Re: AI v. AIS [v04.n348/21]
Here's what I think the AIS lenses have which the AI lenses do not. Someone let me know if this is wrong. The "ear," if it has one, has holes on either side of the index slot to admit light to assist in viewing the "little" f-stop marks on the aperture ring from the viewfinder. No, all AI and AIS lenses have holes on the pre-AI metering prong (rabbit ears) to help illuminate the "little" f-stop marks on the aperture ring. This scale is known as the aperture direct readout (ADR), which can be viewed directly in the viewfinder of AI cameras such as FM and FE. Those little f-stop marks are orange (maybe). On AIS lenses the smallest aperture is marked in orange on the aperture scale *and* the ADR scale. On AI lenses the ADR scale is white, and the minimum aperture may be various colors, including orange. There is a little "scoop" on the back face of the lens which engages a pin on the camera mount (maybe). Although I have read that this scoop transmits focal length information to the camera, I believe in fact is only transmits a signal that the motion of the stop-down lever on that AIS lens is linear. The scoop indicates that the lens is AIS, it does not transmit focal length information. Linear correspondance between the stop-down lever and the aperture is the most important difference between AI and AIS lenses. It allows the camera to accurately set the aperture in shutter priority and program modes. The little tab which is on the back of the lens mount, I thought it was first added to AIS lenses, but when I checked all my lenses, I realized all my AI's are only AI'd, so I can't tell. I believe it is this "tab" which communicates the focal length of the lens to the camera, so it knows whether to use a higher shutter speed with longer lenses in "Program mode." The "tab" is offset by different amounts for different lenses according to focal length, I think. My FG does have a sensor for this tab. This tab is not a focal length indicator, it is a lens speed indicator. The FA, N2000 and F4 use this tab for matrix metering. Matrix meters require the absolute lens speed to work. I think these cameras and the FG series also use this for flash calculations. The lens speed tab is present on all AI and later lenses. AI'd lenses lack this tab. I think AIS and possibly AI lenses have a small depression on the lens mount which indicates whether the focal length is135mm or longer. This crude focal length indicator is used in program modes (FA and FG?) to indicate whether the program mode should bias towards higher shutter speeds or not. In AF cameras, lens speed and focal length are communicated much more accurately by electronics, especially in the case of lenses with variable aperture and focal length (zooms and macro). Other cosmetic differences between some AI and AIS lenses: The focusing scale on many AIS lenses, espcially wide-standard lenss, is more compressed. Most AI lenses take 1/2 to minimum focus, while AI lenses take only 1/4 turn. This makes AIS lenses faster to focus, but less accurate. The DOF scales are also correspondingly closer together. The DOF scales on some AI lenses is on the lens body under the focusing ring. The DOF scale on almost all AIS lenses is on the chrome ring. Series-E lenses are AIS (they were AIS before AIS existed!), except they lack the pre-AI metering prong. Hope this helps, Roland
Re: Nikon perspective control lenses [v04.n347/2]
I tried a pre-AI 35/2.8 PC lens on my FE2. Unlike most pre-AI lenses it will fit AI cameras, without modification. The lens barrel touches the cameras meter coupling lever, but the lever was in no danger of being damaged. As long as the lever does not move when the PC lens is mounted, your exposures should be right on. I imagine the coupling lever on the FE2 is pretty similar to that of the F70, F90 etc, so it should work on these cameras too. Just be careful and don't force anything! Roland.
Re: F5 colour meter [v04.n318/17]
Wait a second! How will the camera know if 123, 123, 123 is really a white fence in the shade or a grey card in full sunlight? I think you are making a mistake here, as RGB seems to be more useful when you are dealing with a light source of known intensity (such as a monitor, a slide-scanner, or a printer), but if it doesn't have a baseline reference for maximum brightness, it will fall on its face. The F5, (and all cameras with matrix metering) do have a baseline for absolute, rather than relative brightness. All AF lenses transmit the lens's maximum aperture to the camera so the meter "knows" what the absolute brightness of the subject is. I'm certain that is taken into account when metering. You are right, the camera still does not know the difference between a white fence in the shade or a grey card in sunlight (same absolute brightness). But it does hava some idea of what is before it, and seems to perform very well usually.
Re: Nikkor 55/2.8 micro AF [v04.n318/9]
I want to ask whether 55/2.8 AF can do 1:1 magnification like the 60/2.8 AFD. i think this lens was for Nikon F3AF. Is this lens as good as 55/2.8 AIS or 60/2.8 AFD? As far as I know, the AF 55/2.8 has the same optics as the AIS version. Since the optics are the same, I expect the AF 55 micro will perform as well as the AIS version - brilliantly. The AIS lens can go to 1:2, and requires the PK-13 extension tube to go to 1:1. The AF lens has a completely new mount, which permits it to go to 1:1 without the PK-13. It also has a larger 62mm thread. This was one of the first AF lenses, so the focusing ring was rather narrow and loose-feeling. The 60/2.8 has a new optical design and mount.
Re: Compatibility of 24 mm 2.8 non-Ai with N90s [v04.n320/7]
I have been in the market for a used 24 mm and came across one today. I read the archives as well as Moose Peterson's Nikon System Handbook. I have these questions: 1. what is AI? (I know it means auto indexing, but what is that?) See question 2. 2. the man behind the counter said this lens had been "AI-d". A section was cut away which, apparently, makes it "AI-d". If he was correct, what does this mean? Pre-AI lenses transmit the aperture to the camera via the prong on the aperture ring. AI lenses transmit the aperture via the cam (cut away section) on the aperture ring. There are other slight differences which have no effect on the N90. 3. What do I lose/gain with this lens vs. a new AFD? You loose AF! You loose distance metering and matrix metering You keep weight centered and spot metering You loose shutter priority and program modes You retain manual and aperture priority Both have DOF scales The manual lens has a longer focus throw so focusing is slower and more accurate, the DOF scale is wider to match the wider focusing scale. You gain silky smooth focusing ring and rugged all-metal construction Both lenses have CRC, the early manual lens has an older optical design - reported to be very good Hope this helps, Roland
Re: 85mm f/1.8D AF DC [v04.n315/10]
Wouldn't it be great if Nikon sold an 85mm f/1.8D AF DC? Why? At 1.8 and at portrait distance I will have quite a narrow DOF as it is. My 85/1.8 and 135/2 are in use as prime lenses, I think the "DC" is a gimmick myself. Defocus Control has little to do with the size of the DOF or how much you can "blow away" the background by opening the lens up. DC lenses allow you to alter bokeh, which the quality of the background blur, not the quantity. It lets you determine how smoothly out of focus objects in the background (and foreground) blend together. For example, imagine you are shooting a subject standing in front of some trees. Sky filtering through and reflecting from the leaves appears as a mass of light and dark fuzzy spots in the background. With my 105/2.8 at f2.8, those spots appear as hard edged circles. The background blur does not blend together smoothly, but looks contrasty and blocky. Out of focus lines tend to appear doubled up. If I had a 105/2 DC lens set to f2.8 with rear defocus, the same background would appear as a mass of soft edged spots, which blend together. I think this produces a much more pleasing and less distracting effect. Note that the DOF is the same on both lenses (105mm, f2.8) and the size of the blurry spots in the background is the same. The only difference is how smoothly the background blurs together. It can be a subtle effect, but in certain cases, it can make or break a picture. A smoothly blended background can give the appearance of being shot at a wider aperture, because wider apertures also tend to blur backgrounds more smoothly. Of course, if you only shoot against a blank backdrop, background bokeh is irrelevant and DC lenses have no advantage. I tend to shoot most of my portraits with the AIS 85/2. It's hardly bigger than a 50mm lens, so it is very easy to carry and very discrete. It tends to produce chunky bokeh. If Nikon had an equivalent lens with softer or controllable bokeh (as in DC lenses), I would be *very* interested. Roland.
