john_hinkey

<p>And, I paid only $350 each for my two nearly pristine copies - that's pretty darned good for a high quality full-frame lens these days that will never has an AF motor die. As Bjorn points out on his lens site, it is so small that it can be easily misplaced (which I have done on occasion).</p>

<blockquote> <p>Whoa! The prices asked for that little Tessar copy are ridiculous. Personally I'm a great fan of 55mm Micro-Nikkors (either the f/3.5 or f/2.8 versions). They have great contrast and "drawing" and sell for a tiny fraction of a 45mm P.</p> </blockquote> <p>And they are far larger and heavier and still f/2.8 or slower. Besides, some of us think a "normal" focal length lens is actually a bit wider than 55mm . . .</p>

<p>I like mine so much I bought two of the black versions. It's on my D800 all the time - I can have a body cap, 45P or a bloated 50/1.8G so I have the 45P.<br> These days with high ISO capabilities of the D800 I don't need f/1.8 except for a few times a year.<br> Wide open the central 2/3rds of the frame are plenty sharp enough and at f/5.6 it's pixel level sharp at 36MP except for the last 1% of the frame in the corners.<br> Some of my best, most memorable images have been take with this lens.<br> Those that put it down either don't own it or had a bad copy. Its one not so great fault is flare when pointed into the sun, but I don't do that often with a 45mm.<br> All that AND it looks way better on my D800 than a 50/1.8G (even the Df version doesn't look as good.)<br> Nikon should come out with a series of f/2.8 (or f/4) primes that are as compact as possible while still having very good optics. A good series would be 20/4, 45/2.8, 85/2.8, 180/4 that are all excellent wide open.</p>

<p>I can only assume that Nikon is not actively manufacturing these AIS lenses that are sold new - they are either assembling them from supplies of finished stock parts or the units were manufactured long ago and they are working off of existing supply of assembled lenses.<br> Some of these lenses are still very good while others not so much. There are some AI/AIS lenses that have no AF peer optically and it would be cool if Nikon brought them back or at least made a modern version of them.</p>

<p>My own experience with my 70-200/4 AFS VR is that at 200mm the performance declines from superb at infinity to not so hot at close in. On the other end from 70-135mm or so up close is excellent and very good at infinity. Distance to subject counts a lot when trying to test a lens and compare to other lenses.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, when I stated that a 400mm lens won't be affected by cover glass I base that on the lens-rentals article that showed the effect of exit pupil distance on the degree of degradation by a thick sensor cover - the more distant the exit pupil the less the issue. A 200mm exit pupil shows little degradation.<br> One other thing is sensor reflections. How the light reflections off the sensor (digital sensors are far more reflective than film) interacts with the lens can be an issue as well, though for long teles this might not be much of a problem.</p>

<p>For a 400mm lens the general use of an adapter or sensor cover glass thickness won't make a big difference. Many of these older tele lenses just don't have the resolution to give pixel level sharpness on today's digital cameras. As far as adapter quality goes, I've measured my expensive metabones F to Sony E adapter and it had much variations in dimensional tolerance than my cheap fotasay F to E adapter - so it all depends on the specific copy you have. I would say using such a lens on a less-than-full-frame sensor high pixel pitch sensor has the following problems:<br> - Older lens designs not having the sharpness to satisfy such a sensor and/or low in contrast/high in CA <br> - Reflections of the light the lens shines outside the sensor area (full frame illumination on a APS-C (or m43) sensor area) - what happens to that light and does it cause loss of contrast? This could be a combination of camera body light baffling and adapter baffling<br> - IF the lens is sharp enough across the image plane, then lens mount - adapter mount parallelism to the sensor may be noticeable depending on the degree of non-parallelism, which plane it's in, how the adapter/body are loaded/flexed from the body/lens/adapter weight, and aperture used, etc. For example, my Zeiss 135/2 APO clearly shows that the lens mount on my D800 needs adjustment as the right edge is slightly out of focus compared to the rest of the frame, while using it on my A7r and m43 bodies shows no such focus issues. My less sharp lenses can't see this issue.<br> - Focusing - it's really tough with some of these older lenses to really nail the focus - the DOF is thin and the focusing helicoids can be on the coarse side for fine adjustments</p> <p>That's my take anyways.</p> <p>John</p>

