matt_smith24

<p><em>"What's the "MP" in Zeiss 100 MP? Is that the Cosina Zeiss lens, or an older one?"</em><br>

The MP stands for Makro Planar, which means that it's a macro lens. The current Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina in Japan under supervision of Zeiss.<br>

<em>"Is it fair to say that the 105/2.5 is one of the very best Nikkors that you can buy for under $200?"</em><br>

Absolutely! Even under $500 I'd say.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In my previous post I was referring to Nikon's newer professional lenses. However, I agree with you in some respects. My 28 f/2.8 AI-s Nikkor is outstanding and is easily superior to the Nikon 28 f/2.8 AF-D as an example, although the latter is not a pro lens.<br>

The modern professional lenses, primes included, such as the 24 f/1.4G, show a marked increase in micro contrast, probably due to Nano coating. Sharpness is also improved over the 24 f/2 AI-s Nikkor.<br>

I've been using Nikon cameras and lenses for well over thirty years and haved owned and still own several AI and AI-s lenses. I use my 105 f/2.5 AI lens now and again but prefer my Zeiss 100 MP for portraits as I personally find it a better all round lens.<br>

Time marches on, even in lens design and for anyone to claim the 105 f/2.5 as the finest Nikon lens ever produced in 2011 would be unrealistic. The reference to such a claim for the lens in 1993 may of had considerable merit back then but not now. As such, I think that this single older position is irrelevant today. Older positions (as you put it) in general are another matter entirely and I said nothing to that effect.</p>

 

<p>"Hey, I don't actually make this stuff up.<br />Here is the text from page 132 of Rudolf Hillebrand and Hans-Jochim Hauschild 1993 <em>Nikon Compendium: Handbook of the Nikon System</em>. Hove Press."<br>

The opinion of the authors regarding the 105 f/2.5 nearly twenty years ago probably doesn't carry too much weight nowadays. It's a very fine lens and I've owned several of them. It lacks a little contrast compared to the more modern Nikkors but that's not a bad thing for a portarit lens. It's very sharp but not as sharp as some of Nikon's modern pro lenses i.e. the 60 f/2.8 G or even the 24-70 f/2.8 let alone the 200 f/2 and other super telephoto lenses that cost a small fortune.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the early part of WW II Japan was having huge military successes and invasion of NZ and Australia looked imminent. NZ soldiers, like their Australian brothers in arms were away fighting in North Africa, Crete etc. When the US forces arrived here in 1942 there was tremendous relief and gratitude. My mother used to tell me stories of how my grandparents would invite US servicemen home for dinner. They made many lifelong friends and one ex Marine came back and visited my grandparents after the war had ended. Four of the regulars gave my grandmother a solid gold pendant with the words, "To Ivy from the boys" engraved on the back before they were shipped out to fight in the Pacific.<br>

Of course we grew up with American TV. It was the Flintstones, The Donna Reed Show, Mr Ed, Rin Tin Tin, The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres and all the others. Later in the evening it was Perry Mason, Bonanza, Rawhide etc.<br>

There will always be affection in Kiwi hearts for America. We live in a dangerous world. I would hope that we will always continue to stand up together and fight for, if necessary, the rights of any freedom loving nation. I'm sure our brothers in Australia, Canada, UK and many other democracies will continue to do the same.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just buy the genuine Nikon EN-EL4a battery and be done with it; they're not that expensive.</p>

<p>My 28 f/2.8 AI-S is razor sharp, easily the equal of my 24-70 and superior to that lens at very close distances. I sold my 24 f/2.8 AI-S which wasn't that good.<br>

You more than likely have a decentered 28 there.</p>

 

<p ><a name="00YKUo"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3736516">Matthew Brennan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 04, 2011; 05:24 a.m.</p>

 

<p>"I vote for the L bracket straight up, I opted for a RRS base plate only for my D700+MB-D10 grip as it was cheaper - bad move. Tilting a largish body like the D700+grip with a lens like 70-200mm attached and I get too much flexing through the lens mount and grip interface (not from the ballhead) and if I have my tripod set up in a creek / beach rocks at a less than ideal angle it becomes limiting or a real liability if I choose to tilt the camera over to portrait mode.<br>

I'm replacing the baseplate with a RRS L plate before I head to the USA in May - should have purchased one in the first place........"<br>

When using your tripod with the 70-200 you should use the lens foot, not the camera body as the attachment point.</p>

 

 

<p>There is a single word that's been in use in the English language for a long time that negates the effort of writing the corny sounding three words "pulled the trigger" - it's called "bought".<br>

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, I suppose, as you've got a fine lens there, which is far more important.</p>

<p>I have both lenses. The IQ of the 28 f/2.8 AI-S is the equal of the 24-70 f/2.8 at close distances, say inside 10 metres. It also focuses very close and is quite an impressive lens and an absolute bargain if you find a good copy. At longer distances the IQ of the 24-70 f/2.8 is superior, especially at infinity.</p>

<p>Anyone try the Hoya HD range?<br>

Yes, in fact the Hoya HD Protector is the only filter I use apart from the excellent Marumi CPL. If you dropped your lens onto concrete it would be destroyed before the Hoya HD filter shattered. They're multi coated but crystal clear and I haven't been able to determine any IQ degradation by pixel peeping at 200x.<br>

I can attest to the HD filter's resistance to grease as I was in a photography chain retail store showing the salesman my new 85 f/1.4 (which had the Hoya HD on it) when he suddenly started taping his fingertip quite forcibly on the filter. Stunned, I asked him what he was doing and he said, " what do you mean"? After retrieving my lens and checking it later I was surprised to find that there wasn't any finger prints on the filter. I even tried to put some on there myself but couldn't.<br>