Re: 105/2.5 vs 85/1.8 - Not a comparison !
Nikon Portrait Photographers, Wouldn't it be great if Nikon sold an 85mm f/1.8D AF DC? YES!!! Especially if has a decent focus ring (like the other DC lenses) I've been thinking about getting a 105/2 DC for some time but am put off by the large size and high price of this lens. Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? I love using my little AIS 85/2 for portraits, and often wish it had nicer bokeh. Roland
Re: Zoom 75-150 Series E [v04.n312/12]
I have come across one of these lenses, and having read that it is very sharp, I am considering of trading it for my current 50-135/3.5 AI-S, but I am worried about this "loose zoom problem" can someone explain what is that all about? I would appreciate also any opinions on whether I should trade my zoom or not. Marc, I have read that the 50-135/3.5 is also very sharp. The 75-150 is smaller - 65x125 vs 71x133mm The 75-150 is ligher 520 vs 700g The 75-150 has smaller 52mm filter size compared to 62mm The 50-135 filter does not rotate when you focus, the 75-150 does The 75-150 focuses relatively close to 1m through the whole zoom range and is quite good for closeups. The 50-135 only focuses to 1.3m, but it has a macro mode at 50mm to 0.6m. The 75-150 often has a loose zoom/focus ring, also known as zoom creep, which means the lens zooms by itself when pointed up or down. It's common with one-touch zooms. The 35-135 may also have this problem? For a telephoto zoom, the 75-150 has a very small zoom range, only 2x, which you may find limiting. The 50-135 has a 2.7x zoom range. The 75-150 is a series-E lens so was not made to the same standard as the AIS 35-135, although it is not bad. The later 75-150 with a chrome ring is better of the two versions. If want a slightly longer focal length and smaller lens, go for the 75-150, otherwise keep your 50-135. Roland
Re: F5 and Exposure of White Birds [v04.n310/19]
Nikon may say that the RGB meter in the F5 cannot be fooled by difficult lighting situations -- I bet they don't actually claim that, but that is the expectation offered here -- but from the release of the F5 people who use the meter have said that when shooting scenes with lots of white the meter underexposes white by about one stop. This is the situation described by the original correspondent. On the other hand, if the F5 had a conventional metering system, as someone noted, the white birds would come out medium grey because the conventional meter would regard them (and everything else in the world) as having 18% reflectancy. Thus to get a correct exposure of the white in this situation, one would have to open up 1 1/2 to 2 stops to get a true white. From memory the scene described was of white birds against foliage. I think the weight centered meter of my FE2 would have given the same results. The problem is, the white birds probably only take up a very small part of the image, the picture is dominated by foliage. Even the F5's 1005 pixel meter probably cannot "see" the white birds clearly so will not meter them. The camera "assumes" the picture is of green foliage and exposes the picture accordingly. Unfortunately, due to the limited latitude of the film, the white birds are overexposed. Even if the F5's meter can "see" the birds, it does not know what the subject is. Consider these two scenes: 1. white birds in green foliage 2. sky filtering through gaps in green foliage Both scenes look the same to the meter - small bright patches in a mostly green scene. Which part do you expose for?? As a photographer, you know that the subject in each scene is quite different, in one case the bird (the white part) in another case the foliage (the green part), so the picture needs to be exposed differently. A camera does not have the advantage of knowing what the subject is, so it has to guess. The F5 is better at guessing than other cameras, but it is still a guess. Meters are usually calibrated to expose most of the scene correctly and to ignore small parts which are greatly brighter or darker. Usually the camera's guess works pretty well. Unfortunately in this case, the meter was fooled. Especially when using slide film, when the scene is contrasty and I want to hold detail in the highlights (as in this case), I tend to underexpose slightly to prevent the highlights from burning out. Roland
Re: 105/2.5 vs 85/1.8 AF [v04.n305/25]
Hello Pascal, Here's a question about focal lengths and angle of view of certain nikkors. The 85mm/f1.8 AF has an angle of view of 28 degrees whereas the 85mm/1.4 MF is only 23 degrees. This information is in Peterson's book. I thought the angle of view was determined by the focal length. ?? Also, the 105mm/2.5 is 19 degrees whereas most other 105mm's are 23 degrees. Is it a typo or different angle being measured? The angle of view is determined by the focal length, and the film format used. For 35mm film (as in your nikon) the angle of view from side to side and diagonally: lenssidediag 85mm23.928.5 105mm 19.523.2 135mm 15.218.2 The diagonal angle of view is the one usually stated, and agrees with the figures in my lens catalogue. I guess there is a typo in Mooses book, or maybe he is stating the horizontal angle of view?? I am about to choose between the 105/2.5 and 85/1.8 AF. I would like to use the lens to shoot mostly portraits inluding some closeups using one of th 3T,4T,5T,6T closeup attachments. Has anyone had any experience using one of those lenses along with a closeup lens? I'm using a manual camera so autofocus is not really the issue. I would go for the AIS 105/2.5 for the following reasons: * By itself the 105/2.5 gives greater magnification (1:7.6) than the AF 85/1.8 (1:9.2) * Closeup filters give greater magnification when used on longer lenses. Taking these first two reasons together, you will get greater magnification when using closeup filters on the 105/2.5. With the 4T I estimate you will get reproduction between 1:3.3 and 1:2. * Since you are using a manual camera, you will enjoy using a manual lens much more - focusing is smoother and has a more positive feel. Unless you have plans to move up to an AF camera, stay with manual lenses. * The 105/2.5 has a built-in hood. * The 105/2.5 has nicer bokeh which is good for wide-aperture portraits. The background blur of the 105/2.5 is relatively smooth. The 85/1.8 tends to produce blocky blur and doubling of out-of-focus lines. Both are very sharp lenses. The 85/1.8 is a stop faster which may be useful for low low conditions. However, the 105 probably suits your needs better. Roland
AIS 200/4 micro with closeup filters
Greetings, I'm looking for a good way to extend the closeup range of my AIS 200/4 micro. Has anyone out there had experience with it and the No 3T or 4T closeup filters? Roland.
Re: Has anyone returned a 28-105 [v04.n307/15]
I have been reading about the supposed vignetting problem with the new 28-105 lens. This disturbs me because in my investigations, the introduction of this lens has filled a gap in Nikon's line and thus is a plus in Nikon's favor. The vignetting problem seems to be hit and miss, but if Nikon is really putting pink slips in to warn people about the problem, then I must assume that it is a real and know difficulty with this lens. Has anybody returned this lens to Nikon and asked them to correct the problem? If so, what has the response been? I can't imagine that vignetting is a sample to sample problem. If it was, it would seem to indicate that the position of lens elements in various lenses is radically different. That would surely show up as other problems such as lack of sharpness. These lenses are made to very fine tolerances, I doubt this is a "problem" which can be corrected - it's a result of the lens design. Vignetting in a given lens depends on: - filters and hoods in use (nikon filters and hood should be ok) - focal length - focus distance - aperture - image cropping in the viewfinder and prints - film contrast (high contrast film may show vignetting more) - your own sensitivity to vignetting The reason vignetting is "hit and miss" is that sometimes these factors come together and cause vignetting, sometimes they don't. For a lens of this type, I would be very surprised if there wasn't some vignetting. Roland. == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: Some technical.questions[v04.n297/21]
My FG-20 has a strange lever inside the camera, just behind the lens monting. (At 9 o'clock tehere is the auto aperture coupling lever, I know it well) There's another one. Situated at half past 5 and moving back to 5 o'clock. Some lenses have an immobile lever just coupling with it, some don't. I haven't figured out its function. Peeter, AI, AIS and all AF lenses have the tab you mention, next to the rear element. This is the lens speed post, and tells suitably equiped cameras how fast the lens is. The camera uses the absolute lens speed info for pogram modes, and to enable matrix metering (FA and F4). Most AF cameras don't use this system, lens speed info can be transmitted much more accurately via the electronic contacts. Roland
Re: Nikon 24-50/3.3-4.0 AF AIS - Any Info? [v04.n300/8]
I can't find *any* info on this lens - even Nikon doesn't show it. What filter size, minimum focusing distance, etc. This is not the 24-50/3.3-4.5. Does anyone have any information or user comments? Can anyone tell me where to find it on the net? Bill, There is no Nikon 24-50/3.3-4.0. The AF 24-50/3.3-4.5 is still in production, information is easily available on the net. Possibly the lens you are after is the AIS 25-50/4.0. filter size: 72mm close focus: 0.6m Check out my photo web page for more details. Roland. == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: Peeter Vissak peeterv@estpak.ee
My FG-20 has a strange lever inside the camera, just behind the lens monting. (At 9 o'clock tehere is the auto aperture coupling lever, I know it well) There's another one. Situated at half past 5 and moving back to 5 o'clock. Some lenses have an immobile lever just coupling with it, some don't. I haven't figured out its function. Peeter, AI, AIS and all AF lenses have the tab you mention, next to the rear element. This is the lens speed post, and tells suitably equiped cameras how fast the lens is. The camera uses the absolute lens speed info for pogram modes, metering, and to enable matrix metering (FA and F4). Most AF cameras don't use this system, lens speed info can be transmitted much more accurately via the electronic contacts. Roland
Re: 35mm SLR vs 35mm [v04.n294/1]
Could sombody please explain, in 'english', what makes the 35mm SLR unique as compared to all other 35mm's. Nikon SLR cameras (and Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Leica...) use 35mm film - the roll of film you put into your camera is 35mm wide (that includes the 24mm height of the image and space on either side for the sprocket holes.) This is why they are called 35mm cameras. It is easy to confuse this with a 35mm lens, which is the optical focal length of the lens and is not related to the width of the film. Roland
Re: D leftovers [v04.n292/2]
The AF 300/2.8 probably lingers as a low-cost (!) alternative to the AF-S lens. The AF-I version of the 300 is still in production? Nes to me, I thought the 300AFS was the only option now. No I didn't mean the AF-I version, which is a D lens, and has been replaced by the AF-S version. My 1998 lens catalogue still lists a non-D 300/2.8 IFED which is focused by the motor in the camera: AF 300/2.8 IFED 8/6 elements/groups close focus to 3m 39mm internal filter weighs 2700 g diameter 133mm length 255mm This is the original 300/2.8 and was the biggest AF telephoto before AF-I and AF-S lenses were produced. I believe this lens has the same optics as the AI-S version.
Re: F5 matrix metering question [v04.n290/5]
Anyway, I use an F5, and I was looking at a 600mm f/5.6 ED-IF AIS. However, it suddenly occured to me that this lens does not have a CPU in it; therefore I cannot use matrix metering. Is this correct? Correct. The F4 will give matrix metering with AIS lenses, not the F5. To use Matrix metering, I would have to use one of the AF lenses, or the 500mm f/4 P lens. Again, is this correct? Again, correct. For metering, the 500/4 P is essentially the same as a non-D AF lens. If I were you, I would get the 500/4 P over the 600/5.6 because: - it gives matrix metering with AF cameras - it's a stop faster - can use the TC-14B to give 700/5.6 (this has a great reputation) - it's about the same size and weight (just as easy to carry) I don't know about the price... Hope this helps, Roland.
