Jump to content
stenrasmussen

When - when will this stop????

Recommended Posts

I want the AF-S 70-200/2.8G VRII

Then I want the AF-S 28/1.8G that's supposed to be here soon.

Then I want the D600...or should I get a D700?

Then I want the AF-S 50/1.2 that's supposed to be here a long time ago metinks.

Then I want the AF-S 300/4G VRII that's supposed to be here a long time ago metinks.

Then I want the next...and the next...and the next.

...and the house government walks in...and I have to keep dreamin... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet it only stops - when we die :sungum:

Funny how when we get the "newest" item, we are content ..................for a short time!


Regards

Doug

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D700, D300; D200; F2, Lumix FZ30; and a bunch of Nikon MF & AF glass (& a Rokinon 85mm f1.4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ponder this regularly. A tactic I have begun employing whenever I get the urge to spend money on things I don't really need is to think about what else I might be able to spend the money on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I prefer buying gear which I have a use for, if something isn't used anymore it gets sold.

Haven't bought a new lens for a while now until recently, but the new batch of lightweight 1.8 lenses is what I've been holding out for so bring it on :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it isn't available yet, don't worry about it. Every time I think I want to buy something I think of all the possible ways that I can improve my photography without buying gear, or nearby places I can go where there is something interesting to shoot. It turns out there are more possibilities that do not involve new gear than those that do.

  • Like 1

See my photography at http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, most of us don't need any of the new toys...but that applies also to the :hysteric: :girlblum: 's wardrobe/shoe collection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elsa Hoffmann

You have GAS.

GEar acquisition Syndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have GAS.

GEar acquisition Syndrome

Elsa, I kno! but...you, as the weaker sex' representative in this thread :devil: , you must be worse off...craving both photographic gear AND shoes! :D :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AF-S 300/4G IF-ED VR II would be nice, as well as an AF-S 70-200/4G IF-ED VR II, lighter than a 2.8 zoom both with Nano coating. Now, did I catch all the letters in Nikon's alphabet soup? :)

Would sort of like a Zeiss ZF.2 Tele-Superachromat T* 2,8/180 as well............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart Willems

My D70 covers all my needs, and as long as the 18-70 kitlens is better than my skills I won't buy anything else.

This, of course, is a complete lie. But it did sound pretty hardcore, right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, of course, is a complete lie. But it did sound pretty hardcore, right? :)

Sure did! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the trouble is, they are all beautiful, exquisite, and too many to ever really have a use for. But, maybe just one more...


There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept. - Ansel Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the AF-S 70-200/2.8G VRII

Then I want the AF-S 28/1.8G that's supposed to be here soon.

Then I want the D600...or should I get a D700?

Then I want the AF-S 50/1.2 that's supposed to be here a long time ago metinks.

Then I want the AF-S 300/4G VRII that's supposed to be here a long time ago metinks.

Then I want the next...and the next...and the next.

...and the house government walks in...and I have to keep dreamin... :D

Nikon has introduced another set of cameras, 1 series. Any hopes you have of new lenses and cameras must be tempered by the fact Nikon will be aggressive in this new market segment by pulling resources from DSLR development, where growth is not nearly as robust.

Unfortunately, Nikon has chosen to ignore the needs of DSLR users, imho, and this trend will likely get much much worse, before we see needed updates to at least 30 lenses.

Worst is the DX situation, I have boycotted any Nikon purchase since last year until a 24mm DX prime comes out.

I have been forced to change systems due to Nikon neglecting my segment of the market, and I won't be going back, because it is simply not a growing segment for Nikon, which means zero resource allocation.

I feel your pain, but there are too many other systems out there providing me what I want, this is one photographer that will no longer wait for Nikon's arrogance.

Edited by yunfat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Geomiljo

Had escaped the GAS regarding D800 I hoped, at least for a year or so, then after reading all posts about it earlier here today, it hit me hard again...

In my head I now have one little angel singing to me, nooo you don't need any more cameras, and then one persistent devil telling my that I cannot go on living without the video feature, and of course all those beautiful little pixels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Chris Dees

At this moment I have everything I want and that's probably much more than I need. :)

But...... a D600 + a couple of 1.8 lentes sounds very interresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had escaped the GAS regarding D800 I hoped, at least for a year or so, then after reading all posts about it earlier here today, it hit me hard again...

