Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,197   Posts: 1,531,418   Online: 837
      
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 61
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,353
    The one I use most is the 35/2 pre AI Nikkor O. I also have a 20/3.5 pre AI Nikkor UD, and I plan to get a 28mm when I find the right one.

    The 35 spends as much time on the camera as the 50, the 20 is kind of a special purpose lens that I enjoy using; it is quite a good lens, the worst problem is falloff, but I can sometimes use that as part of the composition.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Utah Valley
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    272
    I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but wides with 62mm or 52mm filter threads can easily be reversed for macro photography. I've had my 24/2.8 for about three years, but never tried reversing it until today! According to the BR-2A (reverse adapter) literature, the manual focus 24mm lens achieves an impressive 2.6X reproduction ratio (I don't have a 20mm, but it apparently reaches 3.4X). The biggest downside is that you can only focus by moving the whole camera back and forth, and if you're like me and you don't have a focusing stage, this means picking up your tripod up to move it a fraction of an inch while you try to keep your eye looking through the viewfinder. It's fun though.

  3. #53
    skahde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    425
    Images
    4
    I used the 2/35mm Ais for years but it paled in comparison to the 2/35mm Summicron-M I had at the time. I got rid of it when it developed a problem and needed service. Lateron I realised that 28mm worked better for me than 35mm and the Nikkor 2/28mm turned out to be a better lens than the Nikkor 2/35mm. Contrast and resolution are still not as good as with the Summicron but more than sufficient for what I do.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11
    +1 for the 24mm, I have an old 24/2.8 which I had Ai'd and use it on my Nikkormat, FM2, F3HP and digital bodies... excellent optics and feel. On the AF side I have a 20/2.8 AF-D which is good in FX but I didn't like it for DX.

  5. #55
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by skahde View Post
    I used the 2/35mm Ais for years but it paled in comparison to the 2/35mm Summicron-M I had at the time. I got rid of it when it developed a problem and needed service. Lateron I realised that 28mm worked better for me than 35mm and the Nikkor 2/28mm turned out to be a better lens than the Nikkor 2/35mm. Contrast and resolution are still not as good as with the Summicron but more than sufficient for what I do.
    The 28mm/2.8 has better resolution and or sharpness than the f/2
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  6. #56
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    That's what testing has shown, agreed, but the 28/2 does have it's own thing going on.
    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

  7. #57
    semeuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Treasure Coast, FL
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    462
    Images
    98
    I just got the 20mm UD - very nice lens.

  8. #58
    OldBodyOldSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by semeuse View Post
    I just got the 20mm UD - very nice lens.
    That's a hefty little bastard, isn't it? Congrats.
    20mm is a FL I have been eyeballing for a long time and there is no version of 20mm Nikkor I didn't want/prefer at some point, but every time I had money something else came up on top.

  9. #59
    tony lockerbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bega N.S.W. Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,303
    Images
    373
    I seem to have ended up with the 18mm 3.5 and the 20mm 2.8, the 18mm came first but the 20mm was one of those "deals" that you can't resist. Short story, both are excellent but I now always use the 20mm because it is so compact and takes the 52mm filters, makes a big difference.
    Often think of selling the 18 but I dropped it a few years back and there is a sizable ding in the filter mount, kinda ruins the resale value! Testament to the build quality though, the optics were not affected in any way....can't do that with a modern zoom!

  10. #60
    OldBodyOldSoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    Doesn't 20/2.8 take 62mm filters? It's the 20/3.5 AI-S and 20/4 that are 52mm.

Page 6 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