Re: N-90s, infinitely variable shutter/aperture? [v04.n287/3]
Can anyone tell me if the N-90s has an infinitely variable shutter if shooting in "A" mode? Or if the aperture is set between click-stops in "S" mode? Kevin, Yes, in A-mode, the shutter is variable, it is not fixed to 1/60, 1/125, 1/250... if it needs to shoot at 1/137 for the correct exposure, it will do so. In S-mode the aperture is also infinitely variable. Roland
Re: 5T or 6T for 70-300 would produce 1:? [v04.n282/9]
What would the 5T or the 6T produce in terms of macro magnification on the 70-300 at 300? Would it be 1:2, 1:1, or greater than 1:1 ratio? Ross, I think the 70-300 will get close to 1:1 with the 6T and about 1:2 with the 5T. Check out the intruction sheet for your lens, it may give reproduction ratios when used with closeup filters, extension tubes... Roland
Re: Re: FA/FE-2 and metering with flash [v04.n272/16]
Is that so? But it is written here in my copy of the Nikon Compendium that the "X-position of the FE-2 was a slight mishap because the metering system is switched off in this position. This was a handicap especially in fill-in flash situations when a fast sync-speed is really necessary. Not sure what you mean here. There is no "X" position on the FE2 (I should know, I have two of them!). The shutter speed 1/250 is marked in red to indicate the flash-sync speed of the FE2. When selecting shutter speeds manually, you can use any shutter speed from 8 seconds to 1/250. When using flash, if you select a faster shutter speed, the FE2 fires at 1/250. When the dial is set to "A"for aperture priority, the FE2 always fires at 1/250. The meter works nornally at all these settings (I'm not sure what the meter does when you try to select a shutter speed faster than 1/250 when using flash) The only modes when the meter does not work are M250 and B (with or without flash.) Don't confuse M250 with the "X" position on other cameras. M250 is a mechanical 1/250 shutter speed, it uses no batteries to fire the shutter or for the meter. It's main purpose is so the camera can still operate when the batteries are flat. Roland
Re: Oh no! The 28-105 VIGNETTES at 105mm! [v04.n275/16]
With great disappointment I report a serious flaw in the new 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF D IF lens. "At a telephoto setting, slight vignetting may occur when shooting subjects with the macro switch set to MACRO (at a reproduction ratio of approx 1:2), particularly when using a filter." Right away I grabbed the F5 with the new lens and pointed it at a white wall. At the 105mm setting, there was clear vignetting visible in the viewfinder THROUGHOUT the focus settings, from infinity down to the closest-focus point. David, I'm not surprised to hear this. I think most "standard" zooms have significant vignetting. I noticed this in the viewfinder with the 28-70/3.5-4.5. This bothered me, though to be honest I rarely saw any vignetting in my pictures. Before you condenm this zoom, it would be worth to see how badly the vignetting affects your prints or slides. Slight vignetting is often not noticeable on prints. If it is present, it may not be a bad thing, darker edges can help focus attention on the center, where the subjuct usually is. Just looking for vignetting in the viewfinder may not be a good test, since the viewfinder itself may be darker in the corners. Also, the image you see in the viewfinder is with the lens wide open. Vignetting often disappears when you stop down (how often do you shoot with this lens wide open, espcially in macro mode??). Try stopping down the lens and press the DOF preview button to see if vignetting reduces. Or even better, take some pictures and see the results! :-) I am going to return this lens and exchange it for something else in the wide-angle to normal range, probably the 35mm f/2. Any comments on the following lenses for people event photography would be greatly appreciated: 28mm 2.8, 35mm 2, 50mm 1.4, keeping in mind that I already have a 20mm and 60mm 2.8. Close focusing distance (0.25 m) is of primary importance, as I like to include objects in the foreground. I would recommend the 35/2 for several reasons: Since you already have 20mm and 60mm lenses, the 35/2 bridges the focal length gap the best. For a wide angle lens, it focuses very close, down to 0.25m, giving magnification close to 1:4. The 35mm focal length only has very mild wideangle distortion, making it a great lens for people and event photography (that's why so many compact cameras have 35mm lenses) The extra stop in speed compared to your other lenses will make it useful for low light photography. hope this helps, Roland.
Re: Floating Glass Element W/A [v04.n267/18]
I'm looking for a 24 or 28 for my newly bought Nikon FM. I've heard that some of the MF AIS lenses had floating glass elements, which gives additional sharpness. If anyone has any firsthand experience with these, I'd love to hear your impressions. Am I correct in that the 24 f2.8 AIS and 28 f2.0 AIS are the only two in these focal lengths with this feature ? Steve, lenses with floating element (close range correction or CRC as nikon calls it) include: 15/3.5 18mm (AIS and AF only) 20/2.8 (all versions) 24/2.8 (all versions) 24/2 (all versions) 28/2 (all versions) 28/2.8 (AIS and AF-D only) 35/1.4 (all versions) 55/2.8 micro 60/2.8 micro 85/1.4 (all versions) 105/2.8 micro (all versions) 200/4 micro AF
Re: Nikkor zooms with non rotating front [v04.n251/16]
Nikon Zooms with non-rotating front (that I know of...) AI 28-45/4.5 AI-S 50-135/3.5 AF-D 20-35/2.8 IF AF-D 35-105/3.5-4.5 IF AF-S 28-70/2.8 IF AF-S 80-200/2.8 IF AF-D 80-200/2.8 (non-tripod and tripod mount versions) AF-D 70-180 micro AI-S 1200-1700/5.6-8 IF-ED Not sure about super teles like 200-400/4 and 360-1200/11 Zooms which don't rotate when focusing but rotate when zooming: AF-D 24-120 AF-D 28-200 ?? AF-D 28-105 ?? Roland == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: Glass or Plastic? [v04.n247/10]
I am questioning which lens are glass, and others plastic. I have not been able to glean this information from the Nikon lens charts. Can anyone provide a comprehensive listing of when plastic was introduced, and in which models plastic vs.. glass is applied. I also wonder whether glass provides better contrast. I'm aware that both the plastic and glass lens are coated. Dan, All Nikon lenses are glass. The only plastic is found compound aspheric lenses, which have an aspheric plastic surface moulded onto a glass lens. Lenses with this type of aspheric lens include AF 28-70/3.5-4.5, 28-80/3.5- 5.6 and 35-80/4-5.6 (first version), and maybe some others. The new AF-S 28-70/2.8 has a moulded *glass* aspheric lens. Roland.
Re: 24mm f 2.8 AI vs. 24mm f 2.8 AIS: different focusing rings [v04.n240/17]
I recently noticed that the focusing ring of my Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AI, if compared with the corresponding AIS lens, shows a maximum rotation angle approximately twice. Does anybody of you know the reasons of such difference? Is it related in some way with CRC (the latter lens is surely supplied with CRC, but I don't know indeed if such device is present also in the former...)? Paolo, All Nikon 24mm lenses have CRC. Most early lenses had a long focus rotation, usually about half a rotation of the focusing ring. This allows for more precise focusing and wider, more accurate DOF markings. However it also makes the lens slower to focus. When many lenses were converted to AIS, the gradient of the focusing helix was made steeper so the lens had a shorter focus rotation, often only about 1/3 or 1/4 of a rotation. This makes the lens faster to focus.
Re: Greater Magnification [v04.n240/20]
I have a problem I hope some of you may have a resolution too. I am shooting with the Nikon 70-180 Micro AF Zoom (which I dearly love). With the 6T close up dioper attached I can get a life size image with no noticeable loss of sharpness. The problem is that I would like to get a greater than life size image, say 2X or maybe even 3X. Which would be the best way to accomplish this with this zoom? Would extension tubes do the job (I am not sure if extension tubes will have the same effect on this lens as a normal zoom) Bobby, Extension tubes will allow you to gain a large increase in magnification with this lens. Given that the focal length of the 70-180 micro is about 70mm at close range, a long extension tube such as the PN-11 (52.5mm) will give you magnification larger than life-size, but probably not as much as 2x. The instruction sheet with your micro zoom may give magnification with various diopters, extension tubes and bellows. For magnification up to 2x, you could consider a 60mm micro with a PN-11 tube. I use the AF 105/2.8 micro on this tube for magnification up to 1.7x. For greater magnification, I use a BR-2 reversing ring and extension tubes with wide angle lenses. My AI 20/3.5 on a reversing ring and 80mm extension will give me something like 6x life size. Roland
Re: TC14E on 300/4? [v04.n239/2]
Can I use a TC14E converter on my AF 300/4? I know AF won't work (it won't with the TC14B either!), but the stop-down mechanism should be ok, right? Or is there some physical or optical (vignetting / light fall-off) limitation? It would be nice to carry around just one TC for most of my lenses... (lucky Canon users) Officially, you can only use the TC-14E on AF-S and AF-I lenses. There is a tab on the lens mount which prevents other lenses from being mounted on it. Unofficially, I have heard of people filing the tab off so any nikon lens will fit. David Ruether did this with a TC-20E. Read about his findings at: http://www.fcinet.com/ruether/articles.html Other than the extra tab, it has a standard F-mount so it will be compatible mechanically with any lens. This combination will provide electical contact between the lens and camera so matrix metering *might* be retained. However, since this TC and lens were not designed to fit together, the results may be unpredictable. I imagine weight centered and spot metering will work fine. Optically, the TC-14E is similar to the TC-14B, which is said to work extremely well with the 300/4. Roland == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: The Finder Curtain (and lack of it on the F100) [v04.n238/3]
But eliminating the finder blind and instead enclosing a separate little plastic finder cover (which, of course, will not go over the accessory rubber eyecup)? Stupid, stupid, stupid! I have an FE2 which also has no finder blind. It has a rubber eye-cup with effectively cuts out stray light when my eye is to the camera. On the rare occasions I need to cover the eye-piece (mostly macro work), I find that a rear lens-cap fits nicely over the rubber eye-cup, or I just shade the eye- piece with my hand.
