john_morris4

<blockquote>

<p>We all have a good quality zoom that gets us 24mm, ....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have we? All?</p>

<p>Björn Carlen wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is that approximately what you're talking about in the case of the Ultron 40/2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, both of those pictures show lots of ghosting and starburst from the points of the iris. Steven is talking about smearing caused by spherical aberration (or overcompensation for spherical aberration).</p>

<p>There are several comments about the size difference between the CV 40/2 and various Nikon 50s, but 40mm is notably wider than 50mm. If you want a small lens and a wider view, then it's more meaningful to compare it with 35mm options.</p>

<p>In that case, the Sigma 35/1.4 may be quite nice, but it's also quite large. The Nikkor 35/2 manual focus lens is nice, but also a fair bit larger. The 35/2 AF Nikkor is smaller than the manual focus Nikkor, but not as nice a lens, and it's still bigger than the CV 40. The 35/2 Zeiss is a brilliant lens, but it's huge and quite heavy.</p>

<p>All of which leaves a nice niche for the CV 40/2: the same size as the short version of the 50/1.8, with a wider view. Mihai mentioned busy bokeh, but to me it seems usually better behaved than the various Nikon 50/1.8 lenses. And like he said, this lens goes nicely with one of the small longer lenses, like 105/2.5 or 85/2.</p>

I hope you get a good replacement. When it's built right, that's a very nice lens.

For the next Photokina, he probably just needs one, under glass.

 

The reason the innards are hard to discern is that they must be even more shoothly blurred than the best lenses they are

intended to measure.

If only it were an FG....

When you do the "full manual" experiment, set the aperture with the aperture ring, instead of electronically. That should

help you isolate whether aperture control issues are part of your problem.

 

Also, you mentioned that the camera might meter differently near wide open because it sees vignetting. Since the camera

always meters with the lens wide open, this should make no difference.

28 and 100. They're both tiny, and you'll appreciate having a choice.

That must have been incredibly frustrating on a shoot with real people in front of the camera.

<p>It's interesting, though, that the bad corners are really the corners. If you come in a couple of mm from the corner, it's much cleaner, even at f/2.8. Not as nice as the modern lenses, but it is quite small and easy to have with you.</p>

What's the "MP" in Zeiss 100 MP? Is that the Cosina Zeiss lens, or an older one? The modern Zeiss seems marvelous,

from what I've read and seen (without having used one), but it's twice the size and weight, and ten times the price, of the

little old Nikkor.

 

 

Is it fair to say that the 105/2.5 is one of the very best Nikkors that you can buy for under $200?

Thank you do much, Vince. I like film, but I'm too lazy for it now. That's just a D700 shot.

<p>It's probably not the best Nikkor ever, but it's a lovely lens, especially as little as it costs.</p><div></div>

<p>Sharp Freak? Maybe you should be looking at a Sony A900 and some of the Zeiss lenses available in that mount.</p>

I love my 35/2 on Fx. When I make boring pictures, it's certainly not the lens' fault.

You better be careful to not look through a D700....

Darn. Now I want a Voigtlander 75/1.8. I love 75mm on full frame.

Your FM2 results suggest that there is something out of adjustment in the viewing system of your FE2.

Tom, the suggestion to fine tune AF for the 28-105 was probably based not on the picture but on Gene's comment, at

the very beginning, that "[t]he 28-105 is very soft." Of course, if it looks soft at f/8, then something besides AF fine

tuning might be wrong.

I'm sorry. I forgot that the N80 doesn't meter with the AI and AIS 28mm lenses.

If you like closeups and you're worried about corner sharpness, maybe you would like one of the fixed 28s, with a

90mm Tamron macro in your pocket.

<p>I'll bet Marc meant one of the 28mm Leica lenses, and not the old Nikon 28mm f/1.4 AF, so you don't have to buy second hand to get one. </p>

<p>The normal Katzeye screen for the D700 has a small split image at its center. It is possible to order the screen without the split image, so that you have a uniform matte screen. This ends up looking just like the original D700 screen (and doesn't interfere with spot metering), but it's notably easier to discern focus on the matte area.</p>

<p>Beyond that, with your manual focus lenses you should be able to treat a D700 like a (large) F3 or FE. It's certainly a camera that stays out of your way.</p>

If you're happy with the F100, then just get a D700. Your lenses will work well enough to start, and you can decide if

and when you'll need better ones.

<p>"D3.1k"!? Really? How is that easier to understand or write than "D3100"? It's not even fewer characters. And it's only very slightly smaller on the page, with a proportional typeface.</p>