still expanding my system. Olympus is not dead! Taking out a second mortgage for a Zuiko 350/2.8, I’m… — : Jan Steinman — Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com : Spammers: please add: : to your list — he threatened me for forwarding him your : spam with a protest against his pro-spam bill, so I’m sure : he’d love to hear from you all!

Response:

I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them.

What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them.

Response:

Marc, You are right, of course. My point was that one person’s idea of a good lens is not the same as an other person’s, and therefore that testing and looking at actual results is required in order to get a valid idea. In this case, the 2.8 aperture may or may not be considered useful by different photographers depending on what their priorities are. You are right that the Contax lens is an f:4.0 (I thought that was clear). It is also significantly less expensive than the Canon lens (which I did not mention). My point in mentioning the shape of MTF curves was (and still is) to show how different lenses (and lens lines) have different characteristics which often require going into more detail than just one number can provide. As we (probably) both know, photographers, equipment junkies and retail store clerks will almost always describe the more expensive lenses as "razor sharp." To me those two words are not descriptive enough to justify spending hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars on a lens (especially when it applies equally to several lenses). I need to know how that "sharpness" will look in the final product, meaning in pictures that may end up on my walls. I also need to know about contrast, distortion, flare control, build quality, manufacturer support, size and weight, colour casts, quality control, and a host of other important parameters. I was trying to explain to the original poster to trust his actual judgement instead of gossip, and to look at his own needs instead of what others will tell him that he needs. If the poster is really interested in getting into the system with "the best 35mm lenses", he/she should first try to find out what "the best" means in this particular case, and then look at what the different systems have to offer based on those criteria. I think that I made it clear that all of the major brands have persuasive arguments that make them "the best" if your needs match up well with the design parameters of the system. Bernard

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bernard, I went to Photodo to look at those tests.  What I saw was that the Canon fell off, the waterfall effect, at f/2.8.  At f/8 it looked pretty good.  The Contax was unable to reach an aperture of f/2.8.  Maybe it was defective.  Or maybe it was only supposed to reach f/4 at maximum. So I looked at the rated MTF figures for these lenses at f/4. 80mm The Canon was given an overall rating of 4.1.  The Contax was given a 3.8. Marc Notes:  Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me.  As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard

Response:

Bernard, I went to Photodo to look at those tests.  What I saw was that the Canon fell off, the waterfall effect, at f/2.8.  At f/8 it looked pretty good.  The Contax was unable to reach an aperture of f/2.8.  Maybe it was defective.  Or maybe it was only supposed to reach f/4 at maximum. So I looked at the rated MTF figures for these lenses at f/4. 80mm The Canon was given an overall rating of 4.1.  The Contax was given a 3.8. Marc – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Notes:  Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me.  As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard

Response:

What if there are ten companies that make "best" lenses, are you gonna buy from them all?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i’m looking for a new 35mm system.  i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body.  who makes the best?  contax has been suggested to me.  is this a good choice?

Response:

i’m looking for a new 35mm system.  i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body.  who makes the best?  contax has been suggested to me.  is this a good choice?

