ryan_smith9

<p>Nikon 70-200 VRII....fall shot</p>

<p><img src="http://www.soltiphotography.com/Portraits/NicolePorter/RS02020/1055592978_aRFgm-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Wow...all these people making recommendations on stuff they have never used. Plus Ted is asking about the 14-24 vs ZF 21, not severely inferior products such as the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 17-35</p>

<p>First off, I have used the 11-16/14-24/16-35/ZF 21/and several other Nikon primes so I can give you a users POV. I will go over a few as the others don't even deserve mentioning as they are nowhere near the same league.</p>

<p>16-35 VR: I have an excellent VERY sharp copy. Distortion from 16-18 is horrendous. From 18-28 this lens is extremely sharp even wide open and has very little distortion. Surprisingly good micro contrast for a Nikon lens. The main attraction to this lens is being able to hand-hold at night and nail 1/20 shots on a consistent basis. Certain corners may be sharper in this lens vs the 14-24 but overall the two lenses mentioned below are sharper than the 16-35. The reason I have this lens and not the 14-24 is the availability of filters...yet a new system is coming out by Lee for the 14-24</p>

<p>14-24: I had at one point and got rid of it b/c of the bulbous front and the inability to use filters. Sharpness is excellent. Slightly prone to flare and CAs at wider apertures. Peaks at about f/5.6 in sharpness (my copy of course). Sharpness never does quite reach the ZF 21. Distortion is minimal for a wide angle zoom.</p>

<p>ZF 21: Unbelievable lens. The only negative I know of is the mustache distortion that shows up in architecture if you hit it at just the right spot. Actually, vignetting is quite prominent from f/2.8 - f/4 as well. Sharpness is unreal from corner to corner, even wide open. Wide open on the ZF 21 is as sharp as the 14-24 at its peak. It takes filters and provides the typical Zeiss 3D look without even trying. It focuses extremely close which is a huge plus and takes filters. At wide focal lengths, I don't mind a prime as I don't even go as wide as 14-18....ever.</p>

<p>I think the race comes down to the 14-24 and the ZF 21 and it really depends on if you want a zoom. If you want a zoom, you know which to get. If you don't mind a prime and 21 is a good length for you, no question in my mind which I would take...the Zeiss 21.</p>

<p>Proud new owner of M8.....</p>

<p><img src="http://www.soltiphotography.com/Landscapes/Omaha/L1006403/974800469_JrtWk-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>D700 & ZF 35 in downtown Savannah</p>

<p><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/photos/948744355_qUxxR-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Ruslan, it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting mainly stills or slow moving objects it is not hard to focus with the ZF and the D700. If you are shooting kids like I sometimes do, it is damn near impossible to keep up with them with the ZF. I posted the two taken with my D90 (horrible VF compared to D700) to show that it CAN be done. I took about 6 shots there by the way, every one of them was 100% sharp. They were shot at f/2. The D700 makes it even easier. Focusing is VERY easy with the large D700 VF. At f/2 I feel that I can rely on the rangefinder green dot indicator at the bottom for a good shot (though I normally don't). At f/1.4 it is less accurate and you should rely on your own eyes. You can rely on the green dot to get you close, but your own eyes will work better once you are close.</p>

<p>And no, focusing screen is not needed on the D700....for me. I wear glasses at work so that I can read the screen but do not wear glasses when shooting with the D700. I adjusted the VF to my needs and it works perfectly.</p>

<p>For those of us with the D700 it is a shame not to use some of the best glass out there strictly because it is manual focus. Classic lenses such as the Nikon 105 2.5 AI-S, Nikon 28 2.8 AI-S and several of the Zeiss primes are examples of very good manual focus lenses that we (D700/D3) users should make more us of. The VF is HUGE and manual focusing is very easy to do....just like the old saying....don't knock it til you try it. Now I would not whole-heartily recommend DX users or FX users shooting kids to use manual focus lenses all the time....but for us FX users that shoot landscape/stills/even portraits the amount of quality manual focus glass is there and it is a shame to overlook for the 'convenience' of AF.</p>

<p>sorry for the rant.....I'm done!</p>

 

