BelaMolnar

<div></div>

<p>I have the Nikon D40 too, ( mostly for social gathering, family parties and so ) which except any lens, back to the first F mount. Presently, I using a D3s, D4 and my little beloved jewel, the Df cameras. I have the AF-S 70-200 mm f/4 but, I mostly using a Nikon Nikkor-Q.C 200 mm f/4 factory AI converted on those cameras. Or, an even smaller 200mm f/4 AI-S lens. I using my cameras, "glued" to "M" mode, center weighted light-meter and a good zone system, (brain) and the light-meter never failed on me. The one that failed on me, most of the time, my English.</p>

<p>Alan Klieg demonstrated exactly what I trying to explain for you guys. Even the short video not shoot in the bigger distance scale and wider, versus longer lens effect on the picture, but still shoving the effect I try to explain. I learned enough to know, how lenses focal length changing the image projection and I know what I'm talking about in my 77 years of carrier, had enough time to learn, specially on lenses. The portrait and close shoots and df is an entirely different subject, I don't need to be educated on this matter or any other photography technical subject.<br>

Dieter, Your explanation is limited for close and model, portrait shot, which I know very well. You better research why landscape photographers using telephoto lenses sometime.<br>

Go out to a long strait road and shoot with a wide angle lens and shoot with a 300mm lens and try to crop out a same size of image of the wide angle lens and you will find out it will never mach the image drown by a 300 mm lens Thai is the point. On the wide angle lens the road would merge, let say a 90 degree angle and the 300 mm it would be around 10 degree angle. You crop out the wide angle shot and still going to have a 90 degree merging of the road at the distance. It is not the only effect but a most visible effect you can see on the two images done by a two different angle of the lens, and it is not only the angle. Please watch carefully Alan's video. I could easily demonstrate this if I have a time and energy to go out and shot some demo images.<br>

My answer is still the same. NO. In certain case the distance different not as much and you my see no difference, but in a bigger scale you going to see the difference.<br>

Please I'm not talking about portrait or nature, bird photography. Those are entirely different subject and technics.</p>

<p>I read your biography, and very much surprised what you said, and try to demonstrate. Telephoto lenses not for getting the bird in close or the hockey player close only. It has more the that. It has a creative visual effect what many photographer using it. My English is not good enough to argue with you, You my need a real official expert opinion on that.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm sorry, William, you totally wrong. Your sample image has no significant distance different from the background and the subject, the car, to see the difference. Try to go out to a long road and take an image with a 24mm lens and a 500mm lens you would see a very big difference how the lens drawing the image, how the road going to merge, the steepness of the angle, the distant with the wider lens shot and with a tele shot.</p>

<p><em>"Perspective has a Latin root meaning "look through" or "perceive," and all the meanings of perspective have something to do with looking. If you observe the world from a dog's perspective, you see through the dog's eyes. In drawing, perspective gives your drawing the appearance of depth or distance. If we say someone "has perspective," we mean she has a sensible outlook on life. "</em><br>

Telephoto lens compressing the distance, "perspective" longer the focal length stronger the distant compression, which is perspective. You cant get the effect by cropping an image let say with a 50mm lens and get an effect of a 500mm lens. When you cropping a part of the image, you just magnifying an existing image drawn by a lens. It is NOT the same as using a tele photo lens. Yes, you can get a birdie in a larger enlargement, but not the advantage of the tele lens. It is big mistake, when people think, a 300mm lens on a cropped camera, 1.5x you going to get a 500mm lens. No, you still have a 300 mm lens, but, a cropped image what the lens supposed to project on a full frame camera sensor or 35mm film. </p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.2 AI-S lens is a special lens, it has a nice soft effect at F/1.2 which is very nice for portrait and isolating the background, Like one of your image of the tree and the model at the background. Or click to f/2 and all the softness is disappearing. At f/2.8 almost as good then the very famous Noct-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 AI-S, which is 4 time more expensive then the 50/1.2 It is a beautiful lens, and different as all the lenses are. Focusing is very delicate at f/1.2 a good eyes is a plus or a split image focusing screen a big help too. What I see on your images is an exposure difference. I never noticed on my 50/1.2 or the 58/1.2 color tone and contrast different at different apertures. I never use the camera in auto mode,(A priority) always "M" manual mode.</p>

<p>The technical revolution and evolution given us a better tools with shorter life time, driving us to disposable everything, training our mind to the same path, feel disposable of each others as well. We do advancing technically and devolving mentally. It is a joy picking up those old and still working cameras I haw, from Nikon S2 to the latest F5, but using them very rarely, less and less service/lab and film availability, ending up, walking out with the digital. You can't escape the tide, it catch you too. Fridge, full of exposed Velvia, nobody developing them anymore in Toronto. Still shooting B&W, contact print and sometime scanning some of them, mostly siting in the negative filling system. Value of every art is the time and hand ben involved to create them, and material, not plastic, so, photography is loosing those value, mots of the people never printing they images siting on the computer, lasting only a couple of years only. It is not art anymore. Except, if you print them. We my reaching the point to print everything, (3D print ) from the racket engine to the babies.(?). I love my film cameras, and when I get the film developed and look at the contact print, I haw a big happy smile on my face. Holding a Nikon S2, FM2 , etc., or Leica II, etc., in my hand is a joy to me, the feel of a real camera.</p>

<p>NO. Mold is generally etched in to the glass, even if you remove the element and clear it. For parts, the lens body / barrel etc., my worth a 25-50 dollar if you need it.</p>

<p>Please do that, with a brand new lens, out of the box, and you going to haw a surprise. Or, the same with a new lens, after a couple of weeks use. Seeing a couple of dust particles inside the lens never do any harm. A strong light, like a flashlight is amplifying even the invisible, microscopic dust particles which is totally ignorable. The rest of them, like Stephen said.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>This is a real camera. Congratulation for the camera and the photographs too. I like those B&W images very much. I have to grab my two Nikkormat and get out to shot a couple rolls of T-Max.</p>

<p>It is a beautiful camera, a real camera for the real photographer, photographer whom learned photography and related technic first and then both a camera. I have two of them and both in perfect working order. On the second picture, you have the 85mm on it and it looks wonderful. Thank you for posting.</p>

<p>Hi Shun. I used to own the 14-24/2.8, but after my first Rocky Mountain trip I sold the lens. The idea, I all ready get the 17mm up, so I don't need the 24mm. The 14-24mm was used on the 14mm range all the time, but I strangled with the big mass of the lens and decided, to sell it and replace it with the 14/2.8ED prime. Yes, yes the 14-24 better at 14mm. I would prefer a new 14mm, or even a new 13mm prime, which is slightly smaller or shorter then the 14-24 zoom. I never noticed the corner softness on my 16MP camera and even then, I don't really care of that too. Most of the time I using max f/8 or smaller aperture anyway. I never blown up my images bigger then 13x19, most of the time even smaller print size I prefer. <br /> I really jealous about Canon, the new 11-24 zoom. I checked out, and it is phenomenal. If I'm not living on retirement pension, I would buy a FF Canon body and this Canon lens. To bad, Nikon is to lazy on this focal length.</p>

<p>The best ever, wide angle Zoom lens ever made by Nikon, the AF-S 17-35/2.8 ED. I using this lens since long long time, all ready owned at the film era and working wonderful, producing the sharpest image I ever tried with other wide angle lenses, in the same range. If I really wanted a 100 percent sharp shots, I cary the 17-35/2.8 all the time. It is permanently attached to the D3s now. The next is a 24-70/2.8ED (NO VR ) super sharp too, on the D4. Other then that, I mostly using prime lenses, believe it or not, my favorite is the Nikon Nikkor-Q or Q.C. (IA ed ) Nothing can beet the 17-35/2.8. And it is a thru lens, with aperture ring. NO PLASTIC. It is a legend. It is not cheep, but, it is a life time lens.</p>

<p>You did a beautiful work on my birthplace. Thank you.</p>

<p>Excellent. I have to grab my and get out to shoot a couple of rolls of B&W.<br>

too.</p>

 

<p><em>"You are the photographer and not the camera. "</em><br>

You have to learn to use your camera, or tools. It is not the tools that make a photograph or any other product, it is the person knowledge and artistic talent to create the perfect work.</p>

<p>. . . . The maker of the photographs.</p>

<p>To a carpenter, to do, create a beautiful furniture, it is not enough to have the most modern sophisticated wood forming tools, he need to know how to use them ant not last, he need the talent to do that.<br>

No such a camera which can read your mind and do a beautiful image you wish to have. It is not the camera, it is the person behind it whom creating an image. Improvement supposed to be in the maker, rather then the technology available.</p>

<p>"Hey" Welcome to the club.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>