You have asked the type of question that starts long pointless threads where people will simply tell you that whatever they have spent their money on is "the best". I will try to help you out a little without offending too many people. First of all, all of the major camera makers (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Contax, Leica, Olympus) try to have a least a few "world-class" lenses in their systems. The problem is often finding out which ones those lenses are. You can often go by price (the most expensive lenses in any system are bound to be very good), but that doesn’t help you out much if you are not looking for premium-type lenses. For instance, if you want a 28/2.8 (which every system should offer), it doesn’t help you to know that Canon offers a very expensive 17-35mm "L" zoom. It may help you too have a look at a sight such as http://www.photodo.com , where many lenses are tested, to get an idea for how the various brands stack up. Here is a brief overview: Canon: Very good for photojournalist-type stuff. They have some of the best fast zooms and some very fast primes, usually identified with an "L". Their consumer stuff is nothing special (good but not great). Have a reputation for being much sharper in the centre than the corners. Autofocus only. Nikon: Similar lineup to Canon’s. They have a manual focus line as well as autofocus. The manual focus are generally the professional-oriented lenses (workhorses), which means that any lens that is available in manual focus should also be good in autofocus. They do sell some unexceptional low-end zooms, but most of their lenses are good. Auto and manual focus. Minolta/Pentax: both of these brands are less popular in North America and Europe at this time, as far as the high-end stuff is concerned. Again, avoid the low-end zooms and you can do alright. Minolta: autofocus. Pentax: auto and manual. Contax: Zeiss-made lenses. They don’t have any low-end lenses in their lineup, so you can’t go too far wrong. Have a reputation with being very expensive, but if you stick with the more common lenses, they are comparable with the other brands (the 28, 35, 50, 85, and 135 are all reasonable). The zooms are exceptional, but you do pay the price. The possible exception to this would be the new 28-70 which is cheaper (not cheap), but may not be outstanding. Are known for good sharpness/contrast corner to corner. Limited availability of "exotic" lenses ( 300mm, wide zoom, etc). Manual focus only (except for one AF body which offers limited AF with all lenses). Leica: They try to make each of their lenses the best that can be made, and they may very well be "the best". Buying into Leica is more expensive that the other brands. Other than that, their lineup is similar to Contax. Manual focus only. Olympus: They have retreated to a more limited presence outside of Japan for 35mm slr’s. They are especially good for macro photography and some special lenses (200/2.0 for example). The people who have them love them, not not that many new people are getting into this system. Manual focus only. In order to make a decision as to which is the "best" system to get into, you will have to do at least two things: First of all look at your own needs. Do you think that you will be getting extreme lenses (very long or wide) or are you more interested in the more common range? Are you going to get zooms or primes or both? Do you want the fastest lenses, or are you going to be stopping down anyways? Do you want or need autofocus? Are you looking for optical quality or mechanical quality, or both? You may be able to rule out some of the systems that way. Second, go to stores and have a look at the lenses. Go to the used section and see how they hold up. Some things you can only know by having the product in your hands. For example, I have heard some people compare using the latest Nikon 50/1.4 AF to "going to the dentist," while other people have no problem there. Nobody can know that but you. You should also talk to other photographers and see what they think. Everybody will defend their own system, so don’t let them fool you. Look at their pictures if they tell you that they are "razor sharp". Coming from 4×5, you should have a much different idea of what is sharp than the average 35mm person. Let yor own eyes be the judge, rather than someone else’s opinion. If you can, try to rent or borrow some cameras and lenses once you have a short list. You should, at the very least, be able to take a quick roll in the store, although that may not have much relevance as to how you will be using the lenses. Notes:  Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me.  As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard

Response:

Who makes best 35mm lenses??

sakar Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace       Black and White Photography

Response:

i’m looking for a new 35mm system.  i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body.  who makes the best?  contax has been suggested to me.  is this a good choice?

No. Leica is the best. There are mystical differences between Zeiss and Leica. You may not be able to see these differences in a mere photograph, but they are there on a higher, spiritual level. Richard S.

Response:

For me its Nikkor. George……

Response:

Any package consisting of Zeiss optics is a good choice. George……

Response:

For me, nothing but glass. The plastic ones just never yield the right results.

Response:

Go to http://www.photodo.com/ and find out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For me, nothing but glass. The plastic ones just never yield the right results.

Response:

[] Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars.   WRONG PAL!  I think that "greatest" will create more wars than "best" hands down! Chris   :-p —- "In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an  invincible summer."  - Albert Camus [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]

Response:

i’m looking for a new 35mm system.  i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body.  who makes the best?  contax has been suggested to me.  is this a good choice?

Response:

Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i’m looking for a new 35mm system.  i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body.  who makes the best?  contax has been suggested to me.  is this a good choice?

Response: