"stay away from nikon lens"

[Mark Layne]

Is that just the standard F-Mount 50mm f1.2? I love the circular DOF, I even build a lens to do it with my 4x5.

The rendition of the trees in the top photo is harsh (possibly double imaged) and that is why Nikkors are not reputed to have smooth Bokeh. Doesn't mean they aren't fine lenses though - just not good for smooth out of focus rendition.
Mark

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

They are crap. Give yours to me.

Let the vulturing commence. ;p

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have Canon lenses and Nikon lenses for my enlarger. I can't understand why anybody will degrade Nikon (or Canon for that matter), both are excellant.

Jeff

 

[Akki14]

Reminds me of what I got told at a wedding recently when I mentioned I'm a photographer

"you're not one of those Nikon people, are you?"

:rolleyes:

Actually yes, they're good quality and my dad had some so it's what I'm raised on.

And besides, I use a heck of a lot of other cameras besides Nikon.

 

[jasonhall]

Reminds me of what I got told at a wedding recently when I mentioned I'm a photographer

"you're not one of those Nikon people, are you?"

:rolleyes:

Actually yes, they're good quality and my dad had some so it's what I'm raised on.

And besides, I use a heck of a lot of other cameras besides Nikon.

sssoooo what "kind of person" was the one that asked you that?

Jason

 

[archphoto]

I have one 1.4/50mm Nikkor that is as soft as butter.
I picked it up from the street in Bievre 30 years ago and the front lens is full of scratches: not the way Nikon intended it.
Got it for free, so no complaints.........

In general can be said that lenses made by today's main lens makers are sharp and contrasty, each in it's own way.
If you want something diferent, like THE GLOW you need to look for other lenses, period.

Go for the lenses made before Nikon and may japanese makers, or go for the real soft focus lenses if you want that.

And actualy I have an uncoated Leitz Elmar 3.5/50mm from the 30's that is a tad soft, but otherwise OK.

Peter

 

[Q.G.]

Go for the lenses made before Nikon and may japanese makers, [...]

That may be rather hard, since Nikon and the other Japanese manufacturers have been at it already before 35 mm cameras even existed.

 

[Lee L]

That may be rather hard, since Nikon and the other Japanese manufacturers have been at it already before 35 mm cameras even existed.

According to what appears to be accurate information on the internet, Nikon was founded in 1917. Barnack built the ur-Leica, which used 35mm cinema film, in 1912-1913.

Lee

 

[rpsawin]

The reference was to how to get something called "glow"...

For a nice mellow glow try Single Malt Scotch...

Best regards,

Bob

 

[mikebarger]

I've read some years ago the reason Nikons have poor Bokeh is due to the fact sea water is between two pieces of glass, while the German lens have multiple elements designed for each focal length.



Mike

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Jesus Wept!

I've read some years ago the reason Nikons have poor Bokeh is due to the fact sea water is between two pieces of glass, while the German lens have multiple elements designed for each focal length.



Mike

Where does this stuff come from?
The sea water must have been between two ears where the brain usually sits!

 

[IloveTLRs]

Bokeh is one of those terms that drives me nuts. No reason...it just does! Maybe it is the spelling. Is it not a Japanese word? It sounds like one, but doesn't look like one with that H on the end of it.

It probably comes from "bokeru" which means "faded; blurred; out of focus".
I always laugh when I hear the word because "boke" can also mean "To grow senile, to be childish with age. To be mentally slow, to be befuddled"

I'm not sure why there's an 'h' at the end :confused:

To me, "good" bokeh is nice and smooth. "Bad" bokeh is rough, or swirly (makes me dizzy.) That's my preference however, and everyone has their own.

 

[jasonhall]

I've read some years ago the reason Nikons have poor Bokeh is due to the fact sea water is between two pieces of glass, while the German lens have multiple elements designed for each focal length.



Mike

And now we know....

Jason

 

[JBrunner]

That's silly. Which lens? How big is a rock?

 

[Lee L]

That's silly. Which lens? How big is a rock?

What silly questions. The correct questions are:

How sharp is a rock?
How sharp is tack sharp?
Is it tacky to brag about how sharp your rock is?
What kind of blurry is a rock when it's not focused?
How do I get my 14 year old to focus?
Should people who live in glass houses throw lenses?
Which make of glass house is the best?
and
Would you like fries with that opinion?

Not necessarily in that order.

Lee

 

[mikebarger]

Lee

Can you throw some sea water in there somewhere?

Mike

 

[Lee L]

Lee

Can you throw some sea water in there somewhere?

Mike

I was going to, but the people who live in the tack sharp ED glass houses with great boke(h) (or is that bouquet?) sent me a threatening letter. No joke(h).

Lee

 

[BradS]

shaken....not stirred.

 

[jd callow]

I have a 105 micro nikkor that has harsh oof areas, tinker bell glow and it is as sharp as chipped flint. I have a 80-200 f/4 with lots of drunken glow at both ends, loads of creamy porn oof at the long end, not so much at the short end, and its sharp like a store brand aged cheddar. My other 35mm nikkors are pretty much like any pedestrian on a casual walk after too much curry. All in all I like them lots.

 

[Q.G.]

According to what appears to be accurate information on the internet, Nikon was founded in 1917. Barnack built the ur-Leica, which used 35mm cinema film, in 1912-1913.

Indeed.

That Ur-Leica was Barnack's personal toy (a light meter of sorts), and it wasn't until 1925 that Leitz tried the market and sold a small series of 35 mm stills cameras.

Having said that, it's time to put this myth to bed that says that the Leica was the first 35 mm stills camera.
It wasn't. The Debri Sept, for instance, was there before the Leica. Not by much, but enough so to not make Leica the first 35 mm stills camera.

 

[Akki14]

sssoooo what "kind of person" was the one that asked you that?

Jason

dslr canon user of course.

Must have an inferiority complex.

oh yeah and of course MALE... Only boys are concerned about what you shoot with rather than what you make at the end

 

[bdial]

slr canon user of course.

Must have an inferiority complex.

oh yeah and of course MALE... Only boys are concerned about what you shoot with rather than what you make at the end

touché

LOL!

 

[firecracker]

"Stay away from MY Nikon lenses" is probably what I want to say.

I'm not much into bokeh stuff, but I thought Nikkor Auto O 35mm F2 lens was/is good for bokeh.

 

[c6h6o3]

Nikon lenses seem to have been good enough for the likes of Arnold Newman and John Sexton. I guess they didn't read Johnston's article.

 

[dougjgreen]

I hadn't realized that so many of the posters here were plagued by these awful lenses. But I am nothing if not a caring individual who puts the community first and foremost. As such, I have decided to provide a public service, because these Nikon lenses are all so terrible, I have decided to offer an international Nikkor Glass disposal service. If you have any functional Nikkor lenses that you need to get rid of, you can send them to me and I will safely insure that you need not come in contact with these horrid lenses anymore. And because I care so deeply about this altruistic mission, I will even be willing to pick up the cost of postage of the items to my Nikkor lens disposal facility here in San Diego, CA. USA. Please contact me so that we can arrange your shipment to me of these hazardous lenses.

I am also willing to handle the disposal of Carl Zeiss and Leica (Leitz) lenses, which may be oppressing you as well as current generation Voigtlander optics as well at no additional cost to you.

Yours most sincerely,
- Doug Green