Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,717   Posts: 1,483,110   Online: 1080
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    65
    In my humble opinion and experience?

    1.4/35 Distagon in C/Y mount: simply awesome lens in all respects, very useable wide open, all the usual Zeiss qualities. Used on RTSIII.

    2.0/35 Distagon ZF.2 mount: great lens, not as great as the 1.4 though. Used on D700.

    1.4/35 AF-S Nikkor: simply awesome lens, has to be seen to be believed. Not flat, not dull at all. Used on D700.

    2.0/35 Ai-S Nikkor: good average performer. Nothing special, very useable, gives a '70's/'80's photojournalist look to your Tri-X images. Used on FM2n, FE2, FA.

  2. #22
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    oneAnt, your tone toward user blockend in post #11 was, IMO, not nice at all.

    He wrote (emphasis mine):
    It's difficult to know what you mean by contrasty, but if it's the high contrast look of, say, 1960s fashion photography or some branches of reportage, the process may have more to do with the look than the lens. Nikon lenses were recognised as among the most high contrast glass available - it was a form of criticism by Leica fans - and were often the lens of choice for the types of photography I've described.

    If you already own Nikon glass, I don't think you'll get more of it from Contax. I suggest you might want to look closer at film choices, development and printing or digital post processing
    .

    You replied with this answer (emphasis mine):

    No, this simply isnt right, no offense but you've never shot Zeiss, its that apparent. The only lens that comes close to the micro-contrast of the Zeiss in Nikkor is the 35/1.4 ais. This isnt just opinion and I'm afraid you'll have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands.
    Its not Contax either, they are only for conversion to Canon mount and do not fit the Nikons.

    To the OP, We get heaps of crap for it but the Zeiss are a micro-contrast lens, its just unheard of in Nikkors except the 35/1.4ais that I already mentioned. Some have suggested that the other Nikkor is the 200/2 but its not either and they are confusing its colour and it also lacks this level of contrast.

    Just go look, you'll see it straight away and if you don't then throw out your monitor
    .

    Frankly, if I had to word my answer the way you word yours, I would answer:

    No, this simply is not right. No offence but you never got the difference between contrast and micro-contrast, this is apparent. I know all and I can tell you that there is one lens (lens X) which is up to what my beloved Zeiss lenses do. Out of that single lens, everybody knows the Zeiss has better contrast, just ask around. You'll have an uphill battle in trying to say something against this simple truth, that no Nikon lens (besides the lens X, that is) has the micro-contrast of my Zeiss lens.

    Go look at my insignificant (for the point at stake, I'm not referring to aesthetic value) highly-sharpened small-resolution highly-pumped-contrast black-blocked images and you'll see how right I am. They clearly demonstrate all the resolution and the contrast of Zeiss lenses as opposed to Canon or Nikon lenses. "We" (who?) all agree on this so just give up, sorry!

    Or change your monitor, because if you disagree with me, it must be either your brain or your monitor, and I hope it's your monitor.

    Now, I normally don't write like that. But I am moved to action by people who write like that, especially when they show so little understanding of some basic photographic concepts. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this so bluntly, but I think it will help you to express your ideas without using expressions like "uphill battles", "we", "isn't just opinion", "I'm afraid", without putting things in the mouth of people (he talked contrast and you answered micro-contrast), without supporting your beliefs with low-resolution images that say nothing to demonstrate your point, or demonstrate how little you understand about the basics.

    Don't feel offended but the tone you set with your answers disturbed me.

    Maybe I should avoid playing the "white knight" (user blockend is certainly able to answer by his own) but the general tone of your answer to blockend sounded like "you are wrong, I know more, don't even try to answer, look at these pictures" and it was just beyond proper conversation habits in premises, development, and conclusion.

    Fabrizio

    PS You should be careful in typing its and it's because it's also "tiring" to read text written without any care, one has to read every sentence twice. And do notice my politeness.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 09-11-2012 at 06:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Thanks all ...I've quit APUG.

  4. #24
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    A nice article on how useless it is to compare lenses with low-resolution images

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml

    Sorry for the OT.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #25
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    A nice article on how useless it is to compare lenses with low-resolution images

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml

    Sorry for the OT.
    Nothing toward you Fabrizio and I agree with the gist of the link there but that website is the one that professed the 11mp Canon 1Ds1 beats a 6x7 film image in every way.

    Its funny because M.R. was using web shots to "prove" this absurd pronouncement.

    Even though I agree web images are crap I tend to stay away from that site.
    Last edited by brucemuir; 09-11-2012 at 07:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #26
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Yes the site is digital oriented but is also hosts articles about films. I certainly don't agree with everything Michael Reichmann writes but I normally find him interesting.

    The eternal diatribe about digital - film was conducted with "true pixels" web comparisons in any case. I don't think the test was well conducted (and in any case only tested for resolution) but he never compared Canon 1DsI and 6x7 film by showing the images reduced to 1mp.

    I just read, on that site, a nice article about the superior image experience given by a slide:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...aught_me.shtml

    Photographers of all persuasions collaborate with the site although it is, in general, more digital oriented.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Hi,
    Thanks for all the info, I've more or less made my decision on which one to get since I'm predominantly a film user. Will post pics back here once I've run it through it paces.

  8. #28
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,576
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Hi,
    Thanks for all the info, I've more or less made my decision on which one to get since I'm predominantly a film user. Will post pics back here once I've run it through it paces.
    So? Which is it??
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    So? Which is it??

    At the risk of reviving a zombie thread, in the end I bough the 35mm f/2. Heaps lighter physically and on the wallet as well

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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