frederick_lau2

Recently I read a book by Roger Hicks & Frances Schultz which

discusses about quality in photographs.

They mentioned that there are some lenses which can produce 'magical'

quality photographs (of course with the understanding that the

photographer is doing the right thing). I guess what they

mean 'magical' is that these lenses produces pleasing appeal unlike

other lenses to most of the viewers.

They asserted that it may be due to their optimum balance of

aberrations, resolutions, contrast, flare performance, etc. in their

fields of applications.

We all know that optics flaws is a way of life - they cannot be

eliminated and we have to accept this fact. Generally speaking, what

makes a great lens is the 'right' or 'optimum' balance of these

optical flaws with reference to the photographic subjects.

Their good news is that some of them are many old designs. One of

the older lenses they quoted (and said they regretted selling it) is

Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-S f=5.8cm f1.4, among the first lenses to sell

for Nikon F. By the way, they have used Leica, Contax and Nikons.

Would anyone share his/her experience with this Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-

S f=5.8cm f1.4 ? It will be nice if there are some example photos.

Louis - I have to thank you personally for your useful info.

It is really helpful when making decision in bidding.

I am also from Australia.

I just wonder apart from the extra in shipping, how much is the duties charged by Australia Customs ? And how do they arrive at the sum of the duties, if any ?

I am also thinking of buying gear from US, to take advantage of the high AUS dollar.

I suggest the same book as Ken Rockwell (see http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/books.htm) :

Photographic Composition by Tom Grill, Mark Scanlon, Tom Scanlon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0817454276/ref=ase_kenrockwellcom/104-4104610-5782345?v=glance&s=books

Weston,

I am having the same question as you : cannot get one Zuiko 90 f2 in Sydney Australia.

No one is putting out 1 for sale here. And Olympus USA does not sell (via eBay auctions) any of their lenses out of US or Canada.

To give you more info - Tamron has 3 MF Adaptall-2 versions of their SP 90mm macro, in chronological order :

Model 52B : http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/52b.htm

Model 52BB : http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/52bb.htm

Model 72B : http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/72b.htm

Model 52B (1979-1988) is the earliest, all-metal, 49mm filter diameter version. OAC (Optical Aberrations Compensator - Tamron's version floating elements), f2.5 and macro at 1:2 (0.39m). Achieved 1:1 via SP 2X teleconvertor. This version has no AF models.

Model 52BB (1988-1996) is a later, metal + plastic, 55mm filter diameter version. Also with OAC, f2.5 and macro at 1:2 (0.39m). Achieved 1:1 via recommended optional 1:1 extension tube (new to this model) or SP 2X teleconvertor. This version has 1 AF model which appeared a very short time only.

Model 72B (1996-present) is the latest 55mm filter diameter version. With floating elements (with also acting as zooming group to chieve 1:1), f2.8 and macro at 1:1 (0.29m). Note that it achieve its 1:1 by shortening of its focal length rather than a true 90mm macro at 1:1. This version has 2 AF models.

Most of the used MF versions available on the market is Model 52B. During its period there is not as many competitons from, say Tokina & Sigma, as from the later Model 52BB period.

Used 72B is even harder to find as AF versions have taken the bulk of the sales of this model.

Throughout the years, Tamron might have improved their BBAR multi-coatings applied to their lenses.

Nick : do you know if any good OM technician in Sydney ?

I wish I have the opportunity of getting a Zuiko 90 f2 and perhaps a Zuiko 35-80 f2.8.

I think I would have a better chance if I were in the US. Many eBay auction items are available to US and there is a hefty import duties on oeverseas shipment from Australia Customs.

I have seen some very good (conditions) offers of Zuiko 90 f2 by Olympus USA, but only sell to US and Canada.

If I could find them in Sydney .....

I need you opinions :

I am looking for a 90-105 portrait-macro lens for my Olympus OM-4T &

OM-2S.

The Zuiko 90mm f/2 will be my first choice, but in Sydney (Australia)

here, where the consumer photography mass market is small, it is

almost impossible to find one, used or unused. Of course if I can

find one, this question will not be posted. (Although there are

occasionally some auction in eBay, they do not sell to Australia - in

particular from Olympus USA).

Furthermore Olympus Australia is unhelpful at all - they don't even

take orders from Japan for OM parts (which Olympus Japan promised

will be in production for some 10 years). They don't service OM and

they don't refer you to any capable OM technicians that will service

OM. They just merely abandon all the OM customers. (What will

Olympus Japan say ?)

Back to my question : some friends of mine come up with a substitute

list and I wish your opinions (it will be more valuable if it is

based on your experience) :

Tamron SP 90 f2.5 Adaptall-2 MF 52B (earlier 49mm filter metal

version)

Tamron SP 90 f2.5 Adaptall-2 MF 52BB (later 52mm filter plastic/metal

version)

Tamron SP 90 f2.8 Adaptall-2 MF (current 1:1 version)

Tokina AT-X 90 f2.5

Tokina AT-X 105 f2.5

Vivitar Series 1 90 f2.5

Vivitar Series 1 105 f2.5

I expect the lens to take excellent portraits and at the same time

performing very well in macro. I do not want the lens to give sharp

yet unpleasant harsh portrait.

