It's a test I intend to run, I just wondered if someone had beaten me to it/
Yes, of course you're right, I mixed them upYou have them backwards: H is 3.5, O is 2.8.
General consensus is 2.8 being newer and better. The follow up to O 2.8 was 2.8 OC with better coatings, but not likely to have much effect outside of color shooting, and that is debatable, as both still old news in coating technology anyway.
I have the OC, so can't really speak for the H, but it seems logical when people claim substantially more prone to flare in the H.
It's a test I intend to run, I just wondered if someone had beaten me to it/
Of course you are right, and a good copy of a poor lens is better than a poor copy of a good lens.
I don't have the dedicated hoods for these lenses so will have to improvise, probably with a Cokin square hood or similar, unless I can find dedicated hoods cheaply.
Of course you are right, and a good copy of a poor lens is better than a poor copy of a good lens.
I don't have the dedicated hoods for these lenses so will have to improvise, probably with a Cokin square hood or similar, unless I can find dedicated hoods cheaply.
Thank you, good to knowIf the filter thread doesn't rotate when focussed , I use these hoods for wide-angle lenses ; https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192967916449
Thanks for the inputThe nikkor H 5cm or 50mm H is a scaled up nikkor 2.8cm 3.5 for the Nikon F. I have printed negatives from the 5cm Nikkor H at 16x20 and I was quite happy with the results. I also have the Nikkor O-C 50mm f2.8. It seems a little bit better than the H in the corners. At f8 they both are very crisp and have great color far better than the Komura 50mm. The Komura 50mm was a disappointment.
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?