Brian1664876441

Nikkor 85mm F2 Ais, Wide-Open on the Df, At F2.8. This lens was known for being a great portrait lens, smoother bokeh than the 85/1.8 that it replaced. It is a very small lens, not much bigger than a 50/1.4.

The later Canon 50/1.4 FL and FD 50/1.4 SC and SSC have the same optical formula. I picked up the FL 50/1.4 for $30 and converted it to RF coupled M-Mount. Focus shift due to spherical aberration is lower than the Leica Summilux of that period. Nifty- seems like a very good adjective for this lens. The 50/1.4 SSC is first-rate, just not as easy to make a rangefinder coupling for it as the FL. The 50/1.4 SSC and 50/1.4 SC chrome-nose, mine were inexpensive. The SSC came on a Canon EF for $35. The Pop Photo 1976 test of Canon lenses.

The 24/2.8 was reformulated in 1977 to be 9 elements in 9 groups. Your lens has different optics, 9 elements in 7 groups.

The (Very early DSLR) Nikon E series cameras use the same flash as the film cameras. The Nikon E3 works with the SB-29 in TTL mode. I used that combo for many camera repair projects. It still works.

Yes- typo on my part.

The FM2 and FM2n, as well as FE and FE2, use SPD's. The FM, Konica FS-1, and Pentax MX use Gallium Arsenide Phosphade (made me look up the "P"). I'm more used to Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs) based photocells.. SPD's are sensitive to IR, and require an IR blocking filter. The Gallium Arsenide Phosphade based photosensor is much less sensitive to IR, was closer to film, like Selenium and CDS sensors. If you want deeper IR response, use InGaAs.

The Minox and Tessina- smaller than a flip phone. Df, No Problem. Plus I hate "Cellular Telephony Devices". My family knows how to send a text on my cell phone. Write it on a sticky note, place it in the CTD, and close it.

Both the FT2 and FT3 use a single 1.5v Silver-Oxide cells, you have a good chance of them being the same. The FM switched to Gallium Photocells. The FE and EL2 use SPD's.

I use a Flip Phone. One time, I used it to take a picture. I got a new Flip Phone because I left the old one in my pants and washed it. It stopped working. I leave the new one in the car now, and turn it on to make outgoing phone calls. I bought my Df the first day it was in the camera shop, Small Business Saturday- 7 years ago.

The M4 will most likely need to be serviced- and you will likely get a better price after it is done. At least from the Photo- it looks to be in good cosmetic condition and the finder looks clean.

The ding in the filter ring can be repaired, have a competent shop do the repair and test the lens to make sure all the elements are centered. Skyllaney Opto-Mechanics In the UK, full machine shop for rebuilding lenses. You can send Chris an Email and ask for his opinion. Personally: I would have Chris at Skyllaney fix the ring, test the lens, and sell on consignment. Skyllaney is building a good reputation for custom lens work and has a clientele building up. 20% consignment would be reasonable for a shop selling the lens for you. They likely have existing customers that will jump at this lens. Ebay- someone likely to jump at ripping this lens off of you. You can check out their projects on Instagram. I sent two lenses to Chris as a gift, has been sitting in my boxes for years. A 1928 4cm F1.4 Biotar and a 1950s Wollensak 35/2 Raptar. No focus mount on either, he converted them to M-Mount. They based some of their services on the conversions that I used to do with Zeiss Sonnars, converting to Leica mount.

Minolta Himatic 9: Flood Cleaning Shutter and Cleaning Viewfinder, also applies to the 7, 7s, and 11. I recently cleaned the finder and also unjammed the shutter/aperture of the HiMatic 9. I bought mine new in 1969, had it ever since, wanted the Box and original lens cap. $25 on Ebay for a non-working one, now working. I discovered that I needed to let the camera thoroughly dry before reassembling. When I did not- the aperture blades stuck open. SO- unjammed the shutter, swabbed, and then let dry out over the AC vent. Reassembled- still works, just checked it.

Find a good camera store in the UK that sells equipment on consignment. Stores in the US will generally take 20% of the sale price. Ebay for something like this: there is a good chance that you will be ripped off. Ebay sides with the buyers, and a number of them now how to get your item and a refund to. It is a used lens- so they can claim it was not as described, ship a rock to you- and provide tracking to Ebay that they returned the item.

