Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,955   Posts: 1,586,016   Online: 675
      
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678910111216 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 208
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken N View Post
    Totally related to this line of thought is that I do tend to process my B&W film to be a touch harder contrasted. For all those zillions of years I shot Fujichrome Velvia, I never had the problems other people groused about. I think what was going on was the lower contrast Zuikos were a much better match to Velvia's extremely punchy curves.
    When I was using Oly gear starting in the late 70's, I used KR25 whenever I could. It was a good match with the Zuiko lenses. I no longer have those lenses, but I remember not being particularly happy with the 50/1.4, mine was a single coated version, but it never struck me as particularly sharp except in the center, and then only after about 2.8-4.
    The 50/2 Nikkor is sharp all across, both mine are single coated but contrasy. I'll have to get out some old slides and negatives to compare. The 100/2.8 Zuiko was a great lens, but the 105 Nikkor is better.

  2. #52
    X. Phot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    Hope is a wonderful thing, but that is not a lens known for good bokeh. Nonetheless it is a great performing lens and I don't find the bokeh horrible. To me the single coated H seems to be the best of this series in that regard.
    I won't be devastated if the bokeh is lacking on the 50, as I have little invested in the lens. But, I can see from the Nikkor 360 image just posted, there's a world of difference when compared to the 50 & 105. Not a problem. An old pair of lady's pantyhose stretched over the lens can easily remedy this annoying behavior. ;-)
    Last edited by X. Phot.; 12-06-2011 at 04:41 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #53
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    When I was using Oly gear starting in the late 70's, I used KR25 whenever I could. It was a good match with the Zuiko lenses. I no longer have those lenses, but I remember not being particularly happy with the 50/1.4, mine was a single coated version, but it never struck me as particularly sharp except in the center, and then only after about 2.8-4.
    The 50/2 Nikkor is sharp all across, both mine are single coated but contrasy. I'll have to get out some old slides and negatives to compare. The 100/2.8 Zuiko was a great lens, but the 105 Nikkor is better.
    The early Zuiko 50/1.4 lenses weren't always the sharpest. They have a curved plane of focus so they are anything but flat-fielded. Also, they do tend to be much sharper in the center than the edges. Later versions corrected most of these issues. The last version is still not entirely flat-fielded, but pretty reasonably so for a non-macro lens. You won't use it for copy work unless you have to. As the lens evolved, the corners sharpened up, but the center became slightly less sharp. The sharpest in the center version is probably the ones made somewhere in the early '80s. The last version is the best all-around, though.

    My favorite Zuiko is the 100/2.8. Mine is a middle-aged one of a relatively short-lived period which was a silvernosed model, but had additional coatings. Very shortly after they added the green reflection, but mine is just barely pre-green. It is VERY sharp and is simply terrific for portraiture. The entire color cast trends towards the warm. Later versions were much cooler. Most people chose either the 100/2.8 or 85/2 as their short-tele. The lenses are nearly identical, but the rendering of early vs. late between the two lenses seem to take opposite tracks. The 85/2 really improved through the years, whereas the 100/2.8 seemed to be best in the earlier models. We're specifically talking portraiture, though.

    My harem currently contains samples of: 24/2.8, 35/2.8 (my dying grasp lens), 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8, 200/4, 300/4.5 and the 35-80/2.8. One OM-2S, two OM-4T and one OM-3Ti bodies. Motordrives, winders, a T45 flash and bunches of other accessories abound. Just need a wide-angle F2 lens, a 250/2 or 350/2.8 and I'm set for life.

    Life is good. No need to worry about other brands with a kit like this. Seriously, compared to the OM-4T with MD2, 35-80 and T45 flash, anything Nikon from 1959 is very much the "dark ages".
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    northern england
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    I moved from an OM-1 in the 70s to a Nikon F (plain prism) in the 80s before selling it in the mid-1990s. I wanted a rugged camera which the F certainly is, however I didn't notice a stunning difference in quality between Zuiko and Nikkor lenses. The single sharpest manual focus lens I've owned is probably a Canon FD 50mm 1.4 but the Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and Nikkor f1.8 and f2 were both good. So long as a lens is sharp enough I fail to see how it makes any difference in general photography. One of my sharpest lenses is on a Yashica 2.8 rangefinder that cost £3!

  5. #55

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    78

    Thank you philosomatographer for the memories....

    My first Nikon was the Nikkormat FS....the meterless body with the 50/2...back in August 1967...
    ..within 3 months I got my 1st photo published under the initials "AP"...and was officially a PJ...sooooooo

    Six months later I had to get 2 F bodies....the 1st thing I did was replace the standard split image center spot focusing screen with the B screen and its 12mm flat matte center spot surrounded by fresnel rings that allowed me to focus anywhere on the screen instantly...

    At first my only lens was the 50/F2... then the 35/2, 105/2.5 and 200/4....and was often carrying 3 at a time each on its own body...a year later I added the 24/2.8 (for $140), replaced the 105 with the 85/1.8 for shooting sports in the dim-dark dungeons of college basketball...and replaced the 1st 200Q with the 2nd version that focuses to 7' (vs the 10 of the 1st)....

    40 years later I sold most of the Nikon gear to pay for my digital crossover, and only the 200Q remains of the lot...but when I found I could use them digitally, I've since recovered most of them (NOT the 24 nor the 35 as the more modern are better) and added a few more (the 85K AND the 105/2.5)...AND a few duplicate FLs....the 50/1.4 ais and the 50/2-K, the 200Q and the newer AIS.....and TWO 135/2.8s, the original 135Q.C as well as the newer K optic version (a FL I never thought very useful as a working pro, but now, well, why not....) AND two I others I never owned but used as part of the paper's shared bag of gear...the 180/2.8 and 300/4.5 (both of which I felt were too big and bulky for the F when shooting fast moving news and carrying 2 or more other lenses on bodies) because NOW they fit/feel so well balanced on my (cough, cough) Canon 40D....

    As for the bodies....I've had a couple of Nikkormats, (even an FS), and an FM3a since then....and now an FE2...but no F, the body that made me the photographer I am today...yes the body makes the artist, much as the brush makes the painter...

    ....someday I'll have that F back....until then, thanks OP, for the memories.....

  6. #56
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,885
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    I certainly love mine, although it's been shelved for the past 2 years in favor of my F6. However, you're right, the F feels very right.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  7. #57
    26x30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    40
    The F is the only camera that I have seen that i thought "Geez, I HAVE to have one of those... " Thanks to a fellow APUGer I now have a '65, and love it. The heft and balance seem to be an extention of my limbs, and the controls are too perfect. I have a pristine Canon F1, a Canon Ftbn, and a few Yashicas. Anyone have F bits they want to trade?

  8. #58
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by philosomatographer View Post
    Why is it that these days, people seem to care more about the out-of-focus ares in an image than the in-focus areas? Strange trend started by internet forums... I wish the word "bokeh" had never been uttered.
    +1

  9. #59
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Images
    50
    Hmmm. Makes me wanna try an F. very nice pictures OP.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    The 50/2 is no Summicron, but does have good edge to edge sharpness.
    Nobody, and I mean nobody, can tell this print from one made with a Summicron. I know - I use on my M3 a 50mm lens that is optically better than a Summicron, and I can't tell. The precise definition of the small structures in this image (grass blades and leaves right into the corners) is absolutely perfect. It's at f/5.6, of course, but in a scene like this, nobody is going to shot at f/2.0.



    The Nikon F with 1950s/1960s lenses can teach anybody to stop obsessing about lens performance in 35mm photography. Really, these lenses are better than most photographers (as are most lenses).



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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