<p>Your images that seem to achieve good focus look pretty good to me. The 400/3.5 is pretty good, but on the high MP of the Fuji it's asking too much for pixel level sharpness. Especially for birds - the fine details in the feathers are easy to see when they aren't resolved well. I don't thing there is anything wrong with the lens - it's just a matter of accurate focusing and realistic expectations of a pretty old lens design.</p>

<p>I went on a quest to find a 135mm for my A7r and D800 and ended up coming back to my 135/3.5 AIS. Tried as many non-Nikon MF lenses, but found none that were better. I also had a 135/2.8, which I found to not be quite as good at any aperture.<br> Currently in the 135mm category I have:<br> 135/3.5 AIS Nikkor<br> 135/2 AIS Nikkor<br> 135/2 APO Zeiss<br> The Zeiss kills either of the Nikkors, but it also kills them for cost and weight too. The 135/2 beats the f/3.5 just slightly at far distances (it's actually not far behind the Ziess, but lacks contrast), but the f/3.5 is better up close. The f/3.5 is very good at far distances as well and I have no trouble using it on my D800.<br> Had the 135/2DC for a while and found it no better than the AIS (AF accuracy was terrible which required manual focus - so why have it?).</p>

<p>Reviews are all over the place on most of these lenses - perhaps due to copy variations.<br> I've seen several reviews of the 28/2.8 AIS that are really positive and many examples that show that it is capable, with a good copy, to be excellent across the frame stopped down even on today's high MP sensors.<br> I owned the 28/2 AI (get that one for the curved blades, the AIS has straight blades) and it was fantastically sharp on my D300 - and one of the best flare/ghosting resistant lenses I've ever had.<br> On my D700 the center was tack sharp wide open, but the corners/borders not so good - and they never really reached sharp even stopped down. As a landscape lens it lacks in border/corner sharpness on FX, but if you want fantastic flare/ghosting resistance and only care about the central 2/3 of the image frame for critical sharpness the 28/2 is the way to go.</p>

<p>Having owned the 200/4 AIS for some time, I found it to be fine at 12MP, but when I moved up to 36MP it no longer was all that great. CA and not 36MP-worth of sharpness. I now own a 180/4 APO Voigtlander and a 180/3.4 Leica Telyt - both of which easily beat it wide open in the areas of sharpness (center and even more so off center) and contrast and CA, though they are a bit heavier and larger. It's a fine, compact lens, but it shows it's age at higher than 12MP.<br> The 70-200/4G AFS VR also handily beats it at 200mm at any aperture.<br> Bjorn is generally spot on in my experience as well (there are a few exceptions that I put in the lens copy variation category), but he has not reviewed this lens on FX digital AFAIK and I suspect he would not have a glowing review of it if he did, especially at 24 or 36MP resolution.</p>

<p>Shun - Yes I consider it a "kludge" (perhaps too strong of a term) due to:<br> - Poor screen quality when in live view - very difficult to see in bright light, etc.<br> - Line skipping on my D800<br> - Lack of articulated screen which would make it so much better to use in the field<br> - Major time lag when tripping the shutter when in live view mode<br> Though useful for sure (and I do use it), it could be so much better . . . and hopefully will be in the future</p>

<blockquote> <p>By the way, I want to compare an EVF and a reflex viewfinder, not about lag because lag can be improved and people have different tolerance about lag. One difference between an EVF and a reflex viewfinder is that the reflex viewfinder tries to to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at, but an EVF tries to estimate what we are going to get. Just the idea attracts a lot of people to the EVF, but how can they estimate the result of a flash exposure? (I am not talking about the current models, but about any possible improvements in the future). Usually, EVF will show a dark result when you turn the flash on. And how about an exposure of 10 seconds? Well, they will take the result of 1/30 s (or so) and multiply by 300. And how accurate that can be? will they estimate the camera shake also?<br />By the way, you always see how your hands are shaking in the reflex viewfinder, have you tried to see how IS effect is in an EVF? What if an EVF is just trying to give the exact view of what the camera is going to shoot at? The way our eyes see is pretty complicated.</p> </blockquote> <p>I gotta say John, I have little idea what you are talking about.<br> An OVF has limitations and great features that we old photographers are quite used to while these new EVFs have some great advantages and limitations that are new to us and some find troublesome. As a D800, GX7, and (formerly A7r) shooter I have no problem going between them as they each have their strengths and weaknesses that I work around and still manage to get great images.<br> Sure the EVFs on my mirrorless cameras can get grainy and laggy in really low light and sometimes don't have the dynamic range that I'd like, but I really like being able to perfectly manually focus, have all sorts of info in the viewfinder and actually see the true depth of field.<br> My D800 is great in bright light and very little time lag, but I really hate guessing if the focus is correct (w/o having to resort to the kludge that LiveView is on Nikon DSLRs) with my fast glass and I don't like being stuck at an ~f/2.8-~f/4 effective DOF in the viewfinder with my f/2 (or faster) glass.<br> Each technology has it's strengths and weaknesses, it's just that many are reacting to the weaknesses of current EVFs w/o, in many cases, realizing the real positives. Plus lots of the EVFs of a couple mirrorless models ago were not very good, but the most current models are quite good.</p>