Which of these lens will give the best quality in portrait ? and in

macro ?

I am also concern about the 'improvement' of successive generation of

the same brand, ie does the later version perform better optically

(sharpness, flare control, ghosting, etc.).

A friend of mine has an used Tamron SP 52B (49mm filter metal

version) and his comments was that the flare was high (in

backlighting the whole picture seems to be misty - black is not true

black). I am not sure whether this is a sample problem or a general

problem.

I cannot find any info regarding the effecitveness of the multi-

coatings of Tamron (BBAR?), Tokina and Vivitar (VMC?), and I cannot

find any discussions on the improvements on their multi-coatings on

their successive generations of lenses.

Nikon's FA, F4, F801, F70, F80, F100, etc. all have matrix metering

modes as well as centre-weighed metering mode, and even spot metering.

My questions relate to how to decide which metering system to use :

1. Under what situations will the matrix mode gives the best

metering ?

2. Under what situations will the matrix mode fail to meter

correctly ?

3. Will the matrix mode of these cameras gives the same result (or

different model yields different values) ?

4. When to use centre-weighed and when to use matrix mode ?

Regarding centre-weighed metering, Nikon's brochure/manual mentioned

that some are 60/40 (e.g. F2, FM2n, etc.) while some are 75/25 (e.g.

F70). Certainly we do not expect a 60/40 will give the same metering

as a 75/25, but among those with the same distribution, 60/40 (e.g.

F2, FM2n, etc.), will they yield the same value ?

Could anyone suggest how to use the spot metering system ? Any links

or literature suggested ?

Andrew,

The website I quoted :

http://www.gplphotography.com/Up%20Close%20Sub%20Pages/Desert%20Bloom.htm

is not mine, but Logiodice's. You may have to email him for details.

Some facts :

The Tamron SP 180 f2.5 LD-IF does not have a tripod mount. However, it is quite compact (with the added advantage of IF - the lens does not change its length or centre of gravity while focussing) and not excessively heavy (around 800g) for a f2.5.

I found it quite comfortable handheld.

The 65-116 Auto Extension tube comes with a tripod mount.

IMHO, it is good practice to add support to the long lens - perhaps bearing on a bean bag which in turn sits on some support (tripod ? or bench ?).

Eric,

I totally agreed with you not to compare lenses based on viewfinder images alone.

I have already mentioned that I just came across it during my visit to the technician's shop for other purpose.

Of course the viewfinder images is 'polluted' by the focussing screen, pentaprism and eyepiece lenses when compared to the direct recoding onto the film plane.

To draw conclusion on a lens' performance base on viewfinder alone is ignorant.

However, I am talking about COMPARING 2 supposedly identical designs.

Given using the same camera under the same lighting conditions focussing on same objects, which may qualify for a 'controlled' conditions for COMPARISON.

(For supposedly identical lenses, systematic errors will be applicable to both and hence the results can be compared. If the 2 lenses compared are of different designs, then it won't catch my attention this much.)

However, if there is even visible differences through the viewfinder alone, my question is : does it tell us something ?

Gerard,

I am merely quoting my friend's experience on using his 50 f1.2 in taking portraits. He uses his 50 f1.2 to take full length portraits of his children, in many cases indoors activities.

By portraits it does not need to be head-and-shoulders or chest-and-head, where my friend also agrees that the 85 - 105mm range are easier to produce better results.

Last week my friend accompanied me to a technician's shop to have my

zoom lens service. The technician showed me a Nikon F-100 with a

Nikkor AIS 50 f1.2 outfit which he bought a few days earlier from a

friend who bought it brand new about a year before (not earlier than

2002).

He mentioned to me that this one was a much better lens than its

previous 50mm version and asked me to try. (He is more a friend than

a shop owner who pushes to sell).

As I am in a hurry so I just managed comparing this lens with an AI

version (he just to have one in his shop) of the 50 f1.2 visually

only.

Both have 3 fixing screws in the lens mount. The old AI version has

7 blades (polygon) while the new one has 9 blades and more circular.

The coatings are different.

The AI one obviously has NIC. Trusting the info he gave about the

new one, it should have NSIC.

When I compare them in the F100 viewfinder looking at the shop

interior (10-20ft focus) under existing light, the new AIS version is

the clear winner. It has a much crisper and more contrasty image.

It showed better details at darker areas. Also the corners are

sharper. My friend also had the same conclusion.

Both lenses were viewed through the same camera under the same

lighting to see the same subjects. There is a marked difference in

quality, without the need to comparing photos or slides.