Re: F3 and 35mm f1.4 Nikkor - please help [v04.n236/4]
Hello! I have an F3 and I am using one of my 35mm lenses on it at the moment. It is the F1.4. To behonest, I have no idea what Ai, AIS and all the rest means, but I cant see the aperature in my viewfinder when using this lens! The camera meters correclt as I change f stops, but cant see AP reading. Does anyone know If there is a solution, and what type of lens this is? Thank! Alexander, AI and AIS lenses are late model manual focus lenses. They (and AF lenses) have two rows of aperture numbers on the aperture ring. The first row has numbers which are easy to read by eye. Below that is another small row of aperture numbers called the ADR scale (aperture direct readout). AI cameras such as the F3 have a small window in the prism just above the lens which reads this scale and shows the aperture in the viewfinder. If you can't see the aperture in the viewfinder, does your lens have the ADR scale? Early pre-AI lenses do not have this scale. When the AI system was introduced in the mid-70's, it was possible to take your old lens to Nikon and have the aperture ring replaced. These new rings had the ADR scale. These days it is only possible to convert pre-AI lenses to AI by milling part of the aperture ring to create the AI aperture coupling ridge. Lenses converted this way lack the ADR scale. You could add a scale by having the aperture ring engraved, or by sticking a very narrow piece of tape to the lens and writing the numbers yourself. Otherwise, perhaps your ADR window in your camera is dirty and needs cleaning? Hope this helps, Roland
Re: AF 24-50f3.3/4.5D Nikkor [v04.n236/28]
Hello, I am seriously thinking of going for this zoom, as i do not have any wide angle lens for now. I only use primes, and i think this lens could take a good place in my bag with the 2.8/60mm, 1.8/85mm, 2.8/180mm, especially when hiking and for landscape photography. An aditionnal advantage for me is the 62mm filter thread that is common with the 60mm and 85mm. I don't know how is rated this lens, and have never seen one in a store. I just wonder if some of you could give me their feelings about it, optical quality, vignetting with a polarizer, does it come with a hood, how does it focus manually, is it push-pull or 2 rings, etc. Franck, I have not used this lens but have read about it. This is a two-ring zoom, not push-pull. It autofocuses down to 0.6m, with manual "macro" mode down to 0.5m This is not very close focusing for this focal length, and may limit your ability for near-far landscape shots which make wide angles are so useful. It has no depth of field lines, which I find useful for landscape photography. I don't know if it comes with a hood (HB-3), I think you will need to buy it separately. Optically it is supposed to be very sharp, almost as good as prime lenses like the 24/2.8. However, it has more barrel distortion at the wide end, and suffers from more flare. I'm not sure how well it works with polarisers. Being a wide angle lens it may vignette with a normal polariser - you would need to test this out yourself. The filter rotates when you focus. Alternatives which may be worth considering: Get a prime lens (or two) such as the 24/2.8, 28/2.8 or 35/2. These are all very good lenses which focus closer than the zoom, have DOF marks, are very sharp with low distortion and flare. They all have 52mm filters so you could use a 52-62mm step-up ring and use your current filters (this would mean you can't use the lens hood) However, 52mm filters are relatively compact and cheap, if you don't have many filters it may be worth buying another set. You might also want to consider the new 28-105/3.5-4.5 zoom. Although it lacks the wide end of the zoom range, it covers a very useful range of focal lengths. It also focuses very close - down to 1:2. Unless you need 1:1, it could well replace your 60/2.8 lens. It also takes 62mm filters. This is a new lens - I have not heard how well it performs yet. Hope this helps, Roland. == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 [v04.n228/7]
I have purchased a Nikkor-Q Auto 135/2.8. Even is writen Auto, I can not find any CPU contacts and lens look more like an AIS lens. Can you comment this lens from point of view of sharpness, build quality, etc.? Is it the price of $110 for ex+ really good? Anatol, "Auto" refers to the automatic diaphram of the lens, ie, even when you turn the aperture ring to a small aperture, the lens remains wide open so the viewfinder remains bright. The lens stops downs automatically to the set aperture when you take the picture. I've read that the image quality of this lens was average wide open. Stopped down it it probably quite good - at least as good as most cheap zooms. The built-in hood is useful for eliminating flare and increasing contrast. Build quality is probably better than anything made these days. Roland.
Re: focusing accuracy [v04.n229/24]
The question that this thread brought to mind comes from statements I have heard in the past. When the point of AF vs. MF is discussed/debated/argued as a one-is-better-than-the-other issue, I tend to see the pro-MF side cite quite firmly that MF is "more accurate" than AF. I DO NOT want to reopen the battle of auto/manual anything. However, I would like to know if this in fact true, and why. It depends on what you call accurate. An AF lens is probably capable of focusing more accurately on the focus spot in the viewfinder. That may not be what the photographer wants to focus on, in which case it is less accurate. For example, it is comon to shoot portraits with fast short telephoto lenses, which have a very small DOF. The AF camera will focus on where the camera thinks it should focus, which is usually in the center of the frame. This may result in a perfectly focused image of the subject's nose, when the photographer really wanted the eyes to be sharp! Landscape photography often requires the lens to be focused at the hyperfocal distance to maximise the depth of field. This is done by lining up the infinity mark with the far DOF line. Often this means the lens is focused on mid-air. AF is of little use here, and MF is "more accurate".