Too much web surfing, too little photography... (I suffer from the same 'illness', too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to make it a loop, get something , sell something else

it's moving , slowly , but it is moving

I'm lusting over the 1.8 lenses as well :)

the 18mm f1.8 patent mentioned in another thread sounds interesting


Regards,

Armando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be an outcast in some way, as I do not miss any 1.8 lens at all.

Buying an 85 1.8 AF-D, I thought it would bring me a cheap, quality short tele with AF some years ago. But I have never liked it. I prefer the 85 1.4 AIS any day. Having a 35 1.4 AI, I do not miss any 35 1.8 with AF either.

I would like some of the other dream lenses though, like the 300 f4 VRII.

Edited by knb

Kjetil NB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have a new policy, which is that to buy a lens or body i have to sell one. i have around 15 lenses, and more than that really is unnecessary for almost any situation. since they hold their value fairly well, i don't mind.

despite all the talk about camera bodies being worthless immediately after release, i sold my d700 for 60% of it's new cost almost four years ago. cost of use = barely a dollar a day. lenses do even better.

so... if you want something, buy it! just make sure you use it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once helped a photographer with a time lapse shoot of a stage being built. I've never seen one person with so much equipment. As I was helping him re-load one of three vans of gear I asked him why he had so much stuff. His answer went something along the lines of:

he who dies with the most toys wins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like the more serious disease frequently referred to as Nikon Acquisition Syndrome (NAS) Most of us can get by in life with GAS, but NAS is another story. :)

You have GAS.

GEar acquisition Syndrome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Michael Erlewine
      The Printing Nikkors: Images and Range
       
      The Nikon industrial Printing Nikkors are exemplary and highly corrected lenses, but for whom? Who wants to use them because, for the most part, they are restricted to a particular narrow field of view. There not only is no infinity available, but in general they are highly restricted as far as view. 
       
      Worse (much worse) is that the higher the f/stop, the less sharpness and resolution. So, we can’t just dial up the f/stop to f/11 or f/16 and expect spectacular results. The Printing Nikkors are optimized wide open or close to it.. They may be better than ordinary lenses, but the sharpness and resolution are confined to the lens either wide-open or nearly so. And that is a very thin depth of field. Who uses that?
       
      And so, there is no sweet spot for standard photography unless... and here it comes, we stack focus. That’s where these lenses come into their own and earn their high prices, at least in my book. Using focus stacking, we can paint on focus just where we want it, a razor-thin layer at a time.
       
      Yet, even for focus stackers, the reproduction rate for most is very limited in range. It’s a kind of “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e. use this limited field of view or forget about it. Most Printing Nikkors only come alive on a bellows system, some work only well on a focus rail and none work well on the camera itself without a rail or a small helicoid. There is no native helicoid or way to focus other than the rail, which as focus stackers know, is the least preferred way to stack focus.
       
      Why do I bother with these lenses and invest hard-earned cash in finding them? That’s a good question, but the answer is: I like the quality in these lenses and I only wish that kind of correction was the standard in lenses. The closest I come are the Zeiss Otus lenses, (and the Zeiss 135mm) which I consider an Otus.
       
      With the above in mind, let’s look at the main Printing Nikkors (95mm, 105mm, and 150mm) and see what their field of view IS like. Forget about macro range and above. These lenses can go there, but I don’t. Someone else can check that out.
       
      The 95mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/3x~1/1.5x, while the 105mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/1.5x~1.5x, and the 150 PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/x. Other than there, we are going outside their optimum qualities at our own risk IQ-wise.
       
      Since I don’t usually do macro, but rather close-up photography, that tells me that the PC 95 is going to be the most useful (all around) for me. It does not mean that the others (or the 95mm) don’t go higher in f/stops, but that they don’t go higher at their sharpest. 
       
      What’s the point of having a $3K lens if I am not going to be able to shoot at the range I want to shoot at and get top IQ? Unless I want to stack focus, I am kind of limited to “arty” photos, ones with just a hint of field depth. It’s nice, but for only once in a while.
       
      The 95mm PN can be used mounted directly to my Nikon D850, provided that camera is mounted on a focus fail. I could also add a very small helicoid to the lens, but the moment I do that I immediately lose some of what I most need, range. This lens is designed for something like 1:2 magnification. I find the 95mm very sharp, easy to use, and probably gives me the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
       
      The PN 95mm has 45mm outer threads. The lens mount M45 x 0.75 and there are 12 blades.
       
      The 105mm PN pretty much has to be on a bellows or view camera and, even then, the range is limited to about one view and (for my work) that is not even at its sharpest.
       
      The PN 105mm has 43mm filter threads and the lens mount is M45 x 0.75. There are 12 blades.
      There are two PN 150s (actually three), but the one not mentioned here follows the lead of the PN 150, 2nd version, and I don’t have it.
      The 150mm PNs are advertised for 1X magnification range, but it will work wider, but of course at a loss in IQ I would imagine.
       
      The PN 150mm (first version) has front and rear threads of 62mm. I’m not an expert, but this earlier version of the 150mm has an additional ring that compensates for the magnification, insuring sharper images over a wider range of magnification. This is perhaps what makes this version the most useful to me. It actually works and is kind of amazing to watch. You just dial it in and it is sharper.
       
      And the PN 150 (version 2) has a filter thread of 58mm and 12 blades. It can’t go much above f/4.5 and not lose quality. It does not have the extra ring to compensate for magnification.
      As far as mounting the Printing Nikkors to the Nikon-F mount, it is not difficult, but you do have to match up adapters. I have enough laying around here to mix and match until they all are ready to go. 
       
      I post here two stacked photos for each of the four Printing Nikkors I have. These photos give you a rough idea of the kind of reproduction-ratio that I can get with these lenses. I am sure if you want to go 1:1 and above, you would with some get better results. However, I do the best I can with what I have.
       
      Below are shown two sets of four images, the first four are simple stacks of 2 layers, one each focused around the center of each flower. This lets you see each lens with little stacking. However, these are at f/11, which is the opposite end of where the lens is sharp. It still is pretty good.
       
      The second four images are all stacked liberally. They will show you what a stacked image looks like with each lens.
       
      I’m not sure what you will get out of these, but you can take a look. Meanwhile, I continue checking out these interesting (to me) lenses, the Printing Nikkors.
      I will have to post the other four images in a second post. Won't fit.
       
       








    • By Michael Erlewine
      The Nikon industrial Printing Nikkors are exemplary and highly corrected lenses, but for whom? Who wants to use them because, for the most part, they are restricted to a particular narrow field of view. There not only is no infinity available, but in general they are highly restricted as far as view. 
       
      Worse (much worse) is that the higher the f/stop, the less sharpness and resolution. So, we can’t just dial up the f/stop to f/11 or f/16 and expect spectacular results. The Printing Nikkors are optimized wide open or close to it.. They may be better than ordinary lenses, but the sharpness and resolution are confined to the lens either wide-open or nearly so. And that is a very thin depth of field. Who uses that?
       
      And so, there is no sweet spot for standard photography unless... and here it comes, we stack focus. That’s where these lenses come into their own and earn their high prices, at least in my book. Using focus stacking, we can paint on focus just where we want it, a razor-thin layer at a time.
       
      Yet, even for focus stackers, the reproduction rate for most is very limited in range. It’s a kind of “take it or leave it” proposition, i.e. use this limited field of view or forget about it. Most Printing Nikkors only come alive on a bellows system, some work only well on a focus rail and none work well on the camera itself without a rail or a small helicoid. There is no native helicoid or way to focus other than the rail, which as focus stackers know, is the least preferred way to stack focus.
       
      Why do I bother with these lenses and invest hard-earned cash in finding them? That’s a good question, but the answer is: I like the quality in these lenses and I only wish that kind of correction was the standard in lenses. The closest I come are the Zeiss Otus lenses, (and the Zeiss 135mm) which I consider an Otus.
       
      With the above in mind, let’s look at the main Printing Nikkors (95mm, 105mm, and 150mm) and see what their field of view IS like. Forget about macro range and above. These lenses can go there, but I don’t. Someone else can check that out.
       
      The 95mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/3x~1/1.5x, while the 105mm PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/1.5x~1.5x, and the 150 PN standard magnification range is listed as 1/x. Other than there, we are going outside their optimum qualities at our own risk IQ-wise.
      Since I don’t usually do macro, but rather close-up photography, that tells me that the PC 95 is going to be the most useful (all around) for me. It does not mean that the others (or the 95mm) don’t go higher in f/stops, but that they don’t go higher at their sharpest. 
       
      What’s the point of having a $3K lens if I am not going to be able to shoot at the range I want to shoot at and get top IQ? Unless I want to stack focus, I am kind of limited to “arty” photos, ones with just a hint of field depth. It’s nice, but for only once in a while.
       
      The 95mm PN can be used mounted directly to my Nikon D850, provided that camera is mounted on a focus fail. I could also add a very small helicoid to the lens, but the moment I do that I immediately lose some of what I most need, range. This lens is designed for something like 1:2 magnification. I find the 95mm very sharp, easy to use, and probably gives me the best bang for the buck, so to speak.
       
      The PN 95mm has 45mm outer threads. The lens mount M45 x 0.75 and there are 12 blades.
       
      The 105mm PN pretty much has to be on a bellows or view camera and, even then, the range is limited to about one view and (for my work) that is not even at its sharpest.
       
      The PN 105mm has 43mm filter threads and the lens mount is M45 x 0.75. There are 12 blades.
       
      There are two PN 150s (actually three), but the one not mentioned here follows the lead of the PN 150, 2nd version, and I don’t have it.
       
      The 150mm PNs are advertised for 1X magnification range, but it will work wider, but of course at a loss in IQ I would imagine.
       
      The PN 150mm (first version) has front and rear threads of 62mm. I’m not an expert, but this earlier version of the 150mm has an additional ring that compensates for the magnification, insuring sharper images over a wider range of magnification. This is perhaps what makes this version the most useful to me. It actually works and is kind of amazing to watch. You just dial it in and it is sharper.
       
      And the PN 150 (version 2) has a filter thread of 58mm and 12 blades. It can’t go much above f/4.5 and not lose quality. It does not have the extra ring to compensate for magnification.
      As far as mounting the Printing Nikkors to the Nikon-F mount, it is not difficult, but you do have to match up adapters. I have enough laying around here to mix and match until they all are ready to go. 
       
      I post here two stacked photos for each of the four Printing Nikkors I have. These photos give you a rough idea of the kind of reproduction-ratio that I can get with these lenses. I am sure if you want to go 1:1 and above, you would with some get better results. However, I do the best I can with what I have.
      Below are shown two sets of four images, the first four are simple stacks of 2 layers, one each focused around the center of each flower. This lets you see each lens with little stacking.
      The second four images are all stacked liberally. They will show you what a stacked image looks like with each lens.
       
      I’m not sure what you will get out of these, but you can take a look. Meanwhile, I continue checking out these interesting (to me) lenses, the Printing Nikkors.
       




       
       
       
       




    • By Michael Erlewine
      I’m sure this will interest few, but any is better than none. If we are looking into apochromatic (APO) lenses, then the Printing Nikkors can’t be avoided as candidates because they were designed to copy motion-picture film at the highest resolutions. To do this, they had to be highly corrected or our movies would all be fringe-tainted. We can’t have that.
       
      These are largish, somewhat heavy (the 150mm), lenses that require special mounts, which are not too hard to find. Yes, these lenses are a pain in many ways, but they produce great photos, some of the best if you are looking for lenses that have really been corrected. The term APO is not a standard and has been used to label lenses that are hardly apochromatic, but the Printing Nikkors are highly corrected and they are expensive too!
       
      One problem with obtaining the Printing Nikkors is their prices, which have been coming down as film companies abandon them in favor of all-digital projection. Still, they are said to have originally cost something like $12,000 apiece, so I have been told. Today, they sell on Ebay for much less, but still enough for my pocketbook. Anyway, we might want to know which of the Printing Nikkors (there are at least five varieties) does the most for us, so to speak, if we only buy one.

      Thanks to the website CoinImaging.com, the coin-photo folks have been kind enough to compare some of these lenses and graph out the results. What I present here are some of those graphs and results, for which I thank them very much! I failed to find the name of whoever is doing all this testing, but I thank him or her. This site uses IMATEST to test out lenses, which gives us a base.
       
      I am not going to spend time here on the history of the Printing Nikkors or their resale value, etc. You can find that on the web, if you look hard. The point of this article is to drill down on which of these lenses does what and the enclosed graphs will very much help with that. If you don’t like reading graphs, here is a shortcut to the best of the points, but you really have to study the graphs. This is just the tip of the top, so to speak, a generalization.
       
      Compared here are:
       
      Printing Nikkor 95mm f/2.8
      Printing Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
      Printing Nikkor 150mm f/2.8 (150-1)
      Printing Nikkor 150mm f/2.8 (150-2) [later]
       
      [There is a 75mm Printing Nikkor, but I have never seen one, even for sale. And there is a 3rd version of the Printing Nikkor 150mm, but I don’t have one, but it is a later version and I am told is similar to the later version of the 150mm, titled here “150mm-2.”
       
      QUICK RESULTS
       
      Chromatic Aberration vs. Aperture
      Note: All good, minimal, aberration, but the 95mm PN is best.
       
      Chromatic Aberration vs. Magnification
      Note: 95mm best at 0.5, 105mm best at 0.75-1.50
      150-1 not so good.
       
      Corner Resolution vs. Aperture
      Note: All very good, but 95mm is outstanding.
       
      Corner Resolution vs. Magnification
      All fairly good, but the 95mm is outstanding at about 0.50
       
      Corner Sharpness vs. Aperture
      Note: All very good, but the 105 is best.
       
      Corner Sharpness vs. Magnification
      Note: The 95mm best at 0.50, but the 105mm best at around 1.0 to 1.25.
       
      Resolving Power vs. Magnification
      Note: The 150-2 mm is way better than the rest at 0.50.
       
      Resolution vs. Aperture
      Note: All good, but the 95mm is best.
       
      Resolution vs. Effective Aperture
      Note: The 150-1 is the best at f/5 to f/8. Rest also very good, with the 150-2mm only good at around f/5.6.
       
      Resolution vs. Magnification
      Note: All pretty good, but the 150-1mm is the best of the lot from 0.50 to beyond 1.5.
       
      Sharpness vs. Aperture
      Note: The 95mm is hands-down the best. All pretty good, with the 105mm the worst.
       
      Sharpness vs. Effective Aperture
      Note: All good within a particular range, with the 150-1mm the best of the lot from f/5 to f/8.
       
      Sharpness vs. Magnification
      Note: All good within their best range, but the 150-1mm the best of the lot from 0.50 through 1.25.
       
      Working Distance and Magnification
      Note: The 150.1 is the best of the lot.
       
      TOTALS of “Bests”
       
      095mm = 7
      150-1mm = 5
      105mm = 3
      150-2= 1
       
      What this says is the 95mm is the best as an “all-around” lens, followed by the 150-1mm. Of course, this could depend on what you are doing. For example, the 150-1mm is best for close-up work, but the 150-2 is best for macro, etc.
       
      I hope this interests at least one other person! LOL.



