Jump to content

conrad_smith

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. <p>The F2 is my all-time favorite Nikon body (I've used it since 1972 and still do with Tri-X & Velvia), but the Df is a close second. It's been my primary camera under all light conditions since it was introduced. Never any problems, easy to use with MF lenses, great for backpacking. Better ergonomics than D-700 or D7100, which I also own. Handheld image by moonlight (1/15 second, 24mm F/1.4, ISO 50,000) holds detail well in a 16" x 24" print and looks less grainy that similar enlargement from Tri-X at ISO 800 developed in Acufine.</p>
  2. <p>The early versions of the rangefinder Nikon 50/1.4 were soft wide open but very sharp a few stops down. I once made a 40" by 60" enlargement from a Panatomic-X negative shot in 1961 with the 50/1.4 (on an SP, not an S2) at F/11. It held up even at close viewing distance -- nobody would believe the original negative could be less than 4" x 5". I regret selling that SP and its three lenses (the others were 35/1.8 & 85/2). The F2 SLR was almost but not quite as satisfying. My current Df makes better images than the rangefinder Nikons but is twice as heavy and half the fun.</p>
  3. <p>I've owned both and have been much happier with the 500mm F/4 P. It's sharper with and without Nikon 1.4X & 2X teleconverters on older digital SLR bodies and has less chromatic aberration. In my experience, both lenses were excellent on film bodies. I have not tried the 400/3.5 on the newer SLR bodies that correct for CA, so I cannot speak to that issue.<br> I've used many Nikon lenses with cheap ($20) and expensive ($200) adapters on Canon bodies without ever having a problem, so I don't think that will be an issue.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...