I wonder if he has an uncoated CZJ 5cm F1.5 in Leica mount- he'd probably like it.

I'm keeping mine- no plans to move to Nikon Mirrorless. I have one AF-S lens, a 50/1.8 that came with the Df. The AF-D lenses perform well, and are reasonably sized. The newer lenses- no reason for a 58/1.4 to use a 72mm filter, just some "bigger is better" marketing. Same with the mirrorless lenses- seems to be driven by the same mentality, bigger, heavier, more expensive. Nikon seems to have lost their Mojo. I don't know what it will take to bring them to their senses. Newer lenses are not as reliable, overly complex, and not great performers- compared to lenses that they pretend to update.

I always liked him on Stargate Atlantis. He has good taste in Optics.

The AF-D 105/2,8 is a much better performer than the newer Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8. My friend at work bought the latter, told me she thought it would be sharper. Compared with my AF-D 105/2.8- noticeably softer. The CA is high compared with the older lenses designed for film. I doubt that Nikon could make a better version of the Micro-Nikkor-D 200/4. I believe the Nikon marketing department does lens design now and conspires with the firmware engineers to correct things in firmware. When the D1x was first announced, I bought a set of Micro-Nikkors, the 60/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. Nikon's answer to the Vivitar Flat-Field 90~180. I also have the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 (compensating, given to me), Micro-Nikkor-P 55/3.5 ($25, Ebay), and Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 Ais (Bought new). I used the 60/2.8 with the SB-29 on a Nikon E3. The SB-29 can be used in TTL mode with the Nikon E3, circa 1998.

Series 5.5, bigger than a series V filter and smaller than a series VI. If you are careful- a 39mm filter will fit.

The "Red Scale" Elmar 50/3.5 has a recomputed optical formula and uses newer type glass. SN 905000 onwards,1951, are the improved type. I've shot my late 1940s coated Elmar, perfect glass, against a collapsible Industar-50. The Industar-50 is a fine performer, and costs about 1/10th the price that these lenses go for today. No complaints on my Black-Scale coated Elmar. I got it in a $50 brown grab bag with a Leica IIIf (A converted post-war IIIc) at a camera store. Perfect glass, I found that Argus C-3 filters fit it. The manager wanted to have some fun. Any of the employees could have bought it. When I did, they told me- 'you are not leaving until you open it'. Too funny.

This has turned into one of the pettiest of arguments on this forum in a long time. The answer to the OP's original question was simple. This Tangent should be taken somewhere else.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D - DxOMark Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D - DxOMark DX0Mark tested the 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor with FX and DX format cameras. The biggest improvement was vignetting at F2.8. Overall sharpness of the lens is fairly consistent across the frame. So to answer the original question: there will not be much of an increase in quality of the images produced, with the exception of some vignetting at F2.8 on an FX format camera, 0.9ev reduced to 0.4ev.

SO- lenses with great center performance and really crappy edge performance make better images on a crop sensor. Lenses with this characteristic make better images with a crop sensor. The 55/1.2 Nikkor falls into this category. The lens pushed center performance. Problems with vignetting are greatly reduced. Field curvature at edges- reduced. Soft edges- gone. These things make a technically better picture.

An example of Classic Nikkors. Note the dots are the performance of the individual lens, the bars show the range of performance of similar lenses that were tested. The 55/3.5 does well in the corners at F5.6. It is best in class at the center.

The crop sensors get the highest resolution portion available from most (not all) lenses. Most lenses are sharpest in the center, drop off towards the edges. Micro-Nikkor lenses tend to have even performance across the entire field when stopped down 1 F-Stop. SO- the relative gain may not be as much as a standard lens. The Nikkor 55mm F1.2 has slightly better performance over the center 2/3rds of the image than the 50/1.4 of the same vintage. The edges on the 55/1.2- not so much. So that is an example of a lens that does much better on a 1.5x crop camera. SO- some lenses will do much better on a crop sensor because the edge performance was always poor. The Micro-Nikkors, were known for edge-to-edge performance. The 60mm F2.8 AF-D Micro-Nikkor uses a floating element, "Close-Range-Correction" feature. The old 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor was optimized for 1:10 reproduction. It still is very sharp at infinity stopped down a bit.

Firmware- that's just typing. The Nikon microscope camera uses the same Monochrome CMOS sensor. Monochrome images are easy to process, and linearraw DNG files are simple.