<p>Relying on photozone's MTFs sadly is not the best method to take</p>

<p>And just for reference....the picture below is taken with the Sigma 50 1.4 wide open. The Zeiss would not be as smooth as this and the Nikon not as sharp. Pick your poison :)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.soltiphotography.com/Portraits/Annyston-Cashwell/RTS5498/927219998_L6pVB-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I have used the Nikon 50 1.4 AF-S and currently have the Sigma 50 1.4 and Zeiss ZF 50 1.4</p>

<p>I wanted a 50 for AF purposes as I have a little one that runs around constantly and MF just is not an option. I wanted a 1.4 for just that, 1.4. Taking that into consideration, the Sigma was the hands down winner from about 1.4 - 2.8 as far as sharpness and bokeh (my taste) goes. From about 2.8 on the Nikon was sharper....but that is not what I wanted. I wanted 1.4 capabilities.</p>

<p>I then tried out the ZF 50 1.4 although I read the same thing that is mentioned above. Bokeh called harsh, not sharp, blah blah blah. Sharpness-wise, it is a little soft wide open at close-up distance but from about 8 ft on there isn't another 1.4 lens that can hold up to the Zeiss. From f/2 on this lens is razor sharp at all distances and the other 50 1.4 lenses I tried aren't even close. For landscape purposes, this is an excellent choice as the curvature and distortion are minimal to non-existant. For bokeh purposes, I agree, the bokeh from 1.4 to 2.8 is 'harsh'. It reminds me of the 50 1.2 AI-S I used to have. However, this 'harshness' can be put to good use and you can get excellent shots with the bokeh it provides.</p>

<p>The ZF 50 f/2 is also an excellent lens. Obviously it does not go down to f/1.4 but it is sharper than the ZF 50 1.4 all around. After looking at several hundred photos taken by each lens, I will say that the ZF 50 1.4 does have more plasticity providing for more of a '3-D' look than the ZF 50 f/2. From f/2.8 on I also do prefer the bokeh from the ZF 50 1.4 better.</p>

<p>Like I mentioned, I have both the Sigma and Zeiss for specific instances. If you must have AF, I would recommend the Sigma. I have a D700 and focusing the Zeiss is not an issue at all. The huge VF is a pleasure to MF with. After master manual focus with my D700 I tried it on the D90 and also got superior results. Take a look at the photos below made with the D90 and ZF 50 1.4 at f/2<br /><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/photos/842097521_F8Lm6-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/photos/842097212_Jr5qo-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

<p>I know it is manual focus....but halfway down your price range is a 105 f/2.5 Nikon AI-S which will be the BEST you can get for portraits for under $900. You can couple that with a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for $350 or so and you have 2 lenses for the price of 1</p>

<p><strong>Jonas </strong>- fantastic capture!</p>

<p>D700 & Contax 35-70 Leitaxed</p>

<p> <img src="http://www.soltiphotography.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS1892/884888503_Uga8r-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<p>Wow....tons of photos already. Thanks for kind words last week. My contribution <br>

<img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4683/908005682_VqDgg-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>D700 & Zeiss 50 Planar</p>

<p>I haven't been here in a while....figured I would make a post</p>

<p>D700 with 70-200 VRII</p>

<p><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Portraits/Morgan-Meets-Audrey/RTS4874/914020420_4STLU-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>And I dispute that Zeiss has the best lenses. I have two Zeiss lenses myself and I have used the 50mm/f1.4 ZF for Nikon; they are good lenses but so are many Nikon lenses and many Canon lenses. I don't think getting some Zeiss lens will imporve your images much, if at all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An average user of ZF lenses would indeed find the ZF 50 Planar and ZF 85 Planar in particular the worst lenses that Zeiss has to offer. Look at the ZF 35/21/100 MP/50 MP and those are some of the finest optics (if not<strong> THE BEST</strong>) that you can put on a Nikon body. However, when used as they are meant to be, the ZF 50 and 85 are also wonderful lenses. You just have to know the limitations such as shoot a little stopped down and 8ft plus away. The other 4 I mentioned above can't be touched by a single Nikon optic....not even close. Look at the ZF 21 wide open, its sharpness rivals any Nikon lens stopped down.</p>

<p>Honestly, as much as I hate to say it, if you are more interested in using the best glass (Zeiss primes) over anything else I would today use a 5DMII if I was starting fresh. I currently have several Zeiss primes and a D700 and think it is a fantastic combination. I would personally rather have the D700 over the 5DMII because of the better zoom lens options and AF/flash systems of Nikon. I really don't need 20+ MP as I am not printing large prints. If I was printing large prints I would probably move to a 2 brand system (Nikon D700 and Canon 5DMII) to keep my AF lenses on the Nikon and use Zeiss and other alternative glass on the 5DMII. The ZF glass easily outresolves the D700/D3/D3S</p>

Mike Blume , Jun 16, 2010; 04:26 p.m.

