Search the Community

I have been very close to purchasing TWO lenses: the Olympus TC 1.4x, and the 40-150 F2.8. I own the Olympus 100-400mm zoom, and I also own the 50-200 with 1.4x TC, and the adapter to mount this 4/3 on to a MFT mount. The 40-150 f2.8 gets wonderful reviews. But how does it compare to using the 50-200 4/3 lens adapted to fit on a current MFT body? And is getting a 1.4 x TC and the "new" focal length for my 50-200 is 70-280mm. Has anyone tested/compared these two lenses? The 50-200 is a very sharp lens; will the 40-150 f2.8 be as sharp, or sharper? And can you really make use of the 1.4 TC on the 100-400? I do not need the 1.4 TC for the lower range lens; but can you really shoot at 560mm or more (equivalent to over 1000mm full frame 35mm??)

An interesting new lens announced this week - Laowa 10mm f/4 Cookie. Very compact, very wide and apparently very little distortion. More info direct from the maker - available in most major mirrorless mounts with APS-C coverage. Size wise it seems to be similar to the Fuji 27 f/2.8, which I have and makes a very pocketable set-up with my X-E3. Probably also attractive to users of other compact mirrorless bodies. As usual with Laowa, it is a fully manual lens, no electrical contacts. Early reviews seem generally positive with the main drawback reported to be the vignetting. Seeing it from some other angles in the reviews, it is interesting that the majority of the focus throw is for 0.1m to 1m, with only a small movement left from 1m to infinity, so you will probably end up relying on the hyperlocal range and not mind it lacking autofocus. I have got another Laowa lens and am happy with the build and performance of that and reviewers are saying similar things about the build quality of this. When I first heard rumours of this lens, it certainly tempted me. Now there are a couple of things making me think about this a bit more - firstly the price, at around AU$500 (US$300), it is not going to be something that I would buy for fun or to give it a try. Second factor is the appearance of an 8mm lens on the Fuji road map, at the moment there isn't much known about this, will it try and follow Laowa down the low distortion route or will it be a fish-eye and then what will it cost. But at least the Fuji will have electrical contacts. Does this lens interest anyone else? What are your thoughts about it?

Since switching from Nikon to Fuji, deciding on a suitable macro lens has been something that I have given a lot of thought to. On the Nikon system I had been using a Tamron SP90 which I have had for over 20 years, so the prospect of finding something new was a challenge. One of the objectives of my move to Fuji was building a compact system, so the size and price of the Fuji 80 macro was off-putting. The Fuji 60 macro was a little more tempting, but only goes to 0.5X. In the end, I decided to give the Laowa a try - it is manual focus only but does go to 2X! So what is it like? This isn't some cheap, second rate third party lens - even the box gives an impression of quality. The lens itself has a metal body and mount, even the included lens hood feels metallic. Size wise, it is taller but slimmer than the Fuji 18-55 zooms. It actually looks unusually slim, but I guess that is what you can manage when you don't have to fit circuit boards and motors around the outside of the optics. To start using it you have to dig into the Fuji menu system and set "Shoot without lens' to ON (On my X-E3, it is on the second page of "Button/Dial Settings" of the Setup menu (Wrench). Whilst in that menu, I also set the function button on the top panel to "Focus Check" so that I could access focus peaking. The focus peaking doesn't automatically appear when you twist the focus ring, because the camera obviously doesn't think there is a lens present. In that regard, there is no aperture setting visible in the view finder or recorded in the EXIF data. The focus feels smooth and takes just under 3/4 of a turn to get from 2:1 to infinity. The aperture ring clicks at the full stops but moves continuously between these stops - the stops aren't evenly spaced, they get closer as you stop down. So what does it look like? Red-back preparing dinner It looks pretty sharp and seems quite well behaved optically. I do need to remember not to drift in the lower shutter speeds I sometimes use with my other lenses as it doesn't have IS. And what about the 2X? 2X macro That is a crop from the icon on my iPad screen - the icon was about 12mm (0.5") wide and the published spec of the screen is 264 pixels per inch (although I'm not sure if that means each colour element or the combination of the three colours. A couple of other things - I stuck the 16mm extension tube on and that looks like it pushes the magnification up to approximately 2.4X. Also tried it with an R72 infra-red filter and, good news, no hot spot. Hopefully over the weekend, I'll get to some more time to put it through it's paces.

