When shooting as a stringer back in the 1970's, I used a Nikkor 105 f/2.5 as a "standard" lens. I always shot Tri-X @ 2 stops over, and the focal length let me stay back a bit, and not crowd the scene. I'd like to find the f/1.8 version, but the used prices are out of sight.I owned a 35 F2, a great lens, when shooting the street I tend to use a 50mm and the 1.4 is a great lens, gives that little extra speed. And as odd as it sounds I also like a 105 for street work, the 2.8 is very sharp, never owned the 2.0 version.
I'm not sure why you're not looking at the Excellent Nikon lenses. It just seems odd to me to buy a Nikon body and look at Voigtlander optics for it....
The Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest small format lenses ever produced.
The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is one of the all-around best small format lenses made - full stop.
I can go on and on.
Voigtlander may be fine but...why?
Because they are different.
While I fully second your comment about the optical quality of the lenses you mentioned, none of the two was made with the kind of barrel with which Voigtlander markets its lenses, none of them had a 9-blade diaphragm (and I wish they had), and I would personally quit photography altogether rather than having to touch one of those lousy autofocus lenses.
The answer to this can be found where Ken Rockwell actually did worthwhile tests. He made landscape photographs with the Nikon lenses and the Voigtländer lens, of the same scene, looking at center and corner sharpness at various apertures. The Voigtländer lens was outstanding in the corners even wide open. In fact, it's the best I've ever seen.
If I can find the tests, I will post them later in this thread.
I'm not sure why you're not looking at the Excellent Nikon lenses. It just seems odd to me to buy a Nikon body and look at Voigtlander optics for it. Especially when they are more expensive than OEM Nikon glass.
The Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest small format lenses ever produced.
The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is one of the all-around best small format lenses made - full stop.
I can go on and on.
Voigtlander may be fine but...why?
I want to put my vote in for theSo I spent several hours looking at lenses and the amount is simply overwhelming. Currently i am eyeing an Ultron 40 which looks great but I am not sure if the focal length is for me ie if the 5mm short of the 35 would make all of the difference since I am looking to shoot street. Either way what do you suggest?
I'm not sure why you're not looking at the Excellent Nikon lenses. It just seems odd to me to buy a Nikon body and look at Voigtlander optics for it. Especially when they are more expensive than OEM Nikon glass.
The Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 was one of the sharpest small format lenses ever produced.
The 28mm f/2.8 AIS is one of the all-around best small format lenses made - full stop.
I can go on and on.
Voigtlander may be fine but...why?
How is the Zeiss Distagon 28 compared to the 28 AIS? I wonder if this is also a decent option if used with an adapter. I never used any lenses with adapters, only those that actually did fit directly.
How is the Zeiss Distagon 28 compared to the 28 AIS? I wonder if this is also a decent option if used with an adapter. I never used any lenses with adapters, only those that actually did fit directly.
Thanks a lot, i am thinking about going 24/35/85 but i am not sure which one to get first. I obviously like to shoot street ands while the 85 is more for portraits, in enables me to shoot from afar. First world problemsThat Voightländer lens looks like it was made for the FE2, almost.
The scalloped focusing ring should be brilliant to use, I prefer that focusing ring to the rubberised rings all of my AI-S lenses have, still the quality is unknown, but promises to be better or at least equal to the lenses available when the FE2 came out.
52mm filter size, same size as just about every reasonably priced Nikkor lens.
9 blades on the aperture, nice.
I have an FE2 and when I travelled with it through Germany I ran a 24mm (f/2.8), 50mm (f/1.8) and 105mm (f/2.5) I did have a 35mm but it was a little too short for my taste, but not wide enough for streetscapes in German villages and towns. Last year I was in Germany and my most used lens out of the 24/50/105 was the 24mm, followed by the 105mm then the 50mm. Four years ago we spent a month in Spain then two months in Germany. The mountians in Spain and the far north in Germany going from the Polish border on the beach, right through to the Danish and Netherlands borders. The 24mm was once again the most used, followed by the 105 with the 50mm the least used. 24mm can encompass a lot of building(s) either vertically or horizontally, the 105 compresses beautifully and is also wonderful for portraits, the 50 is pretty good for general stuff, but too long when I get in close. I did three trips to Germany with 24mm/35mm/105mm and my usage was (in general) 24mm the most, 35mm the next with 105 the least. I really couldn't decide between 35mm or 50mm, I think a 40mm would be ideal for me, but I doubt I would get one as I would only use it sparingly as these days most of my photography is using 4x5" format (10cm x 13cm).
I now run Nikon F3's when travelling, and rarely use the FE2, but my lens choice is the same.
If you can afford it, that Voightländer lens looks terrific; I would certainly get the optional solid screw in lens hood, they keep the rain off, fingers off, as well as direct sunlight off.
At $975 AUD, with the lens hood, it is certainly not cheap.
I think it would handle brilliantly on my F3's
Mick..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?