Walking around lens
-
A
- Thread starter HiHoSilver
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Unopened 5x7 EDU Ultra 200
- Started by Rick A
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
I've never been a big fan of Nikkor zooms and much rather carry two primes with me.I find Nikkor primes to be excellent but the zooms are nothing to write home about.There may be some off-brand zooms other can suggest.Consult Ken Rockwell's site for Nikon lens recommendations.I find his advise very reliable.
+1
And also it is small, not heavy. From all 50mm nikkors that I had, I kept only f2 version.
I really like my three Nikkor zooms - 25-40 f/4 AI S (one of my all time favorites !), 75-150 f/3.5 Series E, 35-70 f/2.8 AF D
But for a 'Walking around' for Nikon I prefer a Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 Ai-P - Please do not consult Ken's page for his report about that lens ...
Gents? Are ladies also allowed to participate?
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 2,170
- Format
- Multi Format
"I've never been a big fan of Nikkor zooms and much rather carry two primes with me.I find Nikkor primes to be excellent but the zooms are nothing to write home about." -RL
Ralph, this is the first confirmation I've heard of what I experienced in the 70-200 range. I thought I was speaking heresy by not being impressed by the much praised nikkor version. The little 28-70 I have isn't really bad, but especially for the $$$, it isn't particularly good either. Rockwell likes it for reasons of small, light - which it is. The form factor IS really handy, but any prime eats it for breakfast in sharpness.
Fred, many thx for the recommend.
Kevin - this isn't about gender. Plenty of ladies have forgotten more than I'll know about it. They will certainly be appreciated when they weigh in. 'Gents' is an attempt at respectful gratitude for kind help.
Ralph, this is the first confirmation I've heard of what I experienced in the 70-200 range. I thought I was speaking heresy by not being impressed by the much praised nikkor version. The little 28-70 I have isn't really bad, but especially for the $$$, it isn't particularly good either. Rockwell likes it for reasons of small, light - which it is. The form factor IS really handy, but any prime eats it for breakfast in sharpness.
Fred, many thx for the recommend.
Kevin - this isn't about gender. Plenty of ladies have forgotten more than I'll know about it. They will certainly be appreciated when they weigh in. 'Gents' is an attempt at respectful gratitude for kind help.
Well,the sharp grain would hardly be a function of the taking lens; more a proof of a good scanner or enlarging lens.
Sorry, but I think you misread his comment. I didn't take it as all streets are narrow. But, as a rule, streets in Europe are narrower than here in US. It's largely a function of the transportation the existed when the streets were laid out.
Even in US, they vary. For example, streets in the old sections of Boston (from the 1700s) are narrower than downtown Minneapolis (from the late 1800s).
Depends on which version, the Nikon 70 to 200 2.8 is much different than the 4.5 to 5.6 kit lens that were sold with the N50 and N 70s. I had an early version of the MF 2.8 and it was a very good performer. For a walk in the park lens, I liked the 50mm and 105 primes, for a zoom, the 35 to 70 E lens was not half bad stopped down to f 8 or 11, not so good at 3.5
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 af D or Nikkor 50mm f1.4 ais. Great low light lenses for available darkness. Nikkor 28mm f2.8 ais, razor sharp... Zuiko 50mm f1.8 35mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8. Again small and razor sharp..
Yes, it might be.
But, I had the feeling that he thinks 35mm lens has no place in our streets where this is far from truth.
I typically use the 35mm with subjects about 2-3m away. Nothing to do with narrow streets.
Ralph that was true in the past, but in the last ten years the zoom lenses are almost as sharp as the prime lenses. The circa 1972 pre Series I Vivatar lenses were low contrast and rather poor.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 2,170
- Format
- Multi Format
'Good education for me here. I appreciate it a bunch.
'Been somewhat bummed, thinking that pragmatics favor my super zoom on the digital.
if multiple primes are needed - so be it. 'Love my old 24mm. I'd always thought the 35 was odd - neither fish nor foul - not wide enough - but just might be the tip here - as the honorable Col.Colt has demonstrated well this week. The 50 is always good. 'Maybe add a 70 or 100-ish to round it out. It does amaze me how the recent super zooms have been wonderfully sharp and have range that was only a (nice) hallucination in earlier times. Too bad most don't have an aperture ring for film.
Again, I appreciate your sharing what you've found.
'Been somewhat bummed, thinking that pragmatics favor my super zoom on the digital.
if multiple primes are needed - so be it. 'Love my old 24mm. I'd always thought the 35 was odd - neither fish nor foul - not wide enough - but just might be the tip here - as the honorable Col.Colt has demonstrated well this week. The 50 is always good. 'Maybe add a 70 or 100-ish to round it out. It does amaze me how the recent super zooms have been wonderfully sharp and have range that was only a (nice) hallucination in earlier times. Too bad most don't have an aperture ring for film.
