Sanford Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I've always been perfectly satisfied with my Nikon F100 and 24-120 Nikkor zoom, an all purpose lens suitable for 99 percent of my work and good enough for prints and publication. Then I got an M6 with 50mm lens and the zoom doesn't look so good any more. Buying a Leica $ystem is out of the question but the experience did cause me to take another look at some of my fixed focal length Nikkors sitting in the trunk of my car as a backup. I'd really forgotten how good they were compaired to zooms. This photo was taken Monday at the AT&T Pro-Am practice round with 105 F2.5 Nikkor on a clear day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl smith Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 No doubt indeed. Most zooms can't touch a simple prime, and those that get close cost a rather large chunk of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 A Nikon 105mm f2.5 with a FM3a, with a total cost of less than $1,000 is just as sharp, just as light, and more versatile than a Leica Mx with 90 f2.8. You can actually see the depth of field. The 105mm f2.5 is one tasty lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_smith Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I bought the 24-120 Nikkor when it got "glowing" reviews from several magazines. I shot ten or so rolls of film, looked at the results and put it into the closet where it hasn't seen the light of day since 1998. Today the 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5 prime Nikkors live in my bag along with my Leica M system (35, 50 and 90), and I never felt slighted in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 <I>I got an M6 with 50mm lens and the zoom doesn't look so good any more. Buying a Leica $ystem is out of the question</I>. . .<P> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think an M body with a Leica 50mm <I>is</I> the essential Leica system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I sold all of my Nikon AF gear a while back because I got fed up with their Leica-like abject stubborn resistance to sensibility, and bought EOS gear. I had the 28-105 Nikkor and now have the 28-135IS EOS and the IS makes all the difference in the world for handholding. However I did hang onto my original 2 Nikon FTn's and 24-28-35-50-105-135-200-300 factory-AI'd lenses I've had since the late 60's and their quality was one reason I was comfortable getting out of the Leica R system. As a bonus, a Novoflex Nikon-EOS adaptor lets me use most of those lenses on my D60 (unfortunately the 24/2.8 has a baffle in the rear that intereferes)so even when the bodies become paperweights in the filmless future (whenever that is), the lenses will still perform. Sadly I can't make the same claim for all my M lenses, so I am in coerced agreement with Sanford as to keeping and using the Nikkor primes versus sinking more money into Leica M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_l_ck Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Doug, as NEARLY everytime, you are right, Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The Nikon 24-120 got "glowing" reviews from Pop Photo, who's reviewing staff's recommendations seem to correlate highly with the volume of advertising of the manufacturer. Sigma and Nikon lens do disproportionately well, and Leica lenses frequently do poorly. On the other hand, European mags such as the British Practical Photography gave a mediocre to poor rating to that Nikon wide zoom. I also take Pop Photo with a grain of salt. The editors get very defensive whenever anyone accuses them of bias, yet their reveiws often don't track with those of other magazines or users' impressions. Draw your own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I'd probably make my choice on the basis of bokeh. Nikon is my current SLR system of choice and while the primes are excellent the bokeh generally ranges from just okay to ugly. An exception is the 180/2.8 but that's not the most practical lens for casual use. For the architectural and landscape stuff I put the Nikon system to "serious" use for, tho', bokeh is largely irrelevant. Here's an example of fairly typical harsh Nikkor bokeh. 50/2 AI Nikkor, wide open at 1/30, Delta 3200. That's Rachel, a charming gal and fantastic actress and dancer, pouring me a beer at the Hip Pocket Theatre concession stand. Ah, hell...who cares about bokeh when you have subject matter like this?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 You are way better off with a Leica prime than anyones' zoom.Hated the Nikon 24-120, but what should have I expected with such a spread in focal length? After one test day of Canon zooms verses their L primes, they all went up for sale also. Even the much touted 16-35 L had barrel distortion worthy of a fisheye. And such resolution/contrast problems compared to the 35L. I've used MAYBE 2 zooms ever that weren't designed for the dust-bin: The Contax 70-210/3.5 German, and more recently the 21-35/3.5 Leica R...and that one is marginal considering the throw is pretty short, the glass is ASPH, the speed is 3.5 and the cost is astronomical. Speaking of astronomical, I sure would love to try the 28-70/2.8 R that supposedly cost the Germans $10,000 each to make. But, I prefer to keep my car instead of selling it to buy a lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I sold off all of my N***n gear in 1998 after 30 years when I saw the "light" of the R8. Despite recurent minor aggravations with the R8 bodies (thank God for the passport protection plan), I love the R system and last year expanded into the M line with equal satisfaction. The primes are outstanding but the really big secret of the R system is the quality and design of its zoomlenses, namely the 35-70 f/2.8 and 4, 70-180, 80-200 and 105-280. Both 35-70 and especially the 70-180 are the equals of primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 <I>Doug, as NEARLY everytime, you are right, Peter</I><P> Thank you, Peter. Most gracious of you.<P> Dr. Knapp: Define "equal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Different jobs requires different tools, I recently picked up a Nikon body and their new 24-85 ED G lens. Great allround lens, even if not as sharp as anything Leica makes and some dist. at the 24mm extreme. Then again, sharpness is not everything in photography. Using a reasonable fast AF SLR w/ and being able to GET the photo/moment you want otften trumphs the technical quality of the photo per se. Net/net: one system shouldn't ideally exclude the other, e.g I doubt anyone would have any significant problems with the result of Nikon's 85/1.4 portrait lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 The greatest improvement in the technical quality of my shots came when I got rid of all my Canon zooms. Things have improved I suspect since then (1985), but not as much as all that. They are large, slow (particularly when you consider most zooms have extremely optimistic speeds (at full aperture of, say, f2.8 they are often lousy)), with high distortion and poor resolution. I would be intrigued to try a current L zoom or a Leica 35-70 or 70-180, but they are usually too slow for me to be interested. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug herr Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 <I>most zooms have extremely optimistic speeds (at full aperture of, say, f2.8 they are often lousy)</I><P> Robin, do yourself a favor and borrow one of the current Leica zooms. I think you'll find that these lenses are much better at full aperture than most zooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanford Posted February 5, 2003 Author Share Posted February 5, 2003 Patrick makes a good point. When all was said and done I was back using the F100 and 24-120 zoom for the reasons he mentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I use my zoom leg's: cheaper and i get better quality. Get bored with scanning the horizon with my super zoom...sort of like to be involved with my photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacques_balthazar1 Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Get a 28mm for your M, keep the teles on the Nikon and you have the best possible system. Ok maybe add a 2nd hand 24mm nikkor for those SLR moments when you really do not want 2 bodies in the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now