Another friend of mine uses a Nikkor AIS 50 f1.2 (9 blades) and his

opinion is that his 50 f1.2 is much better than a 50 f1.4 and that

his 50 f1.2 takes excellent portraits and is better than his Nikkor

50 f1.8 in this respect.

Is the difference due to sample variance (the 50mm is not known for

sample variance, like the 35mm or 35-to-whatever zoom) or there is a

improved version of the latest 50 f1.2 ?

I do not have enough 50 f1.2 experience to come to answer here.

A beautiful example can be found in Logiodice's website :

http://www.gplphotography.com/Up%20Close%20Sub%20Pages/Desert%20Bloom.htm

Here he used his 65-116 Telescopic Extension Tube with Tamron's SP 180 f2.5 LD-IF.

This picture alone demonstrated the beautiful colour rendition of the Tamron lens.

IMHO, the best lenses made by Tamron are these 2 lenses for its 35th Anniversary (late 1980s) release : the SP 180 f2.5 LD-IF and the SP 80-200 f2.8 LD.

Perhaps as 3rd party lenses, they did not receive the fame and popularity of their camera makers' counterparts.

But I do remember that when new, they demanded prices not very far behind from their camera makers' counterparts.

What comparing similar items for diferences, we should match up the similarities as far as possible before we do the comparison.

When we say Nikon's 'improved coatings', we must bear in mind that Nikon has recently (around late 90s, I have no accurate info, but just Nikon's published lens brochure)

upgraded their NIC (Nikon Integrated Coartings) stemmed from the 70s to NSIC (Nikon Super Integated Coatings).

This applies to both AF-D and AIS lenses. Nikon's official 1001 Nights articles have repeated stressed this point (examples : 105 f/2.5, 24 f/2.8, etc).

So when comparing AF-D 50 f/1.4 & AIS 50 f/1.4, they should be both NSIC first before comparing.

Unfortunately Nikon does not make it clear which lens has NSIC and which does not. Perhaps the User Instructions comes with the brand new lens may shed some light on this issue.

Also the sale of AIS lenses is a lot fewer than the AF-D lenses. So the brand new lens you just bought may be pre-NSIC stock.

When you encounter these comparisons, are the 50s sharing the same SNIC ?

(Of course, if you object is to find a USED AIS, then this is a different story.)

When reading magazine's test reports, we should be informative enough to understand the impact of production tolerance in mass market lens manufacture.

Deviations from target dimensions are inevitable in real-life. Imagine the physical parameters of a spherical lens element : refractive index of the glass, 2 radii of curvature, centering, thickness, ...

Each has its owm +- values. Compound that in a 7 element standard lens and imagine the range of tolerance involved in the resulting lens in your hands.

A bad sample may have some worse combinations of these tolerances occurring together.

Now you see the danger of trusting too much on those magazine's test reports which were based on 1 single sample only and then generalize.

Xavi,

I suspect yours is the pre-ED version of the 180mm.

I usually look up in Roland Vink's site :

http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon3.html

for checking and reference on Nikon lenses. The website also include pictures and serial number range (submitted by us).

FAST PRIMES,

Thanks for your sharing.

Do you have some typical photo to show us ?

Could anybody share with me his/her experience (not just opinions) or

sample photos of Zuiko 50 f/1.2 ?

Any information/experience with this Zuiko 50 f/1.2 compared with :

(a) Other Zuiko 50 & 55 ?

(b) Other SLR makes of 50/55 f/1.2 (e.g. Nikkor 50 f/1.2) ?

Thanks !

I wonder why this 28-48 zoom lens interests you. It is designated as S-series by Olympus, together with Zuiko 35-70 f4 and 100-200 f5.

The S-series is Olympus's counterpart to Nikon's Series E : exceptional value lenses (decoded meaning : for amateurs).

The 28-48 is the only wide angle zoom in the OM range (by the way, zoom lenses are not OM system's prime focus, at least in the OM-1/OM-2 era. There are, however, many excellent prime lenses.

My other obsevation is that there are many excellent optics coming out from the mid-late 70s (around Nikon's AI era in 1977, or thereabout) in Japan. Many 50 f/1.2, Noct-Nikkor, sharper zooms, AIS 28 f/2.8, AIS 50 f1.8 ....

This is reflected in the OM Zuikos too. One tiny lens which should deserved more attention and praise is the humble Zuiko 28 f/2.8.

This lens is marketed in early 80s to replace the dated SC Zuiko 28 f/3.5. Unlike other f/2.8's or smaller aperture lenses, this lens is designed to be MC outright. The others merely added MC to the original SC design.

Personally, I pay more attention to post late 70s designs in used lenses.

This lens is excellent, even compared with the famed AIS Nikkor 28 f/2.8. And the price is sweet. I got mine for only US$88 !!

On the other hand the 28-48 is much lower in contrast and less vibrant in colours. Futhermore, the zoom range isn't that impressive and you can do better with a 50mm + 28mm.