Again, I appreciate your sharing what you've found.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Format
- Medium Format
When you say "a particularly crisp, preferably affordable lens in this [28-70mm] range. - Don't need uber fast" my favorite from c. 1965 comes to mind, the Auto Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 which was my vacation lens for decades. It is very affordable, lightweight, and the glass is deeply recessed so the lens provides its own shade. (But supplemented c. 1970 by the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor for portraits.)
For a "walk around" lens, low weight is a primary consideration, so the tiny and affordable Cosina Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 Aspherical SL would also be wonderful, as would the slightly larger and heavier Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2 ZF.
Depending upon your preferred focal length, and if cost were no object, and allowing just a bit more weight, some other fabulous choices for a manual focus daylight walk around lens, are the latest Leica R 28mm f/2.8 with the build in rectangular hood (with small rear shroud, type 3, model 11259; Leitax converted), the latest Leica R 50mm f/1.4 E60 (Leitax converted), the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 apochromatic multi-spectral macro lens with amazing color, the affordable Cosina Voigtländer SL APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5, or the Leica R 90mm f/2 Summicron APO ASPH (model 11350; Leitax converted). If you also need a walk around telephoto, the rare tiny Cosina Voigtländer 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar SL would be wonderful, if you could ever find someone willing to sell theirs.
(All of these choices presume having the ability to do accurate manual focus, such as using an old style focus screen that prioritizes focus accuracy over brightness, or some more recent technological focus equivalent. A 2x flip down viewfinder magnifier, like the Nikon DG-1, can be a great assist.)
For a "walk around" lens, low weight is a primary consideration, so the tiny and affordable Cosina Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 Aspherical SL would also be wonderful, as would the slightly larger and heavier Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/2 ZF.
Depending upon your preferred focal length, and if cost were no object, and allowing just a bit more weight, some other fabulous choices for a manual focus daylight walk around lens, are the latest Leica R 28mm f/2.8 with the build in rectangular hood (with small rear shroud, type 3, model 11259; Leitax converted), the latest Leica R 50mm f/1.4 E60 (Leitax converted), the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 apochromatic multi-spectral macro lens with amazing color, the affordable Cosina Voigtländer SL APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5, or the Leica R 90mm f/2 Summicron APO ASPH (model 11350; Leitax converted). If you also need a walk around telephoto, the rare tiny Cosina Voigtländer 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar SL would be wonderful, if you could ever find someone willing to sell theirs.
(All of these choices presume having the ability to do accurate manual focus, such as using an old style focus screen that prioritizes focus accuracy over brightness, or some more recent technological focus equivalent. A 2x flip down viewfinder magnifier, like the Nikon DG-1, can be a great assist.)
Yep
No yelling here for what you said regarding zoom lenses though I must say that a zoom set on 200 mm is probably sharp enough for 35mm, and 6x6cm work when hand held by most camera users. Sharp enough, good enough, are interesting terms in these discussions.......If I knew what they meant.. Sharp enough for what? Good enough for what? The standard answer here is "for government work".....Regards!
greed. I now replaced it with a 35-70mm,which is ok at f/8
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Format
- Medium Format
First impressions last! Have read that the original Nikkor 43-86mm zoom being so bad accounts for the "general knowledge" that zooms aren't nearly as good as primes, which hasn't actually been true, in general, for decades. For example, the Contax Carl Zeiss T* Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 Macro MMJ for C/Y mount (but that can be Leitax converted for Nikon F by David Llado), c. 1994, is highly prized by many, especially as an f/8 landscape lens, and yet not hugely expensive or difficult to find. The unobtainium Leica 35-70mm Vario-Elmarit-R ASPH f/2.8 zoom c. 2000 of which only 200 were ever made is said to be spectacular. Still mostly prefer small primes, though, for walkaround use.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2015
- Messages
- 2,170
- Format
- Multi Format
User 19 - on ladie's photo abilities. Those of the male persuasion here are not your average shooters. Amongst average shooters, I consistently see the ladies outshoot myself & most men. Its almost cosmic sarcasm. Same is true in of all places - the target shooting sports. The mainstream digital sites are much more mixed - gender-wise. For some nice examples - look up Line (I think pronounced like Lena) Martell or Katarzyna Gritzman on photo.net. There are certainly more. In Humor, Victoria Ivanova does hysterical & imaginative stuff w/ pears (the fruit) on 1x.com. The sociology of genders - how we get along & interact - seems a bit much to 'fix' or try to change, other than simply good manners. (the way our threads get cantankerous - I suspect would be off-putting)
Ralph - Thank you again. Rightly or wrongly (I think the former) your thoughts on most topics gets rather close attention from me. It may be that zooms exist that would serve well, but when budget is choked, so is freedom for experimentation. It sounds like the most reliable bet would be a couple humble primes. Certainly I could do worse. 35 yrs later, I still get a big smile from most images that come from an old 24mm. 'Hard not to sound repetitive, but I sure appreciate your kind help.
APO glass - I get mixed input on putting zeiss glass on Nikon/Canon bodies. It certainly has appeal. 'Looking up the vario-Sonnar, you're right - not outrageously priced at all. 'Without knowing cost & effort for conversion, it gets intimidating. 'Gotta say, though - its sure does hook my interest. Thank You so much for your kind help.