<p>You are basing your opinions of mirrorless for professional work on a Pany G6? . . . sigh . . .</p>

<p>That would be the forthcoming 300/4 Pro by Olympus (not f/2.8).</p>

<p>Hmmm . . . . a contentious topic for sure, so here's my gasoline on the fire . .<br> <br />As an advanced amateur/enthusiast I currently have 3 mirrorless cameras (Panasonic G5, GX7, Sony A7r) and one DSLR (D800). I shoot just about everything.<br> For tripod work the D800 is about as good as it gets. For any kind of very low light work the D800 is tough to beat.<br> For any kind of spur of the moment candid work or video I much prefer my GX7. I have fast primes and a few zooms and the speed of focus (non-AFC) and focus accuracy are excellent. 16MP is more than enough for 90% of what I do.<br> I get frustrated with my fast lenses on my D800 as the PDAF is just not accurate enough - hence my A7r which I can see the actual DOF and nail the focus (like with my 135/2 APO Ziess). <br> I was talking to the local Nikon rep this past weekend and she quizzed me on why I would buy a mirrorless (m43 or Sony FX) and I told her:<br> - Accurate focusing (m43 and Sony FE)<br> - Ability to have silent shutter (m43)<br> - Compact, light weight body (m43 and Sony FE)<br> - Accurate DOF preview with really fast lenses<br> - Customizable EVF display<br> - Ability to use high quality legacy lenses of just about any kind<br> DSLRs will surely stay with us, but the majority of bodies will likely move over to mirrorless due to the following reasons:<br> - Cheaper to manufacture (no mirror mechanism, no AF sub-sensors, heavy OVF optics, etc.)<br> - Advances in fast readout from sensors and processing<br> - PDAF on sensor<br> - EVF display/optics improvements (they are already very very good)<br> - Power draw from electronics and battery power<br> I asked the Nikon rep to please pass on to Nikon that at the very least I want a D810 mirrorless version - call it the "DM810". Keep the F mount if they must, but put on-sensor PDAF, EFCS (or better yet totally electronic shutter), an excellent EVF, IBIS and I would buy one. Not going to happen any time soon unfortunately.</p>

<p>My UWA sharpness standard on my D800 is my 16/3.5 AI - much better than the 16/2.8 AIS or AF-D - I'll have to get one of these Samyang's to give it a go to see how it stacks up to the sharpest lens I own.</p>

<p>I would just use a 16/3.5 AI fisheye on a high MP body (like a D800 or so) and de-fish it. It covers 170 deg. so you can afford to lose some of that during the de-fishing process to the equivalent FOV of a 13mm rectilinear.</p>

<blockquote> <p>John - lucky you! 135/2 APO Zeiss</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks - I found a place that sells refurbed units and got a good price on one, otherwise I would not own it. That being said, I still have not parted ways with my 135/2 AIS Nikkor . . . .</p>

<p>As previously stated by others Nikon made 3 135mm primes - f/2, f/2.8, and f3/5 versions that were all AI-S in their last produced version. These are all readily available on the used market, though the f/2 version a little less so.<br> Perhaps anticipating your question about which one is the "best", I've owned all three.<br> The sharpest overall is the f/2, but it's big and heavy. It's pretty good wide open, especially at infinity, but at MFD is not at it's best. The f/2.8 is OK, though not as good as the f/2 or f/3.5 versions. The f/3.5 is the lightest/most compact of the three as one would suspect and I've found, with my copies anyways, for it to be much better than the f/2.8 and on par with the f/2 at equivalent apertures. The f/3.5 actually is very very good on my D800 up close and also very very good wide open at distance. One of Nikon's better manual focus primes IMHO.<br> I don't use the f/2 version all that much now that I have the 135/2 APO Zeiss, but I use the f/3.5 quite a bit when I want something light for my D800 or my m43 bodies.<br> Hope that helps with whatever question you may have had.</p>

