Jump to content

daniel_bliss

Members
  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral
  1. Wish I'd seen this sooner, but not just Sigma -- have you seen Tamron's 35mm f1.4 for Nikon and Canon DSLR? It's clearly the best-in-class lens right now, DSLR or mirrorless--what an outcome for being Tamron's first ever f1.4.
  2. I'd like to ask before this thread drifts into history whether anyone with experience of both the TC14E/14EII and the TC14E III has compared the two types for autofocus and VR performance with modern telephoto glass. I have an almost 30-year-old TC14E that I use occasionally with my 70-200FL -- no real problems there though it takes the edge just a tad off the optics -- and with the 300/4PF, on which I really can't see optical degradation at all but it slows way down for autofocus and pretty much neuters VR. I'm curious if the newer design does better in terms of playing with the autofocus and VR.
  3. I have the Coolscan V (LS-50); in an unfortunate moment (OK, roughly two days of agonizing over it) of penny pinching I decided to save $500 relative to a Coolscan 5000 back in about 2005 when my Polaroid started to fail. The scan quality isn't the issue -- it's very, very good. The issue is the speed, for while the Coolscan V is faster than most other scanners it's only just over half the speed of the 5000 due to the 5000's two-line CCD. We're talking 20 seconds versus 38 per frame. That plus the Coolscan 5000's ability to take a bulk slide feeder makes it the better production environment piece. There are still third-party servicers working on the Coolscans, adjusting and lubricating them, cleaning the mirror, that kind of thing. I also use an ES-1 adapter on a Nikon D800 with Nikon's 60mm AF-S macro lens. I find this more convenient than the Coolscan for mounted slides with film that's in good condition, but it's a non-starter for negatives and strip film and also not so good for damaged or faded film. The ES-2 adapter, not nearly as nicely built as the ES-1 as it's plastic instead of metal, is a very versatile piece, with a locking collar to prevent the film from rotating, a holder for strip film and a set of adapter rings included for lens mounting (in contrast the 62mm ring for the ES-1 is an accessory). And, when used with a D780 or D850 these give you the ability to convert negative images in-camera if you're OK settling for JPEG output (in contrast, if you want your negatives raw, you'll have to import them into Photoshop or similar and reverse them manually). Third-party vendors produce 120 film holders which you can also use with reversal mode on the D780 and D850. But using the Coolscan directly with Vuescan is nice; DNG output, JPEG output, TIFF output, whatever you want, the ability to batch a film strip of up to I believe seven images, and a nifty ability to sort out slightly faded Ektachrome.
  4. A bit of thread archaeology here but I found this interesting and I've just gotten my Coolscan LS-50 (V) going again, so....here goes. I bought the Coolscan in about 2004 or 5 not wanting at the time to spring the extra $500 for the 5000. I have to say the main killer is speed. The LS-50 is faster than the market norm at 38 seconds per scan, but the 5000 is almost twice as fast again with the two-line CCD. And if you're willing to part with an arm and a leg on eBay, you can get an automatic slide feeder as well. So this is the production environment scanner. I don't think there's any meaningful difference in build quality. The only physical difference is that double-wide CCD in the 5000; as far as I know the bulk slide feeder is blocked from the LS-50 by firmware alone. I use Vuescan. I've found I need to set about a 2.8mm offset when using the strip film feeder. Not quite sure why.
  5. Plenty of opportunities for DSLR for Nikon, not least because it's still more than 95 percent of the user base, probably closer to 98. The portfolio of telephoto lenses is amazing. Not a whole lot of room for improvement there. Class leading zooms. Class-unique phase fresnel lenses. Amazing prime lenses too. The overweight 600/4 could stand replacement with something lighter. Maybe some would like a new 85/1.4, or any new 105 (let's say a macro that focus-breathes less, or an AF version of the AIS f1.8 or 2.5). The f1.8 prime lineup is great, other than the lack of a 105. Where there's room for improvement is with standard and wide-angle zooms. The 14-24 is now slightly beaten by Canon and third parties, though only slightly. The 17-35 f2.8 is obsolete. The 16-35 could stand improvement. I think most today would prefer a good 24-70/4 over the mediocre 24-120/4, or the fragile 24-85/3.5-4.5, but even a nicer 24-85 3.5-4.5 in an AF-P version would be a nice complement for the excellent 70-300 AF-P. Even the 18-35G, a very nice handling lens, is probably beaten optically at this point by Tamron. Let's say you update the 600/4 and the 105 macro; replace the 17-35 2.8; bring out an AF-P 24-85/3.5-4.5 or AF-P 24-70/4, maybe give the 16-35 a shot in the arm. That would thoroughly cover their bases for DSLR and anything else would be gravy. Pair that with a policy of bringing improved Expeed processing and on-sensor PDAF to the DSLR lineup, and I think most people would be very happy. Four or five new lenses and endowing the D850, D500 and D7500 with on-sensor PDAF would really secure this lineup and its huge customer base at relatively low cost to Nikon.
