Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,646   Posts: 1,481,269   Online: 727
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    how about series E lenses? are they any good? again, i was offered a 100mm f/2.8 E... anyone who have this lens? care to share what you think?
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  2. #32

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    E Series primes are pretty good from what I've seen. Certainly better many of the non-pro quality zoom lenes.
    Frank Schifano

  3. #33
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    oh.. ok.. thanks...
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    345
    The 100/2.8 E isn't magic like the 105 but its way better than good enough.

  5. #35
    denmark.yuzon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    116
    how about a x2 converter? i currently have a 50mm f/1.8 E.. thats all i got.. would it be cheaper if i use a x2 converter instead and get a prime later when i have the extra money?.. at least i could have a 100mm with a f/1.8 aperture.. is that advisable? would it affect the IQ? would there be any disadvantages regarding the IQ?
    Flickr
    Multiply
    My PhotoBlog
    My Twitter!


    WTB: Konica Autoreflex T3 and AR lenses

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    345
    The 2x converter to get to 100mm would make your setup f2.8, not 1.8. All 2x converters I know of lower your lens speed by two stops.

    That said, the only converters worth using are the genuine Nikons which sell in the used market for about the same prices as the short teles we are talking about.

    The TC200 is the one you would be looking for. I own one and use it - mostly with my 180/2.8.

    They work well enough but I think depth of field gets shallower faster with the converter and there is some loss of sharpness at the edges of the image.

    That's not necessarily a deal breaker for making photos of real subjects and not test charts.

  7. #37
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11,560
    Images
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by nyoung View Post
    The 2x converter to get to 100mm would make your setup f2.8, not 1.8. All 2x converters I know of lower your lens speed by two stops.
    Actually, it would end up as a 100mm f/3.6 (not f/2.8).

    The advantages of tele-convertors are:

    1) cost;
    2) size and weight; and
    3) in some cases, close focusing capability.

    The disadvantages are:

    1) less resolution and contrast;
    2) loss of speed; and
    3) in some cases, less convenient.

    I (infrequently) use two different tele-convertors with my 35mm equipment. One I use with an 85mm f/2 lens to give me a small, 170mm f/4 when I need one. The other is a neat Vivitar tele-convertor that has a very flexible close focus capability. Essentially, the Vivitar unit is an adjustable extension tube, and as such is really handy.

    Matt

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228

    Tamron 35 - 105 mm f 2.8 ASL.

    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    I have a lot to say about these lenses, but I'll keep it short. Tamron made 35-105 and 28-105 f/2.8 fixed aperture lenses which were quite pricey when new, probably they are good optics.
    Tamron's 35 - 105 mm f 2.8 ASL & 28 - 105 mm f 2.8 are phenomenal lenses. Well worth the price, when new. I own the 35 - 105. First in Manual focus, then in EF Auto Focus. Most of my images were shot with this lens.
    The 28 - 105, is sharper on paper, but it is big & heavy, compared to the earlier 35 - 105.
    Both use molded, not Ground Aspheric front elements. A breakthrough at the time.

    Now at a more reasonable price on eBay.

  9. #39
    nicefor88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgique
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    250
    Hi,
    The mass produced 35-70 f3,3-4,5 gave good results when I used the MF version in the 80s. The AF took the same optical formula.
    The 18-35 f4 is good but it does not cover your favourite range.
    The 28-80 f3,5-4,5 should be the closest to what you're considering.
    I would be cautious with wide range zooms, you know, the 24-120 or 70-300 kind. Looks like too good to be true, at the expense of speed of course. It's so dark when you look into the viefinder...
    Hope this helps.

  10. #40
    Chaplain Jeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    172
    Hello,

    My favorite zoom on a manual Nikon is the Kiron 70-210mm, f/4 zoom. Really sharp where it needs to be, but not so "surgically" sharp as Nikon primes have a tendancy to be.

    I mainly shoot primes at wider angles: Vivitar Series One 90mm, f/2.5; Nikkor 55mm, f/1.2 and Nikkor 24mm, f/2.8.
    Jeff M


    M3, M5, CLE, Minolta XE7, Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta Maxxum 9000, Nikon F3HP, etc., etc.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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