Jump to content

john_hinkey

Members
  • Posts

    459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

john_hinkey last won the day on May 24 2013

john_hinkey had the most liked content!

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. My 600/5.6 ED-IF AIS does just fine on my D800. It may not have the contrast that the 200-500VR Nikkor has, but I bet it has better off-center sharpness. My copy is pretty darned good across the frame at 36MP. It might suffer a bit at higher pixel densities, but not that much.
  2. <p>Personally I'm not-so-patiently waiting for a A7RII competitor from Nikon - doesn't even need to be that small of a body - just give me a mirrorless D810 - I'd even take a new mount that was fully compatible with current AI, AF-D, AF-S, E lenses via adapters. I've been sitting on the Nikon sidelines with my well-worn D800, selling my AF Nikkors, and spending my $$ on Sony A7RII and micro four-thirds gear. <br> Nikon really needs to get into the FX mirrorless game - they have the technology, but I fear the conservative leadership is paralyzed into incremental improvements of their DX/FX DSLR offerings. Don't drop their DSLR offerings, just offer something like the Sony A7 series line that allows the use of current Nikon lenses, but also allows for use of adapted non-Nikon glass (that would be a bitter pill for Nikon to swallow, but I think it's key to their success).</p>
  3. <p>My 16/3.5 AI Nikkor is very very good wide open - much much better than the 16/2.8 AIS or AF-D. Kind of hard to find, but it's the best Nikkor fisheye. I was not impressed with the 15/2.8 Sigma . . .</p>
  4. <p>This lens is no slouch, it's just a bit slow at times. I use mine wide open w/o hesitation. Yes it has some CA, but that's totally fixable. It serves up excellent images on my D800 when a stable tripod and atmospherics allow.</p>
  5. <p>Go over to here:<br> http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4069.0.html<br> for comparisons between all three Nikon 16mm fisheyes.<br> <br />Personally I've owned:<br> 1x 16/2.8 AIS<br> 1x 16/3.5 AI converted<br> 3x 16/3.5 AI (true AI versions)<br> and tested against:<br> 16/2.8D<br> Sigma 15/2.8.<br> The 16/3.5 AI comes out the sharpness winner over all of them.</p>
  6. <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>No, fisheye's don't have huge DOF as some suggest - it all depends on how large you are viewing the image.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is universally true about depth of field, but the point is that any given part of a fisheye image is <em>actually viewed at a very small scale in relation to the whole field -- thus everything from near to far will look sharp enough to a human eye. </em><br /> I have some fisheye-type lenses that have no focusing ring at all, given the (apparent) depth of field.</p> </blockquote> <p>It all depends on the size of the viewed image and the viewing distance. Do a little cropping and you'll quickly find that parts of the image will no longer look sharp. Yes some fisheye units don't have focusing at all, but with today's high MP sensors the non-critical sharpness will quickly become apparent if you are printing/displaying large and are viewing up close. Film was just not that demanding so you could get away with a less-sharp lens and still get a nice image.<br> But it is true that at small apertures, appropriate focusing, and viewed small just about everything in a 16mm fish will be apparently in focus.</p>
  7. <p>No, fisheye's don't have huge DOF as some suggest - it all depends on how large you are viewing the image.<br> Unfortunately, the 16/2.8 AIS is just not that good of a lens (as well as the AF-D version). Yes right from f/2.8 it's super sharp in the center, but never really obtains good sharpness on today's high MP sensors. The 16/3.5 AI is a far far better lens for sharpness right from f/3.5 on up. Get a 16/3.5 AI if you can find one - you won't be disappointed unless you really need f/2.8.</p>
  8. <p>Chuck -<br> There are nominally three Nikon 16mm fisheye models:<br> 16/3.5 non-AI, AI: Has built-in internal filters<br> 16/2.8 AIS: Rear-mounted filters (must have one installed)<br> 16/2.8 AF-D: Rear-mounted filters (must have one installed)<br> Obviously none of them have front filter threads so they can't take standard filters.</p>
  9. <p>Once I solved the slide jamming problem of my SF-210 I could easily scan a 4-5 rolls in a 24 hour period - it really does go fast when everything is working well. But, like I said, with my D800 and PB/PS-6 I could do a roll in 15 minutes or so with practice. 4x36 images an hour is not bad spread out over a week or two. What put me over the edge was the flare issues and lower dynamic range of the 5000ED compared to the D800. I compared it to my D700 and the 5000ED won for DR, but flare was still an issue.</p>
  10. <p>A dedicated slide scanner (like a CoolScan5000ED) makes sense over a recent vintage DSLR + various slide illumination and holding options when:<br> - You have dirty scratched slides that the automated dust and dirt and scratch removal capability can do wonders on<br> - You have many hundreds if not thousands of slides and you don't have time for manual loading & DSLR operation<br> I used to own the 5000ED, but when I got my D800 and PS/PB-6 belows the D800 (+ 55/3.5 Macro) produced better images FOR SLIDES THAT WERE NOT DIRTY OR SCRATCHED, which for me was my more recent and well cared for slides. I could image a box of 36 slides in about 15 minutes (or less) when it was all set up. The D800 had better dynamic range, far less flare issues, and had better white balance, etc. If dust, dirt, scratches were minor then Photoshop worked OK.<br> That being said, negatives are a completely different story.<br> <br />My 2 cents.</p>
  11. <p>I would think that with the right adhesive that it could be back to 90% strength and potentially with the addition of some well placed small screws it could be back to full strength depending on the crack. Post a picture of what it looks like.<br> Also, from time to time you can get a PB-6 that's in bad shape and use it for parts.</p>
  12. <p>I've owned a couple copies of this lens (fine at 12MP, not so sharp at 36MP) and the zoom mechanism is very fragile - one of my copies fell off a log about 6" high onto some soft pine needs and it bent one of the internal mechanisms and then displayed something similar to what you've described. I had it fixed by one of the local repair for something like $50. If you own it and if something is broke it's not worth it, but if something is bent/fixable then it might be worth it to get it fixed. If under warranty send it back.</p>
  13. <p>My copy of the 500/4 AI-P I found to be quite good on my D800 (right from wide open and only minor improvements stopped down) and the only issue I have is that it does not do that well with TCs (well, at least the TC14EII). I've never tried the newer 500/4 AF versions - too expensive.<br> My 500/4P is actually for sale right now - prices are incredibly low - not due to unhappiness with it optically, but I have a 400mm and 600mm and 500mm is not really needed for what I do since I have the other two teles.<br> I have seen samples from some copies that I considered not that great - not sure if it was poor user technique or the optics - so I think this lens can sometimes get a not so great reputation.</p>
  14. <p>Having owned the 135DC, and still own the 135/2 AIS and 135/2 Zeiss APO I would say that certainly the Zeiss is in its own league compared the the two Nikons, but if you have a choice between the DC and the 135/2 AIS go with the AIS for landscapes as it's:<br> - Optically equal if not slightly better at far distances<br> - Much cheaper<br> - The AF of the DC is not all that reliable and for landscapes you'd likely use live view anyways<br> - Neither of these three 135/2 lenses is all that great for flare/ghosting when pointed into the sun, so that's not a consideration (the Zeiss is in fact NOT perfect!).<br> The AIS and Zeiss when stopped down a bit are actually not that far apart when accurately focused at landscape-type distances.</p>
  15. <p>The dynamic range of my D800 (and the D810) are miles ahead of the D700, especially if you have to lift shadows at all. Even a marginal lens at 12MP (+AA filter) benefits from 36MP, but don't expect miracles. Even though roughly speaking that when using the same lens shot with the D700 and D800/D810 and viewed at low resolution they will look the same, the D800/D810 will allow a better final image due to being able to have a better sharpening process and being able to crop a lot if needed, which a 12MP image is not so capable of.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...