If I didn't shoot children I would have nothing but manual focus Zeiss (including Contax converted) lenses

 

That remark caught my attention. What Contax (Y/C mount) lenses can be converted for use on a Nikon? And how? I

have been led to believe that this was impossible.

 

 

As mentioned, leitax.com. I converted the 35-70 3.4 and it is amazing on the D700

<p>I have several ZF and ZF.2 lenses and use them on the D700 and D90. The D90 you only have 'M' mode available on the ZF lenses. On ZF.2 you have all modes available on the D90. On the D700 you have 'A' and 'M' for ZF and all modes for ZF.2.</p>

<p>Focusing a manual lens on the D700 is a dream. Very easy to do and nowhere near as difficult as one would think. The huge VF really helps and you are very much rewarded for using the superior glass. The ZF 21/25/35 are very easy to use on the D700 and D90 for that matter where the longer lenses such as ZF 85 and 100 are a little more difficult as your focusing has to be more precise. If I didn't shoot children I would have nothing but manual focus Zeiss (including Contax converted) lenses</p>

<p>My eyesight is not the greatest (I wear glasses to read print near and far) but I can focus very accurately with the D700 without wearing glasses and with the stock viewfinder. The main reason it took me so long to convert to manual focus lenses was because I thought my eyesight couldn't handle it. However, the large viewfinder in the D700 coupled with the green dot confirmation (which seems <strong>very </strong>accurate down to about f/2) have allowed for me to catch extremely sharp shots with manual focus lenses</p>

<p>Most times I don't post, I sit back and listen. But when it comes to people comparing Nikon E to ZF lenses.....that is where I draw the line. I hate when I hear suggestions to just get a 35 f/1.4 or Nikon 35 f/2 over the ZF 35 f/2 because they are great lenses. NO WAY! There is no comparison.</p>

<p>The ZF 35 f/2 is probably the most flawless of the Zeiss lenses and maybe of any lens available for Nikon mount. The sharpness wide open and micro-contrast detail give this lens a look that Nikon lenses can't compare to. The way this lens renders is truly fantastic. The pictures have a truly '3-D' look to them. I have both ZF and ZF.2 lenses and there really isn't much of a difference. I would say save your money. There are no optical differences. The only difference is that you change the aperture on the lens on the ZF and in the camera on ZF.2. Obviously, this means that on D90/D70/D80 type cameras you will only have 'M' mode available for the ZF version. For the D300/D700/D3, etc where you have manual metering you can use the 'A' mode as well with the ZF. For ZF.2, you have all modes available if I'm not mistaken on all Nikon cameras - don't quote me there.</p>

<p>As you are probably aware, manual focusing on the D700 is a dream with that huge viewfinder. See sample pics below with ZF 35 and D90 and D700....used different cameras</p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3760/884885701_Y5cRY-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3760/884885701_Y5cRY-L.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3755/884885447_oq94c-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3755/884885447_oq94c-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4467/884898153_BUFsb-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4467/884898153_BUFsb-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4302/884894800_6JJXb-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4302/884894800_6JJXb-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4302/884894800_6JJXb-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4302/884894800_6JJXb-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4467/884898153_BUFsb-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4467/884898153_BUFsb-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3755/884885447_oq94c-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3755/884885447_oq94c-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4406/884897590_ZKBeA-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4406/884897590_ZKBeA-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3760/884885701_Y5cRY-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS3760/884885701_Y5cRY-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/DSC0335/884903253_9Cpmn-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/DSC0335/884903253_9Cpmn-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4793/884902646_hJBkh-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4793/884902646_hJBkh-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4804/884902936_JteH6-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4804/884902936_JteH6-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4804/884902936_JteH6-S.jpg"></a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4804/884902936_JteH6-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4793/884902646_hJBkh-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS4793/884902646_hJBkh-L.jpg</a><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/DSC0335/884903253_9Cpmn-S.jpg"></a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/DSC0380/884904762_3tuwj-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/DSC0380/884904762_3tuwj-L.jpg</a></p>