  6. I think the 24/2.8D can definitely work. I have a pre-D version from the early 1990s, the proper focus ring but no D chip, and while it was frankly disappointing on the early digital bodies it has been given a new lease of life by the D800. The main thing with this lens seems to be, the less low-pass filtration on the sensor, the better; the newer cameras have thinner low-pass filters, often without anti-aliasing at all; there's some outer field astigmatism on the 24/2.8 at all apertures (which I suspect disagrees with the older, thicker low-pass filters and may also cause issues with bokeh) and it is definitely not close to being telecentric in design (again, the thinner the low-pass filtration the better for dealing with this). As an F100/D800 lens, which is how I have used it, I really can't fault it for reportage at all, though for landscape and some interiors you want to evaluate whether corners, bokeh and light falloff are important to you below f5.6. This issue has been fixed with the f1.8 line. The 24/2.8 is also a very lightweight design with a floating element (i.e. not all elements move in unison; this is to boost performance at all focusing distances, not just either far away or close up), so complex and I suspect vulnerable to knocks, so test before you buy if you can.
  7. Back directly to the topic of this lens, have people here seen the Tamron MTF chart for the 35 f/1.4? It is-out-of-this-world sensational. If it is even close to accurate this is going to be a very interesting launch -- even if, by any reasonable standard, an 800-plus-gram 35mm prime that takes 72mm filters can be considered brick-like in proportions.
  8. If either of the above haven't provided you with any positive result, try Midwest Camera Repair in Wyandotte, Michigan--they do excellent work on lenses and they service pretty much everything.
  9. <p>With just the two lenses you have already, I'd generally lean toward the 28. Note that for several years I used a 24 and an 80-200 in combination for 90 percent of my work at a newspaper, but I always had recourse to a 50 and at times to a mid-range zoom just in case. I'd be leery of getting only the 24 without that extra backup. </p> <p>As for the lenses themselves, I currently use that old Nikkor 24 AF-N along side a 28G, and the two lenses are quite different. We'll skip the 24 for now as it's not the one you're looking at but the 28G is an interesting beast, very good bokeh, very good optics, a good match for environmental portraits or street photography but an unusual field curvature that means if a landscape is what I'm after, I will go for the 24 unless my primary interest is keeping the center and the foreground sharp and letting the rest slide slightly. I'm assuming the Sigma 24 has rather more regular behavior than the 28G, like that old Nikkor 24.</p> <p>Of course these are slightly contradicting pieces of advice, and you may have to make choices with budget as well. But I hope this helps. For what it's worth I'd regard 24-50-85-180 or 28-85-180 as for the most part very complete set-ups (with the 24-50 option being slightly more flexible but the 28 being slightly better as a single focal length), based on my own experience 15 to 20 years ago with 24-50-105-180. Once I switched to the zoom, then it became a bit less of a stretch from 80 to 24, and at the time Nikon did not have an autofocus 28 that was both reasonably priced and good.</p>
  10. <p>Note, the 28/2.8 AF is not the same as the AIS. The original five element AF version was based on the awful Series E one, and the revised, post-1993 six element version is a new design. The post-1981 AIS design is an eight element design that's very highly corrected for close focus.</p>
  11. <p>Yes, and they've gotten better over the years. The ordering system is flawless, returns extremely easy, their online system is the best on the Internet, the telephone support is far nicer to deal with than it used to be (NY brusqueness has been toned down), and they're one of the very few places that still do a 30-day return period. And they clearly the widest stock of any single camera store.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...