Ralph - Thank you again. Rightly or wrongly (I think the former) your thoughts on most topics gets rather close attention from me. It may be that zooms exist that would serve well, but when budget is choked, so is freedom for experimentation. It sounds like the most reliable bet would be a couple humble primes. Certainly I could do worse. 35 yrs later, I still get a big smile from most images that come from an old 24mm. 'Hard not to sound repetitive, but I sure appreciate your kind help.
APO glass - I get mixed input on putting zeiss glass on Nikon/Canon bodies. It certainly has appeal. 'Looking up the vario-Sonnar, you're right - not outrageously priced at all. 'Without knowing cost & effort for conversion, it gets intimidating. 'Gotta say, though - its sure does hook my interest. Thank You so much for your kind help.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2013
- Messages
- 33
- Format
- Medium Format
Putting manual focus Zeiss ZF glass, manufactured by Cosina in Japan, on a Nikon F body is just like using a Nikkor AIS lens but with newer improved optics. The more modern Zeiss lenses are mostly optically exceptional to world class. The best way to learn about Zeiss lenses for Nikon or Canon, in order to make an informed choice, is by reading Lloyd Chambers' reviews at his subscription diglloyd.com website. The Zeiss 21mm, 28mm Otus, 55mm Otus, 85mm Otus, and 135mm APO are all spectacular, but expensive, large, and quite heavy, so not at all what could be termed "walk around" lenses.
The excellent Zeiss 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 ZF walk around lenses are smaller, lighter, and much more affordable (the later ZF.2 versions of these same optics add an electronic chip so you don't have to use the Nikon menu to tell the camera which lens is mounted [only necessary if you care about the EXIF focal length and aperture being documented correctly in your images], and the current Milvus versions [again the same optics at the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths, but differently styled] are a bit more expensive, slightly heavier, with perhaps slightly improved antireflection coatings on the glass).
Most of the Leica R mount Leitax conversions can be done at home in a few minutes, if you also purchase the screwdriver and nylon probe with the replacement Leitax mounts, and can work carefully following the detailed instructions provided online, but don't require any extraordinary skill. But the Contax Carl Zeiss T* Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 Macro MMJ Leitax conversion from C/Y mount to Nikon F mount is more difficult, so you would probably do best to send that lens to David Llado at Leitax.com in Spain for the conversion.
Regarding manual focus, some lenses, especially well optically corrected faster ones, are much easier to tell when they are precisely focused, while slower lenses with more depth of focus and less brightness on the focus screen (or when focusing stopped down) are harder to judge if they are in focus, especially with lenses that have residual spherical aberration. The Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 is one of the more difficult lenses to manually focus, but that should not be much of a problem when used at f/8 at infinity for landscapes – but trying to manually focus that zoom hand held on the nearest eye for portraiture using a focus screen (especially if you are older with declining visual acuity) will be quite challenging. (But you can autofocus manual focus lenses on Nikon cameras using the Nikon TC-16A autofocusing teleconverter [pin rewiring needed for recent cameras] or the Techart PRO Autofocus Adapter for newer Sony E cameras!)
The excellent Zeiss 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 ZF walk around lenses are smaller, lighter, and much more affordable (the later ZF.2 versions of these same optics add an electronic chip so you don't have to use the Nikon menu to tell the camera which lens is mounted [only necessary if you care about the EXIF focal length and aperture being documented correctly in your images], and the current Milvus versions [again the same optics at the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths, but differently styled] are a bit more expensive, slightly heavier, with perhaps slightly improved antireflection coatings on the glass).
Most of the Leica R mount Leitax conversions can be done at home in a few minutes, if you also purchase the screwdriver and nylon probe with the replacement Leitax mounts, and can work carefully following the detailed instructions provided online, but don't require any extraordinary skill. But the Contax Carl Zeiss T* Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 Macro MMJ Leitax conversion from C/Y mount to Nikon F mount is more difficult, so you would probably do best to send that lens to David Llado at Leitax.com in Spain for the conversion.
Regarding manual focus, some lenses, especially well optically corrected faster ones, are much easier to tell when they are precisely focused, while slower lenses with more depth of focus and less brightness on the focus screen (or when focusing stopped down) are harder to judge if they are in focus, especially with lenses that have residual spherical aberration. The Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 is one of the more difficult lenses to manually focus, but that should not be much of a problem when used at f/8 at infinity for landscapes – but trying to manually focus that zoom hand held on the nearest eye for portraiture using a focus screen (especially if you are older with declining visual acuity) will be quite challenging. (But you can autofocus manual focus lenses on Nikon cameras using the Nikon TC-16A autofocusing teleconverter [pin rewiring needed for recent cameras] or the Techart PRO Autofocus Adapter for newer Sony E cameras!)
Last edited:
Regarding the infamous 43-86 Nikkor, I've heard old Nikon hands refer to it as one of the best portrait lenses ever because it's so soft at 86mm. 
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |