ed

Life Member
  • Content count

    535
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 of my posts have been liked

2 Followers

About ed

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 1 January

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Edit my pics?
    Ask Me
  1. 'Modern' doesn't necessarily mean 'dull'. The Leica 50 Summicron APO is such an example; its bokeh has a curiously gentle and non-descript quality; it doesn't add, subtract or distract from the subject in-focus. The degree of resolution and exactness of color correction are so great and the fall-off so quick, especially at ƒ/2, that the isolating effect on the subject is nothing short of stunning. The combination may not be to your liking, but it is a (?new) reinterpretation of what a lens can do. I especially have to concur about the Z* 1,4/35 (Classic), a much under-appreciated optic. People were caught up with its middling MTF numbers and missing the 'point' of its design. Its color fidelity, skin tones and artful rendering made it my favorite of the four ZF lenses I once owned.
  2. Nikon's malaise of being perpetually reactive and then leisurely going about it is sad. Canon came out with a superb FE zoom over 5 years ago. A 28/1.4? Anyone absolutely needing that speed has likely bought an Otus or contented themselves with the excellent Nikkor 28/1.8. Nikon continues to bide its time with the superfluous.
  3. Also have my three AI lenses that I haven't parted with; a 75-150 (bought for nothing, virtually worthless but a really nice lens), a 16/3.5 and a NOCT. These were the favorites out of a dozen Nikkor and Voigtländer AIS lenses acquired over 20 years shooting Nikon. The two latter lenses are still unique enough as to warrant the wait for a mirrorless F or a Sony a* that I care to actually buy (hasn't happened yet). In the meantime, they remain in use on the FM2 every now and again.
  4. Standard mockery for "Rick Waldroup". Reducing things to a caricature is great fun, I imagine but doing otherwise would require some thought & effort on your part. At least it entertains our enlightened Scandinavian crowd. That's really what matters, I guess. Nice contrasty images, though.
  5. Then I will refrain from saying anything about the mindset of Euro-Leftists and Scandinavians
  6. From lensrentals.com owner Roger Cicala: "There was, if anything, a bigger difference than I thought. On the D800 the lens (a ZF.2 2/100) had a maximum center / average resolution of 1091 / 1030. On the 800E it was 1250 / 1120. Now let me state I have no idea how much the AA filter is expected to effect MTF 50 resolution, but the difference surprised me. Let me emphasize this was one quick test with a couple of copies of the lens on one D800E." http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection
  7. Roger Cicala, owner of www.lensrentals.com, ran the D800 with a whole slew of Nikkors and Zeiss glass on the Imatest machine. I'm not really familiar with the device but the results are interesting in and of themselves. Of note is how poorly the new 24-120 & 28-300 fared while older glass like the 50/1.2 AIS and 17-35 acquitted themselves surprisingly well in center performance at least. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection#comments
  8. Cameraquest's listing for the 90/3.5 reads: "The lens is discontinued but still in stock for Nikon and Canon".... http://cameraquest.com/inventor.htm
  9. I don't understand the rationale that it would be a bad DX camera. Using DX lenses in DX mode, it deploys about the same number of pixels as the D7k. Yes, using MF lenses in DX mode will be a challenge but that's not what the thread was asking. Compared to the D3/D700 utilizing about 6MP in DX mode, the D800 in theory will obviate the need for a DX backup that some desire because it should provide stellar cropable resolution using the better DX lenses with a flick of a switch. The D40 has a tiny VF, not sure how this compares to a D800 in DX but it's pretty small to my eye and never hampered good photographers.
  10. Thanks. Of the 20's, any preference? I know you're less than enamored of the ƒ/4 than most. My inclination is toward one of those two.
  11. Was inquiring re: IR
  12. I'm new to IR and learning the basics on a crop sensor body using a 45/2.8 AIP but am beginning to feel that a wider lens may provide a better perspective for me. From my readings here and elsewhere, the 20 ƒ/4 and 20 ƒ/3.5 have their particular advantages and serious limitations, making a clear-cut decision difficult. What's been the experience of users in the field and their preferences? Thanks in advance for your replies.
  13. I was wondering if anyone with experience here might be able to comment. Given the diversity if its iteration in the Gauss type and the evolution of the coatings, which one, if any is adjudged superior for IR applications?
  14. Thank you all very much for your links and sample photos. Very informative and to the point.
  15. I'm a beginner at IR and will be learning on a full-spectrum DSLR (a Fujifilm ISPro being lent to me) and using a Nikkor 45/2.8 AIP. I will have a B+W 092 but is the B+W 099, not listed in the 'filter sticky', allowing for transmission from 500 nm a good choice for 'false color'? Does it introduce too much of the visible light spetrum to be useful for this sort of a sensor?