Re: AF vs. MF 105 micro [v04.n229/27]
I am considering purchasing the AF 105 micro lens, but I don't see much value in AF'ing for macro photography. On the other hand the MF 105 micro only focuses down to 1/2 life size vs. 1/1 for the AF version. Is the AF version easy to manual focus? How does it compare to the MF version? (My local dealer has neither version in stock) Paul, For macro photography you are correct, AF has little value for macro photography. I have the AF 105/2.8 micro and only focus it manually (I have an FE2). For an AF lens, it focuses very smoothly although it does not compare to a manual lens. For closeups it is very easy to focus. Near infinity it focuses very fast - it is oversensitive due to the very compressed focusing scale. This makes fine adjustments to focusing difficult, and it may be easier to use AF. However, it is still quite useable for manual focusing. The main advantage of the AF 105/2.8 is that it goes to 1:1 without needing extension tubes. It is a very sharp lens even wide open. The manual 105/2.8 is slightly lighter and smaller. At close range it has more working distance than the AF lens which makes it easier to photograph shy insects, or subjects in hard-to-reach places. The focusing scale is less compressed to it is easier to focus manually at far distances. It only focuses to 1:2. It will go beyond 1:1 when using the PN-11 extension tube. This tube is excellent because it has a built-in tripod mount which gives better balance on the tripod, and allows the camera to be rotated from horizontal to vertical format while staying on target. Very useful! The PN-11 can also be used with the AF lens for magnification up to 1.7:1 By all accounts it is an excellent lens. Hope this helps, Roland.
Re: Found 50mm [v04.n214/11]
My wife was more of a serious photographer in her younger days. In cleaning out some boxes I discovered a 50mm F2 Nikon AI lens in mint condition. I have no immediate need for it since I have a 50mm F1.4D lens. What is the quality of the F2 lens? Is it worth much used or should I just keep it in the extras box? The 50/2 is similar to the current 50/1.8. Compared to the 50/1.4, it has almost no distortion, and at wide apertures, more consistent image quality to the edge of the frame.
AIS 28/2
Hi all, I'm looking for comments on this lens, in particular: - sharpness and contrast at wide apertures - distortion - is it barrel or wavy-line, how much? - performance at close range - bokeh - how smooth is the out-of-focus blur in the background? - how it compares with the AIS 28/2.8 and AIS 35/2 I have the 28/2.8 which is a great lens, but I'd like more speed. The 35/2 is also excellent, but the bokeh is not great. For me, bad bokeh in a fast lens kind of defeats the purpose of the extra speed. Is the 28/2 the best of both? Thanks, Roland.
Re: Teleconverters for 200mm f2 [v04.n201/7]
Can anyone confirm that the TC-14B is the most suited teleconverter (in the 1.4X range) for the 200mm f2 or is it the TC-14A? Paul, This is what my nikon catalogue says regarding the AIS 200/2: TC-14A - There is occasional vignetting. When used at smaller apertures than f11 with high shutter speeds there is occasional uneven exposure. TC-14B - When used at smaller apertures than f11 with high shutter speeds there is occasional uneven exposure. Overall, it seems the TC-14B would be better since there is no risk of vignetting. I suspect it would be sharper too. "Uneven exposures" may be due to the following. At small apertures the aperture blades need to move a long way to the correct position, which takes time. Adding the TC between the camera and lens may increase this time slightly, so when fast shutter speeds are used, the lens may not be fully stopped down when the exposure starts. This is unlikely to be a real problem, I imagine the reason for having a 200/2 is so you can use wide apertures! Also, at small apertures, shutter speeds tend to be long. Roland.
Re: 3T or No. 1? [v04.n189/8]
To Nikon Macro experts! Is there anything to be gained, or lost, by using the 3T and 4T closeup lenses on a 50mm or wider prime lens, rather than Nos. 1 or 2? Nikon recommend the two element achromats for 55mm focal length and above in their literature. Any thoughts anyone? John, I generally use closeup filters only on longer lenses for the following reasons: - Closeup filters usually work better on longer lenses. Since Nikon's "T" closeup filters are better corrected for long lenses, I would use them in preference to their single element No. 0, 1, and 2 filters. - The advangates of the "T" filters are probably lost when used on wide/standard lenses, which may be why Nikon recommends the cheaper single element closeup filters. However, I imagine that the "T" filters are just as good on wide lenses. - Closeup filters give greater magnification with longer lenses. On wide angle lenses a closeup filter will only give a slight increase in magnification. If you want to get closer with wide angle or standard lenses, I suggest you consider lenses which can focus close without filters such as: AIS 55/2.8 micro (1/2 life size), or AF 35/2 or AIS 28/2.8 (both about 1/4 life size). Roland.
Re: Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS vs. 35/2 AIS [v04.n192/12]
Could anybody please comment on the performance of both lenses? Alexander, I have both lenses. While I have not done any side by side comparisons (yet), here are some general impressions: Sharpness: The 35/2 is *very* sharp at all apertures, my sample produces images which have a beautiful crisp look. The 28/2.8 is also very sharp, however my lens sometimes seems to lack crispness. Contrast: Both lenses are very contrasty, with good resistance to flare even without a hood, and excellent color saturation. My general impression is that the 35/2 is slightly better. This impression may be due to the subject matter I've used with these lenses, intend to do a side-by-side comparison to check this out. Light fall-off: At wide apertures the 35/2 has light fall-off at the corners which is sometimes noticeable when shooting evenly lit subjects such as the sky. The 28/2.8 also has some light fall-off at wide apertures, but for a wide angle lens it is very well controlled. Distortion: the 35/2 has barrel distortion - straight lines near the edges of the frame bow out - not serious. Distortion on the 28/2.8 is very well controlled. Bokeh: The 35/2 tends to produce background blur which is blocky and contrasty, with doubling of out of focus lines. Personally, I prefer a smoother look. The AIS 28/2.8 has slightly smoother bokeh. Macro: The 28/2.8 has CRC and focuses extremely close - to 0.2m, for 1/4 life size - allows for some interesting closeup shots. The AIS 35/2 does not focus as close, but performs very well at minimum focus distance. Build quality: excellent, like most manual focus nikkors. Hope this helps Roland
Getting missing digests
Could someone please send me the following digests: 155, 156 157. My e-mail server crashed and these messages went with it. Thanks for the help. To get any missing digests, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following in the body of the message: get nikon-digest v04.n155 get nikon-digest v04.n156 get nikon-digest v04.n157 end leave subject blank
Re: 35/2 and 50/1.8 vs 35-80 for sharpness [v04.n160/15]
