Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,002   Posts: 1,524,463   Online: 1037
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,454
    Images
    74
    If you are a fan of the Tessar gradual and buttery smooth transition out of the focus, it's a good lens to have. I would guess it has some imperfection wide open and gets super sharp as you stop down like tessars I've used on bigger cameras. That's the versatility and fault at the same time of the tessars. I use them in LF and think highly of them.

    Ken Rockwell doesn't understand (or at least write about) things that are gradual and subtle and so forth. That's not his style. He wants it to be crisp all the time and produce velvia saturated vacation/kid photos.

    If you like the size and shape of the lens, but not the throwbacks, sell it to a cult buyer/collector and get a Voigtlander 40 SLII. I have one of these because I wanted f/2, and I really really like it. Ken Rockwell likes it because it's one of the sharpest lenses available, and I like it because it's that and good bokeh and focus transition at the same time.

  2. #42
    T42
    T42 is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118

    What about contrast?

    Hi Folks.

    I have an early 1950's 50mm f2.8 blue-coated Tessar which came on a Practica FX. It seems to have less tendency to flare than my various other 50's, none of which is newer than about 1980.

    It seems to me that a current technology Tessar with the latest coatings would have very high contrast and corresponding extremely low flare as characteristics. But I haven't heard so much about that from the Members here who have experience with the Nikkor 45mm f2.8 pancake sold with the FM3a.

    I had been thinking about that Nikon pancake Tessar lens for some time, but now that I have read this thread, I am thinking that I might find my big clumsy fingers struggling to make it obey my wishes.

    Last edited by T42; 11-28-2010 at 11:22 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo
    Henry
    A Certified Dinosaur
    Nikons F, F2, D700, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a

  3. #43
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    I have found that the contrast with this lens is wonderful! In certain conditions???? an almost 3D effect?
    Color renditions are wonderful too! The color shots with the lens on my Nikon D300 are amazing. The lens is chipped so all the information is transmitted to the camera. It would be a mind blower on your D700!
    I have big hands and the lens is easy to use. It is different than say my 50mm f/1.8 because the controls are a bit smaller but it is easy to adjust to in just a few shots.
    This lens will travel with me. It is so easy to just stick in a pocket and carry around!!!

    I am not a spec. geek and my opinion is based only on my experience and results.

    I don't know where in GA you are located but if you are close by we could meet up and you could shoot the lens a bit and give it a test drive.
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I don't know. The new 45 f/2.8 pancake Nikkor commands a very high price, and I don't think it's worht the money. Optically, I may be a fine lens. I haven't used one, but I can't see Nikon putting a real dog of a lens out there, that's just plain bad business and would only give them a bad name. But wat does the pancake lens offer that you can't get with the lowly 50 mm f/1.8? That lens has, to me at least, excellent optical characteristics. It may not be so great wide open, but by the time you get it down to f/2.8 things start coming together nicely. By f/4. it's really good. And it's CHEAP. I really think that the pancake lens is there for the hard core collector of cult status items. It's nothing special for the guy who want to use it for everyday shooting.
    Frank Schifano

  5. #45
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    I don't know. The new 45 f/2.8 pancake Nikkor commands a very high price, and I don't think it's worht the money. Optically, I may be a fine lens. I haven't used one, but I can't see Nikon putting a real dog of a lens out there, that's just plain bad business and would only give them a bad name. But wat does the pancake lens offer that you can't get with the lowly 50 mm f/1.8? That lens has, to me at least, excellent optical characteristics. It may not be so great wide open, but by the time you get it down to f/2.8 things start coming together nicely. By f/4. it's really good. And it's CHEAP. I really think that the pancake lens is there for the hard core collector of cult status items. It's nothing special for the guy who want to use it for everyday shooting.
    Compared to the 50/1.8AF, the 45/2.8 AiP is way better built. Then there's the extra aperture blades that make for smoother bokeh over the 50/1.8 in any version. The 50/1.8 AF is a joke as a MF lens. If you're into cheap, then get the 50/2--probably the sweetest of the Nikkor 50s. I got my black 45/2.8 for about half what they're going for now. Why? No one wanted this lens 6-7 years ago when it, and the FM3A, failed to impress and fell short of sales expectations. Mine was a returned store demo from Nikon.ca--mint and about $200. Use it on my F3HP, N90s, and tried it on a friend's D700 recently--very nice.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I should have mentioned that I was thinking of the MF version of the lens. Picked mine up used for less than $100 and it's a sweet little lens, though it does lack the chip. That doesn't matter to me. I do agree with you about the 50 mm f/2 lens. I snagged oneof those on a Nikkormat FT3 for about $125 about 10 years ago and it is a sweet little lens.
    Last edited by fschifano; 11-29-2010 at 04:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Frank Schifano

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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