Today, I balk at using a prime lens weighing more than 1,000 grams (1 kg.) unless it is a specialized lens (e.g., Nikkor 200mm f/2.0) In the near future, it is possible that we may hear users complained how heavy their 100 grams lens are. https://www.dpreview.com/news/4657125935/a-new-metalens-breakthrough-will-revolutionize-lenses-as-we-know-them

Another option to having a more compact Nikon kit would be a 2 lens option. I already have a very good copy of the Nikon 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, but it lacks in the longer end. Doing research brought me to the conclusion that I needed to check out the 70-210mm f/4-5.6 Reviews everywhere give it rave reviews in IQ and AF capability(although it is claimed that the "D" version focus' faster than the non-D). Can it live up to what others have said about it? Let's find out!! Testing was done on a Nikon Df. 210mm | 1/500 | f/8 : ISO 900 IQ Initial testing of the 70-210mm f/4-5.6...is a little mixed at the moment. I think I need more time with it and some analytical testing. By that I mean I need to run it through some very controlled tests. There were times that images taken were blurry, then another shot with he exact same exposure and focal length settings would yield an in focus shot. It very well could be that my hand holding technique is off. More testing will be done to determine the cause. It is possible that there are focusing issues, so testing will be done on the D700 and D300. 116mm | 1/500 | f/5.6 | ISO 320 Handling Another push-pull zoom and same experience as we found with the 35-135 we reviewed earlier. Again, I kind of like it. On the Df, I use the lens aperture ring to change the value instead of the control dial. There is no VR on this lens, so when shooting at the longer focal lengths, you'll want to make sure you keep your shutter speeds in the realm of the hand holding rule. 70mm | 1/1250 | f/4 | ISO 200 Weight/Size While a bit on the heavy side(it is an all metal constructed lens) it balanced well on the Nikon Df. It fits nicely into the side pocket of the Lowepro Transit 250 AW attached to the Df. 210mm | 1/250 | f/8 | ISO 320 Auto Focus Auto focus was acceptable for this lens. On the slower side, but I expected as much for a lens of this age and design. It focus' accurately and the slower AF is better than no AF at all. I'm not going to complain about it! 110mm | 1/320 | f/8 | ISO 200 Conclusion This is a dandy of an old lens and for the sub $100 price tag, it will be able to perform its job admirably and to our needs. I envision this being used when I want to run with the Df and only take one lens. 210mm | 1/250 | f/5.6 | ISO 250 210mm | 1/250 | f/11 | ISO 1250 210mm | 1/250 | f/11 | ISO 1100 210mm | 1/250 | f/5.6 | ISO 450

Image © mir.com After my failed attempt to bond with the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6VR, next lens into the testing queue is an oldie....the Nikon 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5 Again, the desire is to find a lens that can be an everyday walk about and useful focal length. 35mm may not seem wide enough for a lot of people, I find that I crave a longer focal length and a narrower field of view than I do wide. There was not a lot of information out there on this lens, but for the price, it was worth the gamble. Majority of the testing was done on a Nikon Df. 135mm | 1/640 | f/4.5 : ISO 200 IQ Initial testing of the 35-135mm was definitely more favorable than the 24-120/3.5-5.6VR we tested. Contrast on the lens is very good and the sharpness is there. No, it is not as good as the newest lenses out today, but it is not far behind. I was honestly surprised. I probably should not have been as we have similar performance with the older Nikon 28-85/3.5-4.5. 135mm | 1/640 | f/4.5 | ISO 200 Handling This is where I thought I would hate this lens, but turns out, the push-pull zoom is not that hard to get used to. In a way, I kind of like it. On the Df, I use the lens aperture ring to change the value instead of the control dial. 70mm | 1/400 | f/5.6 | ISO 200 There is even a macro mode at 35mm. Press the silver button on the side of the lens and twist to put it into macro mode. In this mode, it is manual focus only. There is no VR on this lens, so when shooting at the longer focal lengths, you'll want to make sure you keep your focal lengths in the realm of the hand holding rule. 85mm | 1/800 | f/4.2 | ISO 200 Weight/Size While a bit on the heavy side(it is an all metal constructed lens) it balanced well on the Nikon Df. It fits nicely into the side pocket of the Lowepro Transit 250 AW attached to the Df. 135mm | 1/200 | f/4.5 | ISO 200 Auto Focus Auto focus was acceptable for this lens. On the slower side, but I expected as much for a lens of this age and design. It focus' accurately and the slower AF is better than no AF at all. I'm not going to complain about it! 98mm | 1/100 | f/5.6 | ISO 280 Conclusion This is a dandy of an old lens and for the sub $100 price tag, it will be able to perform its job admirably and to our needs. I envision this being used when I want to run with the Df and only take one lens. 135mm | 1/200 | f/8 | ISO 200 135mm | 1/400 | f/8 | ISO 200