    • By Michael Erlewine
      The Printing Nikkors for Close-Up Work
      Since the term apochromatic has no standard definition, various ideas of what is apochromatic exist. Finding apochromatic (APO) lenses that are really outstanding is difficult. By now, most of us know that the three new Zeiss APO lenses (135mm, 55mm, 85mm) are corrected apochromatically to a high standard, but finding lenses of similar quality (as to APO) is difficult without delving into the various industrial lenses, lenses designed for enlarger work or for various film-scanning operations.
      One good set of APO lenses are what are called the “Printing Nikkors,” a series of four Nikon industrial lenses designed for or use in film transfer (copy) machines, making accurate copies of 35mm cinema films and the like. These machines cost upward of $100,000, and the lenses individually cost (I am told) some $12,000 each. They are very highly corrected. To achieve this, chromatic aberration is corrected not only for the red, green, and blue range of the visible spectrum, but for the entire wavelength range (400 ~ 800nm).
      These four Printing Nikkors were each designed for a particular usable magnification range. Of the four Printing Nikkors (75mm, 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm), I have managed to find three of them, being the 95mm, 105mm, and 150mm. Here is a list along with what reproduction range they were designed for, and the general range suggested for use.
      75mm = 1/4x (usable 1/6X ~ 1/3X)
      95mm = 1/5x (usable 1/3X ~ 1/1/5X)
      105mm = 1x (usable 1/1.5X ~ 1.5X)
      150mm = 1x (usable 1/4X ~4X)
      I don’t use the Printing Nikkors for macro or higher magnifications, but primarily for close-up photography. This particular Printing Nikkor, the 150mm is of no use to me mounted directly on my Nikon D810 camera. Rather, it needs a bellows, and I generally use the Nikkor PB-4 for that. Since I mostly use this particular lens for focus stacking, the bellows works well for the close-up range.
      As a quick sidebar, to take advantage of the available focus-stacking software (I use Zerene Stacker), there are three main ways to stack focus and they produce different results, so it is important to use the most efficient method if you can. I give them here, starting with the best solution on down to the least efficient. The ranking is in terms of avoiding unwanted artifacts in your resulting stacked images:
      (1) The best way to stack is on a bellows, by fixing (locking) the lens to the front standard (so it does not move), and then focus with the rear standard on which sits the camera body (and sensor). So, we fix the lens, and only move the camera to focus.
      (2) The second best way to stack photos (and easiest) is by turning the focus barrel of the lens itself. This is why it can be important to purchase a lens with the longest focus throw you can get. For example, the famous Coastal Optics 60mm APO f/4 forensic lens (which is highly corrected) only has a focus throw of about 210-degrees, way too small (IMO) for stacking photos. You really have to use it mounted on a camera, mounted on a focus rail, and that is not good. On the other hand, the legendary Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar Macro lens has a focus through of some 610-degrees. What a difference!
      (3) And lastly (and worst-ly) is to mount the camera-body and lens on a focus rail and move the whole combination to focus. This is not recommended, but I still have to often revert to it.
      (4) And there is the concern that spherical objects are the hardest to stack because you must take even smaller incremental layers with spheres, since there is no flat surface. To capture a sphere without artifacts takes some very fine increment-steps to stack properly.
      The above choices (themselves) each involve problems of their own, of course. Not all lenses will work well on a bellows, not all lenses have a decent focus throw, and the third option of using a focus rail should be avoided, if possible. These three options were first explained to me by Rik Littlefield, the author of Zerene Stacker, the focus-stacking software that I find to be the best for my work.
      I must say that my choice of flowers here is not ideal. In my experience the color yellow (and red, for that matter) are not as easy to capture correctly compared to the greens and blues. But this is what I have in the studio, so I am using it.
      Here are three different images, the first two images are stacked images shot with the Printing Nikkor 150mm wide open (f/2.8), and one at its narrowest aperture (f/11). The third image is a non-stacked traditional one-shot photo at f/11. My thoughts?
      My first thought is that I have to learn to better master the color yellow. Second, I feel this lens is very unforgiving, perhaps even a little aggressive or “forensic,” as in: what you see is what you get. And thirdly, I continue to wrestle with the question of to-stack-or-not-to-stack at all.
      The traditional one-shot photo is not bad. Why bother to stack, when stacking means artifacts of one kind or another (visible or not to the average viewer) will be present?
      It seems to me that the three new Zeiss APOs are not, well, so “forensic,” and have a softer feel to them. The bottom line is that I have to learn to better use the Printing Nikkors or….. just stick with the Zeiss APOs.
      Now, the industrial enlarger-lens, the El Nikkor APO 105mm, does not seem to have a “forensic” look. This is not to mention that maneuvering a large lens like the Printing Nikkor 150mm, mounted on a bellows, mounted on a quick-release clamp, in the field is no easy trick.




      View full article
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.