Jump to content

borgis_karl_johan

Members
  • Posts

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by borgis_karl_johan

  1. I checked my original slide again with a loupe and do feel the TC20E +VR zoom combo has been prematurely brushed aside as "a poor 400 mm ". This claim done after a test only taking maximum aperture and corner performance of one particular combo into account. My slide - taken closed down one step with VR - clearly shows every minute hair around the owls beak and the in-focus breast feathers. This is easily visible in the jpeg image - submitted in my previous reply above- as well. So the combo isnt such a poor beggar for certain - at least in the more central area of the image. Dont forget that youre free to close down a step or two - thanks to VR technique - in many cases.

    Maybe Im lucky and my combination works better than yours due to sample variation. The judgement "a rather poor 400mm combo" is harsh and fortunately not accurate in my experience. If you happen to own the TC and lens, I suggest you rather try for yourself.

    This is not to claim that the 300mm +TC 14E may not be better.

  2. well I know this is the wrong forum but as a small flexible ultracompact film camera with a great 28mm lens the Minolta TC1 is hard to beat. I got lucky a year ago to find a demo in great condition and never looked back... :-)

     

    Karl Johan

  3. Some hopefully pertinent points: I used to own a sample of the 20mm f3,5(52mm) lens. Sharpness was just so-so or worse at all apertures at the edges and corners. I sold it.

    Two samples of the 2,8 MF lens have both been very sharp and contrasty once closed down to f8-f11. Sensitive to flare though if directed towards the sun.

    In both these lenses the front lens group (the CRC one, I think) would tend to get unscrewed (short of falling out altogether) now and again! So vou may want to watch out for this.

    Some 10 years back, I bought the 20mm f4 lens which is now my standard 20mm lens when travelling light. Somewhat sensitive to flare and dim to focus. Critically sharp from f5,6 down. Light and compact. My personal favorite.

    It?s your choice.

     

    Karl Johan

     

    PS. anybody else experience the "fallout" problem with the 2,8?

  4. The TC 14 A is kind of a weird converter, at least mine is:

    results with my 85mm AF f1,4 were markedly soft even when the primary lens was well closed down, whereas combined with a manual 180mm ED lens as well as with an old 400mm(!) f5,6 ED lens results were critically sharp. I noted no vignetting at the time.

     

    Just a thought, but beats me..

     

    Karl Johan

  5. If you can find one for a reasonable amount of money or don´t care about costs, the 105mm 2,0 DC lens is great. I´ve just recently discovered it and now prefer it to my 1,4 85mm AF lens except for dusk shots. It´s sharp and isolates the subject real well. And sometimes the abberations with DC do work.
  6. I have used the 2,5; 1,8 ; and also 2,0 DC lens fairly extensively for a number of years. This is my experience:

     

    The 1,8 lens: soft wide open and at 2,0, probably due to internal flare, excellent at 2,8 and smaller apertures.

     

    The 2,5 lens (I´ve had two): good from the largest aperture and improving smoothly dowm to f11 (!). It´s a great and compact lens. I felt it always ran slightly behind the 1,8 lens when compared aperture

    for aperture.

     

    The 2,0 DC: best of the lot, very sharp even wide open and probably optimal at 4,0- 5,6 already with hardly any loss at smaller apertures except very small ones. Large and heavy which is a significant disadvantage for travel photography. And very expensive (mine was used). I have used the DC feature very sparingly.

    Hope this helps

     

    Karl Johan

  7. If you look up the term bokeh on altavista, you will find a number of

    sites relevant to the topic. I seem to remember the articles in

    Phototechnique dealt with the term in principle. At the time of my

    lens comparisons, I only did tests for resolution only on

    photographic film.

     

    <p>

     

    Hope this helps.

     

    <p>

     

    Karl Johan

  8. Quite some years ago I did some comparison series with the Planar and

    f2.0 and f1,8 Nikkor standard lenses on slow B&W film shooting the

    proverbial brick wall for resolution. I then checked the negs with a

    loupe. Wide open and closed down one stop, the Nikon lenses won hands

    down... to get comparable sharpness with the Planar required stopping

    down to f4,0- f5,6. Now, this does evidently not cover other optical

    properties like bokeh and color rendition (which I remember as

    slightly warm). Still, it is a nice lens and the Contarex worked like

    a charm though 35 years old.

     

    <p>

     

    Karl Johan

  9. The big lens in front of the "D2" camera may well have been the 17-35

    mm zoom- that4s a quite a huge lens. Any hands- on experience with

    that lens out there yet? I realize this is a little off-topic

    regarding the original question.

    By the way, I4d like to see a 300mm f4 lens with IS technology- the

    C. lens is just great.

     

    <p>

     

    Karl J.

  10. An addition of IS technology to the Nikon lens range evidently would be most welcome. Now, they had a P&S camera employing this technology some years ago but that4s it up to now. Is this because of patent infringements or is the reason all conjecture?
×
×
  • Create New...