vladvlaz

I also purchased that lens having seen the unanimous opinion about this lens' legendary sharpness. However scanning negs and slides at 3200 dpi with a dedicated film scanner I cannot see much difference between the 50 f/1.8 and the cheap plastic 28-80 @ 50, which seems to be pretty sharp in the 35-60 region.

On the other hand the possibilty that this lens opens up for indoor/low light photography is invaluable.

I got that lens with my F55. I also have the 50 1.8. The 28-80 is a decent lens, I scanned photos with Minolta Dimage IV and the differences between the 50 and the zoom are subtle, especially for a beginner. Also, you will have to try to shoot at f/8 for optimal results.

You will feel the limits of the 3.3-5.6 aperture long before you find fault with the optics (in terms of sharpness/distortion). Ok, at 28mm the corners are soft and distorted, but it's fine in some situations. Depends what you want to do with it. I'm happy with the lens in general. The 5.6 aperture sucks however, as soon as it's not a bright day forget using this lens.

The F (autofocus) cameras all have a kind of dial which you turn to change the aperture in A or P mode. However, the "lower models", F55, F65 have only one dial so when you are in manual mode the dial changes the shutter speed. To change aperture you have to hold a little button and turn the dial. Some say uncomfortable. I hate the way the aperture ring feels on my 50mm AFD when it is turned and I much prefer turning the dial and holding the button than turning that noisy flimsy thing.

Guys, thanks for your answers so far!

I would be able to spend around 1000 dollars on an upgrade. I don't think the F100 route then would be worth it, since I would not be able to get any more lenses. Also reading some responses I'm reassured not to go the D70 way since I find myself expecting a lot from the camera and would be disappointed as soon as I find faults with it...

Manual focus was a good idea, I wonder if I can find it in my heart to give up all those nice buttons that higher-end cameras seem to have. The FM3A is an inviting idea, with the loss however of the G lens. I understand the AFD are usable, though.

I am leaning more towards the film path then, but will consider manual as well. I shoot a mix of portraits, street, occasionally landscape and sports, but mainly I suppose I would call it people photography.

Ideally I'm interested in a good body that will last me for more than a year, and then a couple of fast lenses for the budget. I would like fast autofocus, but perhaps a switch to manual would be worth it?

I currently have the following beginner setup: F55, 28-80G, 50 1.8

and 75-300 4-5.6. Also Dimage IV film scanner.

After one year, I find the system insufficient. Several reasons: too

much DOF, esp the 28-80. Small viewfinder. Silver color of camera

body. Autofocus hunts and is slow, even with the 50 prime, the assist

light cannot be turned off unless the "sports" mode is used. Camera

is not well protected from rain/dust. The blackout time (while mirror

is up) is too long to know exactly at which point the shutter opens,

this makes it hard to catch the necessary moment. Cannot set ISO

speed. Camera too light and can be hard to handhold.

Finally, scanning negatives/slides as I found out can be a time-

consuming task. I like the sharpness/color which comes out from the

scanner, however, scratches and dust is a big problem, since a couple

of specks ruin everything. I have also been frustrated with the

results I get with developed film from labs. It can come out

scratched, something really wrong with B&W developing, E-6 with

ruined skies: the slide seems "dirty": full of strange specks.

Furthermore slide film, to me, costs a considerable amount. At the

same time, I find the archival properties of film important, since

I've lost hard-drive data several times, and CD-R archiving

properties are dubious.

I am thinking of upgrading my system, but there are some difficult

choices. (D70 vs F100) vs N80 + one or two good lenses vs two or

three good lenses. What are your thoughts?

I like the fact that different films have different character. At the

same time I've been frustrated too often with poor developing, dust

and scratched negatives/slides. Scanning is a pain. I move from

country to country a lot so like to scan film rather than print it so

that I don't have to carry heavy albums to show friends. A D70 allows

to take more pics, but I am worried about the quality of the body,

viewfinder and autofocus which apparently are not good. At the same

time if I buy N80 I am afraid I will want to upgrade again to F100

soon again for viewfinder and autofocus reasons, also build quality.

Price is an important consideration. D70 crops, so the DOF would be

shallower...

Finally I find the lens I have too slow and would love to invest in

glass instead. What do you think? I shoot amateur/travel. Partly this

is a film vs digital debate, of which there are plenty and I read

some of those...

thanks,

Vlad

Thanks for your answers guys!

Yeah, John! I already trained myself to see white walls as yellow in tungsten light...

I just thought about it, and ofcourse! To exaggerate the effect if you come up close to a building and look up you will see obvious convergence.

This is not really a question, just things which stir up feelings of

uneasiness!

I've only been into photography for a year. I bought a Nikon F55 + 28-

80G. Three months into shooting I bought the 50mm f/1.8D. Then I

purchased the old 75-300 4-5.6...

After buying a film scanner and shooting some slides I've been

getting more and more worried about lens quality, bokeh, sharpness,

etc which was not a big issue when printing 4x6 or with the cheap

enlarger in the uni darkroom.

The first thing I noticed which bugged me was that at 3200 dpi, after

inspecting a scene I shot with the 50 prime and the cheap zoom at 50

there was very little difference in quality, which is not what I

expected. What is worse I could not make up my mind which lens was

which since I'd forgotten the order in which I shot them. Another

thing with the prime lens which has the respect of so many on this

site is distortion. Whenever I shoot something with the film plane

not parallel to the object, there is a pronounced case of buildings

being wide at the bottom and getting narrower towards the top. Is

this normal for 50mm? I thought this lens would be free from

distortion, perhaps it is a different type of distortion that people

are talking about? Sometimes pictures almost look like wide-angle...

My brother has an Elan 7NE with the "cheap" zoom 28-90 which

sometimes (perhaps I am paranoid) seems sharper at around 60-70mm

than my 50! Why is all this happening??

I also can't make up my mind on whether I want to buy the 24 2.8, 35

2, 85 1.8, or 105 macro next. I would like a portrait lens but can't

afford the DC ones.

If you have any thoughts/opnions on the above, please share them, I

would be interested to hear them!

Thanks,

Vlad