<p>When you put the GX7 into full quiet mode it is absolutely silent. If you just turn off the mechanical shutter there is a very faint sound. I've used the electronic shutter in a theater environment (with an adapted manual focus lens - the 135/2 APO Zeiss) and no one could tell I was taking a picture.<br> <br />However, I have found that sometimes, depending on the native lens used, the aperture closing down can make a sound that is noticeable (like on my 75/1.8 Oly and 42.5/1.2 PL) in a very quiet environment.</p>

<p>Regarding m43 vs. FX - I regularly shoot my D800 besides my GX7 and I find that at base ISO or up to around 800 the GX7 is not too far behind the D800 on a per-pixel basis and that downsampling helps the D800 a lot.<br> However, at higher ISOs the GX7 starts to fall apart pretty quickly on a per pixel basis compared to the D800. In addition, even at base ISO, the D800 is far better in practice at handling highlights that need to be pulled back and shadows that need to be pulled up. Not just talking noise, but color casts, etc. Perhaps it's the RAW converters, but the post processing is just easier on the D800 for tricky lighting situations. One of the saving attributes of the GX7 is that its AWB seems to work really really well which saves the day for post processing.<br> Back to the Oly 40-150/2.8 - though I don't have an Oly body to put it on (all Panasonic m43 bodies) I will try to get this lens and depend on the GX7's very very good IBIS. Really wish Panasonic would come out with a similar lens.</p>

<p>I've tested and used these ~200mm lenses on my D800:<br> 200/4 AIS<br> 180/2.8 AF<br> 80-200/2.8D AFS<br> 70-200/2.8G AFS VR-II<br> 70-200/4G VR<br> 180/3.4 APO Telyt Leica R<br> At 200mm I would rate them from best to worst as (wide open):<br> 180/3.4 APO Telyt Leica R - Pixel level sharp across the frame at 36MP at infinity - truly astonishing. Slightly less sharp at closer distances. Even is pixel level sharp on my m43 16mp cameras that have an even smaller pixel pitch. <br> 70-200/4G VR - Truly outstanding at far distances, not as good near MFD. Near MFD it shines from 70-~150mm).<br> 70-200/2.8G AFS VR-II - Excellent at all distances, though just a tad below the f/4VR for across-the frame sharpness at f/4<br> 80-200/2.8D AFS - Very very good at far distances, corners not so great. Close-up it's OK. Does not like TC's as well. Stopped down it's pretty good. Slight notch below the f/2.8G VR-II.<br> 180/2.8 AF - Adequate at far distances, corners less so. CA/PF. Not quite up to 36MP sharpness, especially the borders/corners.<br> 200/4 AIS - Not 36MP sharp at any part in the frame, less so in the corners. Lots of CA (though correctable in post fairly easily). This lens is just adequately sharp on 12MP (D700).</p> <p>Granted I've only tested 1 sample of each. AND it also depends on what your viewing print size is. The 200/4 may be just fine for smaller sizes or non-cropped images - I've made some fine images with it and still have it (though I've not used it in quite a while).</p>

<p>Silvio -</p> <p>I have a setup with my d800 + 55/3.5 AI Micro Nikkor and PB-6/PS-6 bellows and slide attachment.<br> This works very well for me. For the light source I removed the diffuser of the slide attachment and used a portable light table.<br> I first tried using the ES-1, but it's not so convenient to get things adjusted, etc., but it is easy to point into the sun if that's what your light source is.<br> With the PB-6/PS-6 combination I can set it up and accurately get focus and keep it there, frame it just right to maximize the image on the sensor, and changing slides is easier and more repeatable.<br> I found that my D800-based setup gave me better colors, dynamic range, and higher contrast than using my CoolScan5000ED on the same slide. The only issue is that dust and scratches cannot be automatically removed like they can with the dedicated film/slide scanner.<br> <br />See this link to a picture of my setup (with the D700 at the time): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/354</p>

<p>My A7r (with latest firmware) is very annoyingly slow to start up after it's been off for a while. If it's just been off for a few minutes it's very fast. So I end up turning it off and on to save battery and have no problems if it's a short while between the last picture. The slow start if it's been off for a while (not sure how long it has to be off for "a while" to come into effect) is one of the annoying A7R features that Sony really should fix among many of the A7R annoying features. Great camera, but really rough around the edges as they say.</p>