mark_tupper

If using this lens on a DSLR you should be using an HN-23 /24 Hood

You could try a Nikon UV - Keep it in the family !

If you want quality at all levels hunt dowm a good 25-50mm f4 - I found a mint one last year (circa 1980) - using on a D2X, truly amazing lens, minimal flare, ghosting and distortion, a tad soft at f4 but from f5.6-16 whoa ! The Nikon lens designers must have put this one out when the accountants were on holiday !

The 105 2.5 has unique imaging qualities, beautiful soft/sharp boundaries, very different to the others you list - all potentially sharper at their best apertures - but the 105 gauss still does a lovely job !

It is not sharp wide open

 

At 5.6 to 11 it is one of the finest lenses ever made !

 

Currently using on a D2x for panoramic work - wonderful !

It is not sharp wide open

 

At 5.6 to 11 it is one of the finest lenses ever made !

 

Currently using on a D2x for panoramic work - wonderful !

countless hours of scanning followed by countless hours of removing dust and scratches - not!

The Zeiss 25mm/2.8 Distagon ZF has very nice imaging characteristics, high contrast and resolution, low flare, good color rendition and smooth tonality. Out of focus blur is very smooth

 

So almost as good as a 12-24 DX Nikkor then !

As a professional I have the issue/problem :

 

You turn up at a shoot with a D200 and the client says Oh your're using a D200 my wife/son/brother has one of those !

 

You turn up at a shoot with a D2x and the client says bloody hell that's a serious looking bit of Kit !

 

Guess what I use !!

 

Go back 30 years - it's the difference between an F2 and a Nikkormat

 

ps D2x at highest res and NEF is a joy !

To Quote Jimi Hendrix - Hey Joe Live - You're Livin in the Past !

Or you could buy a Nikon D2x - a digital camera that works properly in the 1st place.. add on filters to make it work ?? - what a joke camera !

Wow! Just done the firmware 2.0 what a D2x upgrade! - I'll never use the crop mode - so I have a D2xs for free ! Thanks Nikon !

CS2: image-adjustments-shadow/highlight...it's all there !

Nice pics, painfully slow website

You may be overlooking the 35-70D 2.8, the design and optics go way back but I'm using a recently aquired one on a D2X and it rocks ! I bought and sold 24-85 3.5-4.5 and 24-120mm VR they did not rock, in a very soft rock bad Bokeh kind of way, the 35-70D 2.8 70mm end gives 105 2.5 type imagery (35mm equiv) with gorgeous sharp in and out of focus for portraits. Yes I know the focal range has never been fashionable but with a 12-24G at one end and an 80-200 2.8 at the far end you have pretty much all bases covered (IMO) Good Night all and Opus Dei

Nikon is one of the worlds premier lens designers.... I don't think they would let the touching lenscap slip past them !

Guys it's a no brainer !! Any filter attached will reduce technical quality - more air/glass surfaces - more flare, The correct hood attached will always improve technical quality, less non-image forming light hitting the front element....

Water 350cc

Metol 5 grams

Sodium Sulphite 45 grams

Diethylene glycol 12.5 cc

Triethanolamine 15 cc

Chlorhydroquinone 25 grams

Water to make 500 cc

 

This is a stock solution

 

Dilute one ounce of this stock solution with 15 ounces of a 10% of sodium sulphite

Nicolas, Thanks for the links

Elliot, yes I know about stopping down but as Nicolas observes the lens is slow to start with

Dee, I agree - think I had a duff one !

David, agreed !

Walter, A 24-120 in 1974, I think it would have cost more than a new car!

For me - I'm sticking to fast primes, 12-24 4.0, 17-55 2.8, 80-200 2.8, All Nikkors no VR....oh and back ache !

Thank you all for your time and input

I owned the 24-120 VR for a year and found it the poorest Nikkor I have ever

owned - the VR did work (went into Nikon UK for a checkout), but the overall

sharpness varied from okish to poor on a daily basis. I have to say I always

believed that optical centering was critical in lens design/construction and

don't understand how VR can reduce shake whilst maintaining high overall

resolution...maybe I need to read some more - my 1974 lenses - 28 2.0, 55 3.5,

105 2.5 and 1985 20 2.8 leave it for dead, using all on a D2x, Progress ???

Tom

Just read your post again - if you have a 50 and the long zoom - you need a 12-24 Nikkor - it rocks - read all the reviews ! don't bother with consumer quality VR

I have not tried 18-200, I owned the 24-120 VR for a year and found it the poorest Nikkor I have ever owned - the VR did work, but the overall sharpness varied from okish to poor on a daily basis. I have to say I always believed that optical centering was critical in lens design/construction and don't understand how VR can reduce shake whilst maintaining high overall resolution...maybe I need to read some more !

Nice Processor, crappy software, CS2 Rocks

I have the 3.5-4.5 - i have used and loved many Nikkors for almost 30 years this lens is an absolute pile of crap - abberations, distortions- Don't go there !

I picked up a Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f2.8 for a song in London about 8 years ago it was ok at 85mm but compared to my 35-70 3.5 (62mm filter size)Nikkor it was a pretty cheesy piece of crap, in my 30 years of buying and trying the independant lens's are always a mile behind the camera makers lenses

I have the Nikkor 12-24 and I must have a good one !

Used on my D2x it is sharp at all focal lengths and apertures

A tad soft at the extreme corners at F4 and 12mm but thats it - light fall off wide open compared to any other wideangle Nikkor is absolutely negligble, Flare and ghosting is hard to find. It leaves every other fixed wide angle lens I have ever used (35mm, 645, and 5x4) for dead - and it's an 18-36 zoom ! I have not tried any independent makes for many years but remember way back occasions of buying various Vivitar Series one, Tamron SP and Tokina lenses and then using and urrgh! - idiot wait - save more money and get the Nikkor!<div></div>