<p><a href="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS0522/884907757_Hq4eT-L.jpg">http://rsolti.smugmug.com/Landscapes/Around-Town/RTS0522/884907757_Hq4eT-L.jpg</a></p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. Sounds like I need to get reading on putting a contract together.</p>

<p>I am only getting paid <strong>IF</strong> and <strong>BY </strong>the competitors who decide to purchase the pictures that I take. There is no 'up-front' payment being made by the event coordinator.</p>

<p>I am doing my first bit of 'professional' work in photographing a bodybuilding competition in a couple months. I have been selected as the photographer of the event. I have been to other events and know pretty much what to expect from a shooting perspective. My question is on the business side. Do I need a contract with the event coordinator? My name is/will be on all fliers/promotional material for the event as the exclusive professional photographer. At these events family members/friends always bring their cameras and take pictures (which I can not stop) but they shouldn't interfere with my work</p>

<p>Marek, how do you like the ZI vs the Leica?</p>

<p>Wow David! I just saw one of your other posts with IR pics taken.....they look great. You are right, seems like a benefit to me.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00VsFe</p>

<p>I have been considering getting back into rangefinders and am wondering whether I would be best suited with a Leica M8 or M7/MP. I would definitely get the M9 if money was no object <img src="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" alt="" />.<br /><br />I like the idea of digital as, lets be honest, it is faster and easier. However, I have read many unpleasant things regarding the M8 such as banding and the need to have an IR-cut filter on each lens (less than 35mm or so). Those of you with experience, how *BAD* is it? Is it overblown? The 6-bit coding is irrelevant because film won't capture EXIF info either. I understand vignetting is there without it, but can't that be cleaned up in PP work? If this were an M8 vs M9 question that would be more of an issue. I want to get back into rangefinders for a strictly light-weight street/landscape system. Thus, high ISO quality is irrelevant to me<br /><br />M8 vs M8.2.....are the viewfinder lines that much brighter to warrant the increase in price? I don't care much about the other upgrades<br /><br />I currently shoot with a D700 but hate the weight...hence the consideration of a rangefinder. I have about $6,000 in my D700/landscape system that I would be using toward the Leica.....am I short on funds? To get an idea of what I like, I am currently using all Zeiss in 21mm, 35mm, 50mm and 100mm. If going film, I understand that I would need to purchase a scanner so there is $1,000 (roughly) of my budget right there</p>

<p>Just to give you an idea on the tele zooms you mentioned....I had both the Sigma 70-200 and the Tamron 70-200 and now have the Nikon 80-200 AF-S. I also had a Nikon 80-200 AF-D in the past. All lenses used with the D70 and D90 which has the same AF as the D80. Here it goes....</p>

<p>With the D40/D70/D80/D90 the Nikon 80-200 AF-D I found quite slow when photographing sports/fast moving objects. Optically it was excellent.</p>

<p>The Tamron was optically excellent, the AF was far worse than the worst reviews I was reading online. It was horrible. Misfocus, not focus, shut off, you name it, I had the problem.</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-200 HSM II was FAST....which was nice. Only thing is that 2.8 was almost unusable for my taste. I HAD to stop it down to at least f/4 to get halfway sharp shots. This is obviously not why I bought this lens.</p>

<p>I didn't want to spend the money, but it led me to ponying up the money for the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S. Wow...what a lens to have on the D90. It is fast (fastest of the group) and sharp (also sharpest of the group). Sharpness at 2.8 is excellent. I have also used the 1.4 TC with it to make it a 280mm f/4 lens and it works very well. The 1.7 is horrible to use with this lens.</p>

<p>For a fast telephoto I would suggest the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. I recently purchased this lens and am shocked at how great this lens is. It is fast, sharp and much smaller/lighter than I was expecting. Using with a 1.4 TC to get the focal length to 420 you don't see much, if any, image degradation. Using with the 1.7 you start to see the pic degrade a little if you are looking at 100% crops.</p>

<p>Yes...only AF-S lenses AF on D#000 series and D60 and under (D50/D40/D40X) cameras</p>