Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,387   Posts: 1,683,232   Online: 711
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    110
    In the 17-24mm range, the only Nikon prime I own is a non-D 20mm f/2.8. I'd rate it in the "very good" range, but no higher. "Mr. Squeaky," my 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S, has less distortion, the distortion is more easily correctable, is no worse for flare, and might be a tad sharper.

    I owned a 24mm f/2.8 AI-S but traded it away. I won't say anything bad about it, but I never really warmed to it either. I find that with 35mm film, I prefer to use a wide-angle zoom and use different focal lengths and shooting distances to record different perspectives on the same subject.

  2. #42
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    At the risk of plugging my own stuff, 35mm is normal and 50mm is short-telephoto to me. Even if scientifically it's closest to "normal," 1:1, etc. I feel that due to the way the eye's natural framing includes peripheral vision, to an extent, 35mm feels more normal to my eyes...



    Nikkor 35mm f/2.0, 1600PR, direct contact sheet scan (ilford)



    Nikkor 28mm f/2.0, 100ss, direct contact sheet scan (ilford)



    Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, 100ss, print scan (emaks)


    I'm of the opinion that a wide-angle shot looks less "wiiiiidddeee angle" if one gets in there, putting the lens almost inside of the shot. There is a depth that reveals itself when using wide angles this way. Sometimes they can be useful for the whole effect of taking it all in and conveying width, but most of the time ultra-wides really shine when you're close.

    I like 'em all but gravitate to sub-35mm widths.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    191
    I have a beat up 24 f2.8, it squeaks when focusing but I love the pictures it takes. I tried 35mm f2.8 AIS and the result is awesome. I wish they make 35mm f2.0 in manual focus

  4. #44
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by MFstooges View Post
    I have a beat up 24 f2.8, it squeaks when focusing but I love the pictures it takes. I tried 35mm f2.8 AIS and the result is awesome. I wish they make 35mm f2.0 in manual focus
    They do!

    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minden Hills, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    215
    I like to photograph tall trees, Spruce and Cedars in the Summer and loaded with winter snow.
    I use portrait view with a 28mm f3.5 PC- Nikkor preset lens on F2AS.
    Indoor flash :17 , 24, 35 mm wide angles.
    Best regards,
    /Clay

  6. #46
    declark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    So. Cal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    245
    Images
    79
    Have owned a couple 24mm f2.8 N-C Ai lenses and loved both of them. Had a beater 28mm f2.8 Ais that was incredibly sharp at close distances, almost macro-esque, but pretty average at longer distances... 28 never felt very wide, whereas 24 just starts to have that sort of distorted feel when you get in tight. Never felt like spending for any wider than 24 and I just don't understand the need for faster than f2.8, but haven't tried so I guess I don't know what I am missing other than a heavier camera bag which would probably be offset by a lighter wallet. Had a 35mm f2 Ais and never dug it that much it's a boring focal length to me.

  7. #47
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    2.1cm Nikkor for Nikon F - This is a jewel of a tool and did the bulk of my Karri Forest protest documentation - It also works superbly for IR work, but with end of HIR that is a thing of the past

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jbaphoto981210B14.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	28.3 KB 
ID:	45317

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	jbaphoto030317A4.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	24.1 KB 
ID:	45318
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails jbaphoto030317A9.jpg  

  8. #48
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by jbaphoto View Post
    2.1cm Nikkor for Nikon F - This is a jewel of a tool and did the bulk of my Karri Forest protest documentation - It also works superbly for IR work, but with end of HIR that is a thing of the past
    There are other, arguably very good, IR films still being made...
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,342
    My favorite is the ZF 25mm f/2,8. Mechanically and optically superb and with the ability to focus super close (17cm). I also have the Nikon AFD 20mm f/2,8 but since the arival of the 25mm I rarely use it.
    Best regards
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  10. #50
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    At the risk of plugging my own stuff, 35mm is normal and 50mm is short-telephoto to me. Even if scientifically it's closest to "normal," 1:1, etc. I feel that due to the way the eye's natural framing includes peripheral vision, to an extent, 35mm feels more normal to my eyes...
    Regarding what is "standard" for 35mm we all base 50mm on the original FL for the Leica - The real figure is in the region of 43mm, so 35mm is very close - The logic is that "normal" is the diagonal of the film frame - For 35mm it is the square root of (242 + 362) - The schoolboy Pythagoras thingie I was taught at school - I once worked it out at sort of 43mm

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin