Jump to content

Nikkor 24mm and 35mm????


chris_antidote

Recommended Posts

<p>Both my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D and 35mm f/2.8D stop down to f/22. Not sure i understand your question. When seeking maximum DOF and quality with either of these lenses, f/22 does not deliver. I doubt that I ever stop down beyond f/11-12.<br>

Dave</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>assuming you mean the 24 and 35 AF-S 1.4s, they're G lenses, so no aperture ring = cant be used on film cameras. digital cameras suffer from diffraction, which can kick in at f/13 or before. so using f/22 on a DSLR would result in degraded image quality.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I didn't. The F4 does not have a sub-command dial; in fact, it does not even have a main command dial. If you mount a G lens on the F4, you cannot use the A and M metering modes. The F4 also does not have Flex Program. Therefore, while you can mount a G lens on the F4 to take pictures, the restrictions are so serious that I wouldn't describe it as "work perfectly fine."</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>diffraction becomes a pretty serious problem at f16; there is little point to use f22</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>depends entirely on the focal length ie, diffraction at f16 is going to affect an image shot with a 50mm lens a lot more than it will a 300mm lens. lens size of a 50mm @ f16 is roughly 3mm, and on the 300mm @ f16 it's over 18mm - that's a big difference. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, have you heard of the Nikon F80/N80, F100, F5, and F6? G lenses work perfectly fine on those film SLRs which have sub-command dials.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Heh, this is why I can't bring myself to buying a G lens, or even the new Zeiss lenses that are sans the aperture ring. I use my old cameras a lot, especially the smaller FM/FEs. I'd even pay extra for the lens if it came with an aperture ring. Ever try to change aperture using a command dial in movie mode? Not happening. I have a 35mm f/1.4 AIS that I had the ball bearings taken out of so the aperture ring moves smoothly. Is Nikon even considering where the motion picture market is going? They used to make movie cameras. They need to find some of those guys for some guidance on how to make a workable lens. Whoo; that felt good to get off my chest<g>.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>even the new Zeiss lenses that are sans the aperture ring</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly which Zeiss lenses are you referring to?</p>

<p>In the context of the Nikon Forum, the Zeiss ZF lenses in the Nikon F mount have aperture rings. The first generation of ZF lenses are effectively Nikon AI-S lenses; the second generation with electronic contacts are the equivalent of AI-P lenses. All of them have traditional aperture rings.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On the F22 issue, a lot of landscape photographers would take issue with "never" assertions. When extended depth of field is the only way to include the necessary scene elements, then one must make a choice between DOF and the loss of resolution or sharpness from diffraction. One makes choices, and balances the consequences. F22 gets used a lot, and on cameras where diffraction results. What was that "club" that Ansel Adams spoke of? Oh yeah, "Group F64." Film registers diffraction too. The real question is what image is desired, what aspects of it are most important, and what tools are available.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In the digital era, a lot of the convensional wisdom has changed. If you need a lot of depth of field, stopping down to a very small aperture is not the only way any more. Software to perform stack focus continues to improve, and there are also those tilt-shift lens that can modify the focal plane to achieve near/far sharpness. Prior to 2008, Nikon only had shift lenses but never tilt in the F mount.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>software is one thing, but for those who love the craft of photography, getting it right in camera is a rewarding part of the process. Having said that, on most lenses that one would take a landscape image on (the majority would be under 50mm, the best aperture to get the best balance between contrast, depth of field, and diffraction limited spot size, the maximum aperture would never exceed f11. For a 35mm lens for example, usually the best aperture would be from f8 to f11, and my go to aperture is F9.5. This changes if you like to use the hyperfocal technique, which is usually only optimal if you having something in the foreground which is the most critical element.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ Michael, Bob, Eric, et al<br>

I've always thought Shun was very authoritarian with his moderation .... on the other hand he is an authority in matters Nikon. :) He runs a tight ship ya know.<br>

Go Shun!</p>

<p>I almost feel the urge to ask about the D700 replacement ... that'll end the thread. ;-)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I almost feel the urge to ask about the D700 replacement ... that'll end the thread. ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clive, that would probably only end your post. :-)</p>

<p>It is very easy to understand me: I love great photography, knowledge about photography/equipment, and facts. That is why I hate rumors, misleading information and I do have a tendency to correct wrong information.</p>

<p>Back to the OP's question, having the minimum aperture at f16 on fast f1.4 lenses is nothing new. The 35mm/f1.4 AI-S from the 1980's only goes down to f16. I always assume that Nikon would rather not provide too many mechanical stops.</p>

<p>Nikon still provides f32 on most macro lens where there is occasional need for more depth of field with some (a lot?) compromise on diffraction. The 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR and 60mm/f2.8 AF-S macro lenses both can go all the way down to f32; the new 40mm/f2.8 DX AF-S macro only goes down to f22, though.</p><div>00Z4Sm-381831584.jpg.0cd8e37a53c364aeb5e4f327714396ad.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For what it's worth, I just want to sympathise with the OP. Sometimes "universally blurry" looks better than selective sharpness - and it ought to be possible to convolve out the diffraction. That said, I tend to avoid small apertures like the plague, mostly because I don't want to spend all my life cleaning my sensor - one advantage of film is that cruft doesn't get the chance to build up. I may revisit that position when I eventually get a field camera...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As has been noted by others, older f/1.4 Nikkors have a smallest aperture of f/16 also; nothing really new. If you need a smaller aperture, PC-E Nikkors offer f/32 at infinity (and even smaller effective apertures in close-up range).</p>

<p>Diffraction isn't anything new and it's not limited to digital cameras. (Why would it be?)</p>

<p>How severely sharpness is degraded depends somewhat on the lens. I have obtained very sharp images at f/22 with the 45 PC-E on 12 MP FX (I stopped down that far because I needed a slow speed to blur water). In any case I sometimes use a combination of tilt and a relatively small aperture (f/11) to get everything in focus in landscape photography. Using a larger aperture with tilt sometimes creates an odd impression of sharpness declining in the vertical direction and I try to minimize this by stopping down.</p>

<p>In an f/1.4 lens you should expect the best sharpness around f/4-f/5.6. f/16 is already far from optimal. I would just use another lens if you must use a smaller aperture.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>it ought to be possible to convolve out the diffraction.</em></p>

<p>If you use deconvolution what you get is (like with any other type of sharpening) substantially increased noise.</p>

<p><em>That said, I tend to avoid small apertures like the plague, mostly because I don't want to spend all my life cleaning my sensor -</em></p>

<p>Yeah, this is true at the smallest apertures it's almost impossible to get a clean image. I normally photograph people at apertures from f/1.4 to f/4, and there most dust spots are invisible. However, in landscape, architecture and especially macro photographs, they do show themselves. Fortunately usually their number is such that they can be cleaned out in post-processing, but sometimes a spot appears in a critical part of the image.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...