Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,908   Posts: 1,521,523   Online: 874
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    ABQ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    127
    I had two samples of this lens, black and silver. I sold both of them. While the lens is small, light and cute, optically it is not better (probably worse) that than $110 Nikon 50/1.8D. Subjectively, my sample of 50/1.8 is as sharp as Contax N planar 50/1.4.

    I think KR was correct regarding this lens.

  2. #22
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,038
    Images
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by sbelyaev View Post
    I had two samples of this lens, black and silver. I sold both of them. While the lens is small, light and cute, optically it is not better (probably worse) that than $110 Nikon 50/1.8D. Subjectively, my sample of 50/1.8 is as sharp as Contax N planar 50/1.4.

    I think KR was correct regarding this lens.
    It was not designed to be sharper than their other lenses. Not everything is about sharpness.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    ABQ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by darinwc View Post
    It was not designed to be sharper than their other lenses. Not everything is about sharpness.
    I don't see any other advantages of 45/2.8 except for the size and look of this lens.
    Bokeh of 50/1.8 and 45/2.8 is similar.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    To me size and weight were the advantages. The disadvantage was the slower max aperture compared to the 50mm lenses. Prints from the 45/2.8 and my 50/1.4 look no different to my eye.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799
    My 45/2.8 is an older GN Nikkor with the C marking. It has seven blades rather than the nine blades of the earlier pre-C lens. In most cases I think the better coating is more useful than the extra blades. I don't use the GN feature so the novelty factor for me is the size and shape. The performance of the lens is good. If I used a 50/2 AI Nikkor instead I think my results would be at least as good. What about the newer P lens? It looks very cheaply made compared to the older GN models. Someone mentioned an adapter for using a 45/2 Rokkor lens on a Nikon camera. Does the adapter allow correct infinity focus? Apart from its slightly smaller size, what is the advantage of using the 45/2 Rokkor on a Nikon camera? A 50/2 'K' or AI or a 50/1.8 AI or AIS would be at least as good. I have a 45/2 Rokkor which I use sometimes. I do not consider it as good as the 50/1.7 MD.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    202
    I always think this FL and aperture combination is a bit problematic. Kind of like a "poser" lens. Cool to carry around but overpriced for the utility that it delivers.

    Not trying to flame, I own a pentax pancake and wants a 43mm/1.9 too!

    There are a lot of 40-45mm fixed lens rangefinders with f2.8 or brighter, most can be had for less than $10, are very compact, and delivers stunning results. Nearly all uses leaf shutter so sync at all speed. Price/performance ratio is decidedly in their favor.

    Even that inexpensive olympus trip 35, a VF only camera, has a tessar type lens which give excellent results with character!

  7. #27
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,776
    When the GN version was current I did a quick, but critical, test on about 35 lenses for Nikon and Leica. Four were noticably sharper than the others: 45mm GN-Nikkor, 50mm f/2.8 Elmar, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, and EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8. In everyday photography, Summicrons and other 50mm Nikkors were as good.

  8. #28
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    Bjorn Rorslett, is someone that the hardcore nikon shooter's repect when it comes to reviewing lenses. He likes the lens a lot. I will assure you this guy's opinion is much more valid than KR.
    Here is Bjorn's web site. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
    The lens is listed under the 50 mm normal section. Hope this helps. You can also try the Nikonians site.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,998
    I had the GN years ago & with a FM/FE body it's very compact. Before there were really good auto flash units the GN was a really simple way to get consistent exposure with a manual flash.
    For those who aren't familiar with the GN lens, You would set your guide number on the lens engage the focus ring with the aperture ring and as you focused the aperture changed to compensate exposure.You could almost equate it to the D function of today's AF Nikkkors
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  10. #30
    Ofey-kalakar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    I have a number of pictures with the 45 Ai-P and the 35 f1.4 AiS in my Italy album. Both lenses are very nice. The 45 has the advantage of being extremely compact and ideal as a travel near "normal" focal length lens for street photography.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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