Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 77,666   Posts: 1,715,428   Online: 872
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Nikon lenses

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    35mm RF
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    Based on the OPs requirements and assuming he wants to replace clean lenses with similar without trusting himself to the vagueries of ebay, Grays of Westminster have the following manual focus AIS lenses from the Zuiko era:

    20mm 2.8, new old stock: £739.00 (mint- £545)
    50mm 1.4 mint: £475.00
    105mm 1.8 mint: £695.00
    55mm 2.8 micro new old stock: £525.00 (mint £445)
    25-50mm 4 ex++: £225
    100-300 5.6 mint £300
    for someone serious about wide apertures how about...
    50-300 4.5 ex++ £1750

    Or go down the road to Aperture and get all of that gear at 10x better prices and fantastic service and noodles to go with it!

    For example I got a MINT 55mm 2.8 Macro for 140 pounds, a fraction of what I was expecting so I got a ton more stuff while I was there =)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    northern england
    There's certainly cheaper gear that Gray's but their descriptions are accurate, mint will be pre-owned with no signs of use, not just good condition. My ebay purchases rarely uncover anything cheap which isn't that way for a reason, at least in Nikkor lenses. Canon FD is the reverse, lenses are a bargain but F1 bodies in good nick, expensive, at least in the UK. Pristine manual focus Nikkors tend to be hived away by collectors to a greater extent than other marques.

  3. #23
    Mick Fagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Melbourne Australia
    Multi Format
    If you wish to try some or most of the lenses on your wish list, then you can come across town and see and feel them on your camera.

    Pretty much, I have everything on your list and some.

    Depending on whether you are after outright speed, or quality, I think you'll find the 50 f/1.8 is a better lens than the f/1.4, which is marginally better than the f/1.2. I've tried all three of those and a couple of others, the f/1.8 is the one I chose.

    The 85 f/1.4 is brilliant and usually a better proposition than the 50 f/1.4 as in you can stand back slightly of get a closer crop with the slightly longer focal length.

    Yep the 55 f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is brilliant, one of the few direct comparison Zuiko/Nikkor lenses that is slightly better than the Olympus.

    The 105 f/2.5 is brilliant, forget the 100.

    The 180 f/2.8 is the longest handheld portrait/theatre lens you could or would generally use.

    I would suggets the 18mm f/3.5 is relatively cheap and quite a bit better than the 20mm but that's your call.

    The full frame rectilinear 16mm is one of the wonders of the world, I don't have one but i have used one and it's one of the few 35mm lenses I would like.

    If you do get a 300 then ensure you get an ED version, doesn't matter which type.

    Nikkor lenses availability in Australia, far exceeds Olympus stuff by a very long margin, perhaps this is the reason for the switch, I don't know and don't care.

    Just a call away and you can try some interesting and slightly old and in some cases slightly good Nikkor stuff, it may help you make up your mind.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123



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