I bought a 35/2.0 and a 50/1.8 recently. They're both great lenses to use and I'm growing to love them already. I decided to do a simple test on them to compare their sharpness against a 35-80/4.0-5.6 zoom The lenses were mounted on an N2020 (F501), all set at f/8 aperture The film was Fuji Superia Reala ISO 100 I got 4x6 prints and examined them under a Peak 10x Loupe To my amazement, I could detect no real difference in sharpness between the primes and the zoom. I was both amazed and disappointed (for my primes; it has given me new faith in my 35-80mm zoom). Mike, I'm not suprised at your results for two reasons: 1. You used print film for your tests and measured the results by examining the prints. There is a good chance you are only measuring the sharpness of the lens in the photo lab used to make the prints - not the sharpness of your lens. To see the sharpness of your lens, you really need to check the negs, or better still, shoot some fine grained (50 or 100 ISO) slide film and check the slides. 2. You shot the pictures at f8. Most lenses are sharpest at this aperture and you will need to look very closely to see any differences. The real test of a lens is how well it performs at wide apertures. Roland
Re: CRC in wide angle lenses
Now for something even more esoteric. I notice that my 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f2.8 (MF both) rotate the rear lens group when focusing as well as move it in and out from the film plain. I assumed this was for the mechanism of CRC (close range correction). However, I noticed that the 20mm f2.8 AF that I have does not rotate the rear lens group as it moves in and out even though this lens is suppose to have CRC also. I am thinking of upgrading my late non AI 28mm 2.8 lens (AI'd) to a 28 2.8 AIS that supposedly has CRC but the one I looked at in a nearby shop did not rotate its rear lens group when focusing so I wonder if this employs the method of the 20 or if some of the AIS models did not have CRC. John, The 24/2.8, 35/1.4, and the 24/2, all have CRC. With these lenses the rear group of elements move in relation to the front elements, and rotate when focusing. The 20/2.8, AIS 28/2.8 and 28/2 also have CRC, but the *front* group of elements move in relation to the rear group and rotate inside the lens barrel (which does not rotate). Rotation does not provide the CRC, it's just an effect of the mechanical design. CRC is due to the distance between front and rear group of elements. With the "front rotating CRC" designs, look closely at the front element while you focus the lens. You will see as small gap between the ring which holds the front element, and the lens barrel. The size of the gap changes slightly between infinity and close focus - about 1mm. Wide angle lenses only need very small movements to provide correction at close range. BTW, the AI and AIS 20/2.8 are different optical designs. The AI version has 7 elements, no CRC and focuses down to 0.3m. The AIS lens has 8 elements, CRC and focuses much closer - down to 0.2m. hope this helps, Roland == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: CRC in wide angle lenses and more questions
John, BTW, the AI and AIS **20/2.8** are different optical designs. The AI version has 7 elements, no CRC and focuses down to 0.3m. The AIS lens has 8 elements, CRC and focuses much closer - down to 0.2m. Whoops! that was meant to say 28/2.8! There is no AI 20/2.8. Man, now that's what I call an answer. I took out my 20mm f2.8 AF and looked at the front element; sure enough there is that little gap and that slight movement. Now the question comes down to which is superior optically, the 28mm f2.8 AIS (8 elements / 8 groups) or the current 28 2.8 AFD (6 elements / 6 groups). The prices are about the same for each. Secondly, I have seen some Nikon brochures list a 28mm f2.8 AFD as 5/5 (like the older 28mm f2.8 AF). Is this just a mistake in the brochure or were there really some 28 2.8 AFD's made with the older optics? You can still buy the AIS 28/2.8 new for that price?? They are huugely expensive here (have to be ordered from Japan) and aren't even on the BH price list :-( Anyway, I personally own the AIS 28/2.8 and think it is a pretty good lens. Distortion is very low, and sharpness is good, though my sample sometimes seems to lack the crispness of my other lenses. It's generally regarded as an excellent lens, so my one may be an odd one out. The great thing about this model is how close it focuses - down to 0.2m (closer than any other Nikkor) for 1:4 mag, - almost makes it a wide angle micro! Makes for some interesting shots. Then there is the AF non-D lens, which has 5 elements and is based on the series-E lens. It's not well regarded, avoid it. The AF-D version has new optics with 6 elements (my brochure also has it wrong). I think the USA nikon web site states this lens has CRC, but my brochure does not, so who knows? I've never handled one - I questioned one owner about it - neither the front or rear element rotates, if that means anything. It may have CRC with a different mechanism from the other lenses. I've heard little about the AF-D version optically, except that it is quite good - definitely better than the series-E/AF version, but not quite as good as the AIS lens. Personally, unless you need AF, matrix and D metering for flash, I would go for the better optics and better build construction of the AIS lens. I think most photographers wanting a wide angle lens opt for the wider, more dramatic perspective of the 24/2.8, which is well regarded. AIS and AF versions are the same. The focal length is probably nice, but I always disliked the 0.3m close focus distance, which does not seem close enough to me - esp compared to the AIS 28/2.8. Another option worth looking at is the AIS 28/2, which is not mentioned often, I have only heard positive things about it. I intend to try it out at some stage to see how it compares with my 28/2.8, esp in terms of crispness, distortion and smoothness of out-of-focus backgrounds (bokeh). Like most AIS, and unlike most AF lenses, it is built like a tank and will last for years. I enjoy the handling and build quality of manual lenses, except for my 105 micro, all my lenses are manual. Good shooting, Yoda;-)
Re: AF-S 28-70/2.8D with AF-I teleconverters [v04.n151/5]
Does anyone here know why the soon to be released AF-S 28-70/2.8D is not compatible with the AF-I teleconverters. Steve, AF-I teleconverters were designed for telephoto lenses and are optimised for them. The converters also have protruding front elements, which is fine for telephotos which have recessed rear elements, but it means they won't physically fit lenses with non-recessed rear elements, such as the 28-70. Roland.
Re: Nikon D and ED
Nikon lenses confuse the heck out of me. I recently purchased a Nikon ED 70-300 4-5.6D lens (mainly for wildlife shots, i.e. flying birds). I know what the "D" means, but what does the "ED" mean? My other Nikon lense does not bear this gold insignia. Thanks. Will report on the results of the lens when the film comes back. RJB. "D" is for the distance information the lens supplies to the camera. The focus distance is useful for some metering situations and flash photography. "ED" stands for Extra-low Dispersion glass. Dispersion is the effect you get when a glass prism splits light to its separate colors. This effect is obviously not a desirable effect if it happens in your lens! It would cause color fringing and loss of sharpness, especially with long focal lengths. ED glass is special glass which minimises this problem.
Re: What is IEV ??? [v04.n142/24]
On the specs page of the Nikon USA F100 page (http://www.nikonusa.com/products/photography/f100/specs.html) there is this, under "Exposure:" "o 1/3 EV increment setting (1/2 and IEV with Custom Setting)" and under "Custom Settings Highlights" "o EV steps for exposure control: 1/3, IEV steps, cancelable" I suspect "IEV" is a typo, instead of the letter "I", there should be the number 1. "EV" stands for exposure value; 1EV is another way of saying 1 stop.