However, I only use these Hoya HD filters when there is a chance that there is a risk of damage as they're too expensive to have them on every lens I own and not necessary in most situations anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Never needed to fine tune any Nikon lens but as my D3 front focuses I have the AF Tune set to +12 as the default setting.</p>

<p>The D3s will be replaced in the current year and is not a good investment unless you absolutely need the the extra 1 stop or so over the D3, D700. The 200 F/2 is a much better investment and you'll be using it long after the D3s beomes obsolete. Camera bodies are more or less computers these days and their currency value drops rapidly just like computers. The lenses on the other hand will last for decades and longer and hold a lot of their value as long as Nikon doesn't change the F mount.</p>

<p>As above, VR turns off when the camera switch is turned off. I can't find anything in my 70-200 VR II manual about turning VR off before turning off the camera.</p>

<p>Weight adds stability, not the other way around. For example, a heavy rifle is easier to hold steady than a light one; ask any target shooter. Same thing applies to a camera/lens. It might be a pain carry around but when it comes to using it the weight helps, providing the combo is reasonably well balanced.</p>

<p>I sold my 85 f/1.4D and 60 AF-S Micro when I bought a Zeiss MP 100. I find the 70-200 VR II a little better than the 180 f/2.8 at landscape distances, so I sold my 180, although both are not super sharp like the 200 f/2 or Zeiss Makro Planar 100 at infinity. However, I am continually amazed by the quality of the 70-200 VR II for portraits. It has beautiful bokeh wide open and is razor sharp at close to moderate distances. The downside is it's cumbersome and a nusiance to carry around and of course doesn't do macro which is a must for me for my work, hence the Zeiss.</p>

 

<p>Buy right and you'll only have to buy it once. This means spending a bit more, quite a bit more than you intended; but believe me, it's worth it. Gitzo GT3530LS or Gitzo GT3541LS (systemic) and Markins M20 or RRS BH-40/BH-50 ballheads. Don't buy a tripod with a center column as they aren't as stable (when raised). The Gitzo systemic tripods will go right down to ground level and are rock solid.</p>

<p>I hope that you are supporting the barrel of the 24-70 with your left hand (assuming you're right handed) and not griping the camera with both hands as I've seen many people do. I find the weight of the 24-70 to be an aid to steady shooting. </p>

<p>Had the Nikon 14-24 and was very happy with it until I saw my friends pics with his Zeiss 21 F.2 Distagon. Bought the same lens and sold the Nikon - no contest. The Zeiss is an amazing lens and the manual focus is silky smooth. I now own three Zeiss lenses (21, 35 & 100MP) so the moral of this story is, don't look at other people's pics taken with Zeiss lenses as your bank account will suffer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Personally I find it very easy focusing my two Zeiss lenses, a 35 ZF.2 and a ZF MP 100 F.2 or my Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AI or Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AI-S on my D3 and D700. I agree with Ryan Solti in this regard as there is a marked difference between using manual focus lenses on FX compared to DX cameras. Another very helpful item is the use of a DK-17M magnifying eyepiece. I always focus using the screen and don't rely on the green dot as it's not very precise most of the time. My keeper rate using manual focus on static subjects is 100%. On reasonably fast moving subjects about 70%.<br>

As far as the OP question is concerned I think it would be better to save and get the Zeiss MP 50 ZF.2. I haven't used one, but if it's anything like the 100 Makro Planar (and I heard it is - focal length aside) then it's a lens you would love.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is no doubt that lens variation does occur even among pro lenses. In thirty one years of using Nikkor lenses I have never had cause for complaint but have known others who have. Whether a lens gets a bad knock in a shop or even in transit is always a possibility although probably quite rare. It's possible that a lens could also be front or back focusing, although that's not as common as some people on the net would have you believe.<br>

There is nothing wrong with using hand held shots to do a quick test of a lens as long as the shutter speed is sufficiently fast enough to rule out camera shake. The trouble with a lot of tripods and more so the ball head is that they're not always good enough to use at slower shutter speeds. A really good tripod and ballhead is not a cheap investment and consequently there are a lot of cheap and mostly next to useless tripods set ups in use.</p>

<p>The lens is unusal in the sense that it's just as sharp at infinity as it is close up. I love the bokeh and think it's superior to any of the Nikon lenses I own. Then again, bokeh is a subjective matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Having used many of Nikons pro lenses and currently still do, I'm very impressed with the Zeiss ZF 100 MP I recently bought. There is something different about the look that Zeiss lenses give that can't be reproduced by Nikon. It's not just the sharpness, which is indeed very sharp, nor the micro contrast or even the colours which are quite vibrant. It's a kind of solid, more realistic look - don't know how to describe it but it's there. I'm going to get the ZF 35 when my bank balance recovers and then the ZF 21.<br>

To answer the OP - get a Zeiss 35, then a Zeiss 21 and a Nikon FX body, You won't regret it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a beautiful copy of the 28 f/2.8 AI-S which is razor sharp up very close and very, very sharp up to maybe 50 metres. At infinity it's not as good and I certainly wouldn't use it as my preferred landscape lens. It's forte is wide angle macro photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a beautiful copy of the 28 f/2.8 AI-S which is razor sharp up very close and very, very sharp up to maybe 50 metres. At infinity it's not as good and I certainly wouldn't use it as my preferred landscape lens. It's forte is wide angle macro photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There's a 200 f/2 for sale on Trademe; supposedly in excellent condition. Have tried a friend's 200 f/2 and found the weight and bulk a little awkward. I was tempted all the same to get one for my D3 but bought the new 70-200 VR II instead which is extremely sharp. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.</p>