A lens that I find remarkable and use quite often is the CRT Nikkor-O, and industrial lens that, when controlled, can produce wondering images. Here is a discussion and dozens of sample images in high-resolution, taken with the high-end Nikon bodies, D3x, D3s, D800E, and D810. Here is the link to the PDF. http://spiritgrooves.libsyn.com/macrostopcom-the-crt-nikkor-o-lens-and-images

Nikonrumors reports about a patent for a Nikon full frame mirrorless les. The lens seems to be what we would think of as a "kit lens", a standard zoom. The lens drawings seem to indicate three possible suggestions for a lens design. http://nikonrumors.com/2014/12/16/interesting-nikon-filed-a-patent-for-a-full-frame-mirrorless-lens.aspx/ Maybe Nikon will start moving in 2015/16?

This legendary lens also performs admirably well on an Olympus camera. Because of the smaller sensor it effectively becomes a long - 210mm f2.5 - telephoto lens. 1. f4 2. f4

Hello Bjørn, couldn't find any post regarding the new Nikkor. Do you already have one in your hands, got some first impressions?

I am unable to remove the filter from my 20-35 f/2.8 and wonder methods you might suggest. It is a B+W UV-Haze and neither it nor the lens show any dings or dints. The filter looks in good condition but I rarely use any filter except a polarizer. A local camera repair shop took a look and didn't give much hope for removing the filter without destroying it the process. Before I go caveman on it I thought I'd ask what you might do.

A few days ago I successfully disassembled and re-greased (images below) a Steinheil Cassarit 50mm f/2.8 that was given to me many years ago with an SLR. The latter (probably an Exacta) was in parts and non-salvageable. The lens screw mount measures 41.8mm externally. A similar one has been listed on ebay for a long time, the front filter thread is 40.5 mm. It has a preset aperture with 11-blades and is nicely round at all settings. So I am now looking for a suitable low cost M42 to F mount adapter (non-optical) to play more with this lens, well aware that it will not focus to infinity. There is a pretty extensive offering from different sources on ebay. Some previous research indicated that some of them might be difficult to remove from the body. Does anyone have any positive experience with any of these or adapters from other sources? So on to the images. The first one is a self portrait the lens captured of itself, taping an old F-mount adapter to the lens. Considering that it is a triplet, it performs quite well at close distance: Here is the lens taped to the adapter before disassembly and cleaning Here the baffle has been unscrewed, and the two screws at the mount removed. Some corrosion or old grease shows up. Notice the two stops/focus followers. They will be pulled out next. The helicoid can now be moved freely after removing the screws holding the focus ring. The lens divides in the middle: The filter ring was also loosened for cleaning, but this was not part of the disassembly for re-greasing. I did not attempt further disassembly of the aperture/preset mechanism. Now the separation point for the helicoids has to be marked before complete disassembly. Making marks was actually not needed as there were already some there: An interesting mark on the lower part of the lens, some sort of signature? "Exploded view" after cleaning: Assembled again (could need some more exterior cleaning): I will not vouch for the correctness of the infinity point if used on an original M42 body... If pressed against the mount of a Nikon, the infinity setting will reach out to 20-30 m.