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?
E Series primes are pretty good from what I've seen. Certainly better many of the non-pro quality zoom lenes.
The 100/2.8 E isn't magic like the 105 but its way better than good enough.
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?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
Actually, it would end up as a 100mm f/3.6 (not f/2.8).
Originally Posted by nyoung
The advantages of tele-convertors are:
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.
Tamron 35 - 105 mm f 2.8 ASL.
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.
Originally Posted by rthomas
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.
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.
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.
M3, M5, CLE, Minolta XE7, Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta Maxxum 9000, Nikon F3HP, etc., etc.