Re: 28 PC, 20 3.5, 80-200AF-D [v04.n141/4]
Could you please be so kind an tell me something about the following lenses: 28/3.5 PC - is it good to use in general conditions (traveling?) - what about filters, vignetting, image quality, Hi sImOn, I had some experience with the early 35/2.8 PC lens. Generally, I would say PC lenses not good for general conditions. There is no automatic diaphram and metering is stop down. Also, if you are shifting the lens, you must meter before you shift (unless you have an F3), generally it is easier to do this manual mode. It is much easier to do all this if the camera is supported on a tripod. It is a specialised lens which requires patience and attention to get good results. Of course, if you do a lot of architectural photography, you may be willing to put up with this. Personally I prefer convenience and decided I can live with converting lines (I think removing converging lines completely often looks unnatural). Because of the wider image circle of PC lenses, they have less vignetting than normal lenses when unshifted or with small shifts. I was quite happy with the optical quality of the 35/2.8 PC I tried. Quite sharp and distortion was very low - unlike my 35/2. 20/3.5 with the 52mm thread - what about vignetting, usability quality compared to later versions and the 20/3.5 UD with 72mm thread (would it be an upgrade besides the cheaper and more common filters?) I have used the compact 20/3.5 quite often and have been very pleased with the results. It is contrasty and very sharp at apertures smaller than f5.6. Although I don't have a high-powered loupe, the images look as sharp as those produced by the current 20/2.8. There is some loss in resolution in the corners, especially at wide apertures and at close range. Flare has never been a problem even without a hood, the small front element does not catch much stray light. Although I have the recommended HK-6 hood, I use an HN-1 hood (for the 24/2.8) which is much smaller and more convenient to use - the lens cap can fitted with the hood still attached. The HN-1 does not cause vignetting if mounted directly on the lens (don't use it over a filter). The compact 52mm filter size is very handy. I use a normal hoya polariser (not wide-angle or slim-line) and it barely causes vignetting in the corners - hidden by slide mounts. If you want a compact lens wider than 24mm, this is a great lens to have. Check out my web page for some images taken with my 20mm lens. Roland. == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
New 28-105 zoom
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/jpn/whatsnew/af28105_98.htm Hi all, I've made an attempt at interpreting the Japanese web page giving specs of the new 28-105 zoom. Pity the English pages have not been updated yet. As far as I can tell: focal length: 28-105 max aperture: f3.5-4.5 min aperture: f22 optics: 16/12 elements/groups min focus: 0.5m, down to 0.22m in macro mode repro ratio: 1:2.74 at 50mm, 1:2 at 105mm! filter size: 62mm hood: HB-18 aperture blades: 9 diameter: 73mm length: 81.5mm from mount, 92mm overall weight: 455g Judging from the picture, the macro mode is from 50-105mm only. I guess, as with most nikkors, macro mode is manual focus only. The reproduction ratio with this lens is impressive! The focus throw appears to be very short. For manual focusers like me, this might be ok at the wide end, but manual focusing will be very touchy at the long end. The filter probably does not rotate because the lens is IF. Overall it looks (and probably handles) very much like a bigger version of the 28-70/3.5-4.5. The lens is smaller and lighter than the current 28-85/3.5-4.5, which will probably be replaced by this new lens. The specs of this lens look very impressive - nice zoom range, usable speed, good macro mode in a compact package. A great travel lens. Let's hope it's sharp. Roland
Re: Mikro-Nikkor 55/3,5 [v04.n139/10]
I have just been offered an old Mikro-Nikkor 55/3.5, at what seems like a fair prize - for Sweden, that is! It looked just fine, but there is one thing that did not make sense: it was an old chromium-barrel lense, with an metal (non-rubber) focusing-ring, but it had an reproduction-ratio of 1:1 engraved on the barrel. From what I've heard, only the most recent Mikro-Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS and the AF Mikro-Nikkor 60/2.8 goes as high as 1:1. All the data I've gathered points out that all old Mikro-Nikkor 55/3.5 only goes to 1:2 without an extension-ring. This one must have been really old, due to the lack of a rubber-focusing ring, but not so old that it's an pre-AI: it had the famous litte notch on the aperture-ring, and it seemed not to have been AI'd afterwards, as it showed no scratched paint, and no mechanical abuse on the aperture-ring whatsoever. And it was not so old that the metal-focusing ring had valleys like the pre-AI and aperture-preset models, but rather a smooth metal! ! ! -ring with trapetziod dimples all over. Anyone knows something about this lense? How does it compare to the legendary M-N 55/3.5 1:2-lense? Or does the engraving perhaps somehow presume that you have an PK-?? extension-ring mounted? The, as always nice, clerk at the store was explicit about the lens' ability to go down to 1:1 without an extra extension-ring. Mathias, The lens you describe sounds interesting. As far as I know, only the AF 55/2.8 micro and AF 60/2.8 micro go directly to 1:1. The AIS 55/2.8 and 55/3.5 models go to 1:2. I have seen an early pre-AI 55/3.5 micro with a chrome barrel and metal focusing ring. However, the focusing ring was deeply ribbed similar to other pre-AI lenses. Other pre-AI 55/3.5 lenses I have seen have a rubber focusing ring with a diamond grip. I have never seen a lens with a metal focusing ring as you describe. If the lens has the AI coupling ridge on the aperture ring, and an ADR scale (another small row of aperture numbers below the aperture scale) then the lens may have been "AI'd" by Nikon. This is when the old pre-AI aperture ring was replace by Nikon with a new AI ring. Alternatively, the lens you have seen may be an AI model. This has a grip with a rectangular (trapeziod) pattern, similar to AIS and current AF lenses - however it is rubber, not metal! From what I can remember, 55 micro lenses have two reproduction scales on the barrel. The first is for the lens by itself up to 1:2, the second is for the lens with the matching extension tube up to 1:1. This may be what you saw on your lens. I have a list of lens specifications from my photo page in my web page. If you know the serial number of you may be able to find out which model it is. hope this helps Roland. == Roland Vink [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.ait.ac.nz/staff/rvink/
Re: hood for 75-150 E lens/ n90s use [4]
I just bought a Nikon 75-150mm E lens , I would like to get the proper lens shade for it, anyone recall the nikon number for this shade or one that will work on this lens.I will be using this lens on a N90s and would appreicate any advise on using a manual lens on this camera as I have been using AF lens and need a change for awhile. Craig, The hood for the 75-150 is the HN-21, which would be a metal screw-in type. It is long out of production and is not very common, you may have trouble finding one. A hood which *may* work is the HN-7, which was made for the AI 80-200/4.5 and pre-AI 85/1.8. These lenses have a slightly longer focal length so the hood may be a little deeper and cause vignetting with the 75-150. I suspect it would be ok as long as it is not fitted over any filters. It would pay to check it out first. This hood is also not in production, but is relatively common. The other alternative is to get a hood for a lens with a shorter focal length such as 50mm or 35mm. Hoods for these lenses will not provide as much shade as the HN-21, but will offer some protection, without the risk of vignetting. When using manual lenses such as the 75-150 on the F90, you can use manual mode or aperture priority modes. Metering will be center-weighted, and maybe spot metering - no matrix metering. Hope this helps, Roland
Re: 85 D f1.4 focus ring question
Hi to all. I got an 85 AF-D f1.4 several days ago and have a question about this lens for those of you who also own or have used one. First, let me say that this is the first prime lens I have owned above 35mm. My present Nikon lens collection consists of the 24 AF-D f2.8, 35 AF-D f2, and the 80-200 AF-D f2.8 with tripod mount. One thing I have noticed about my 85 is that, after pressing the small button that allows switching from auto to manual focus, the focus ring does not engage immediately the way it does on my 80-200 zoom. Rick, I have an AF 105/2.8 micro, and recently had an opportunity to handle an AF 85/1.4. Both lenses show the behaviour you describe. Roland.
