timothy_nelson

I came from Leica M to Nikon D200. With the Leica, I had a 35/2 on my camera about 90% of the time. With the D200 the 24/2.8 AIS is a

pretty close replacement for field of view, and you'll find that the green dot focus "rangefinder" in the Nikon is an easy transition from

manual rangefinder focusing in the M, if you use a manual focus lens and set the AF to use the central patch in the viewfinder---you

already have the "focus then frame" RF reflexes so it will feel natural. I like the close-focus ability in the 24/2.8, and the solid feel of the

AIS version. It does have some chromatic aberration, but very easy to remove in processing (I use Adobe Lightroom); once the CA is

corrected, the images are quite good. My travel kit is the D200 with 24/2.8 and 55/2.8 micro, both AIS (manual focus). Very compact, and

similar to 35/90 kit with Leica M.

When I travel, I walk a lot, and want my camera with me all the time, either in my hands or in

a small satchel. My favorite go-everywhere kit (DX format) for the last couple of years is the

same as recommended by HP above: 24/2.8 + 55/2.8-Micro, both rugged AIS manual focus

lenses. Handles everything from close-up and portrait to landscapes, with great image

quality. I touch up the bit of CA on the 24 in Lightroom. Similar to the 35/90 kit I used for 30

years with 35mm film format. Your choice needs to be personal, though. You may prefer

zoom, or extreme wide or tele. You'll eventually appreciate something minimal and light,

though....

The two defective copies I received had distinct problems. The first had tremendous CA

and did not focus in the same plane on L vs R side. Possibly a decentered element? The

second was just plain unable to produce sharp focus, either manually or auto. They were

tested on my D200 and a film FM3a, both of which are fine with a collection of other Nikon

lenses. Again, this was a warranty purchase, and Nikon dealt with this well. It takes a

while for them to test the returned lens, of course, to make sure the problem really is with

the lens, and not the camera or "pilot error." Unlikely you'll encounter the same problems,

but my point was that one needs to test even the "professional" quality lens lines from any

manufacturer, however deservedly great the reputation of the model. Modern zooms are

so complex, it's a wonder that the majority are made so well. If you have some kind of

warranty or test period, you don't have anything to worry about.

I have a cautionary tale: I love this lens model, but it took me 3 tries to get a new copy with

the excellent properties most people experience. I was probably just unlucky. Purchased new

about 1.5 years ago, the first two copies had a variety of issues and were replaced one after

the other by Nikon. The third copy was "just right" and is now a favorite lens. Nikon was good

about this, and I ultimately got a great lens, but you should be prepared to test even a new

lens carefully at all apertures, focal lengths and distances of focus. There is sample variation

in any manufactured consumer item. My experience may be rare, but it's up to you to carry

out the last step of quality control, and to assure you get a copy within specs.

The AF system needs to have contrast transitions to target, and you need to select the

target carefully in low light, especially if your background has stronger contrast targets

than your subject.

I use the method described by Gary above: select and lock the central AF patch, focus with

the AF-on button (eliminate the AF from the shutter release button), and use the focus

system like a rangefinder. That is, pick a contrasty edge as target at your subject distance

for the central AF patch, focus, reframe, and trip shutter. The best AF target in low light

may not even be in your eventual picture frame, but just something the same distance

away with best contrast. The central AF patch is designed to find both vertical and

horizontal contrast boundaries, not true of other AF patches in the D200. It gets to be

intuitive to find the best AF targets in these situations, and focus/reframe is fast with

practice. This edge-finding method is what makes RF Leicas so accurate to focus in low

light---RF users are constantly looking for edges and transitions as targets for the

rangefinder patch. I've found the central AF patch in the D200 to be a really accurate

rangefinder in low light, but only mixed results with the other patches. Remember, too,

that a constant-density target, like patch of even skin, may not give the AF system enough

info to get distance, even if it is bright---it is seeking to optimize density transitions.

My 55/2.8 AIS has been in constant use since 1985, up until last year on film bodies for

botanical subjects. Never any problems with lubricants, diaphragm blades, etc. Last year I

had it cleaned internally and relubed by John Van Stelten, and put it to use on my D200. I

think it's wonderful on the D200, but I use it a little differently. It's become half of my

walking/travel kit: 24/2.8 AIS plus the 55/2.8 covers wide to medium telephoto, close up

to infinity in a fairly tiny kit. The 55 becomes a medium tele/portait lens on the D200. One

advantage of the 55 micro is that it is as razor sharp at infinity as it is close up--not true

of all macro lenses---and the 24 AIS is really good close-up, too. Another advantage is

that the recessed front element eliminates the need for a lens hood. No problem manual

focusing on the D200---I use the focus-confirmation light along with the central AF patch

as a rangefinder---very accurate in my experience.

The 21/3.4 is outstanding as regards freedom from distortion, compared even to the

latest 21mm lenses. Its other advantage is its tiny size, which comes at the expense of TTL

metering on M bodies. However, a hand-held meter is going to be pretty much just as

accurate as TTL for such a wide angle lens and, as mentioned above, with the digital M8,

you have the option of trial and error exposure using the histogram. I'm curious how it will

perform with the M8, because its rear element protrudes so far into the camera that the

light angle of incidence will be very great on the edges of the sensor.

Other things to consider for the 21/3.4?all available copies will be old enough to profit

from an internal cleaning of the elements. Make sure to trust such a cleaning only to an

expert who is familiar with such lenses. Also, it is quite difficult to find the matching hood

and caps for this lens, so try to find one with hood and caps included, as well as the

finder, of course.

Good luck with your hunt---the 21/3.4 is probably my favorite lens and I'd never part with

mine!

Not sure what the original poster (Paul D) means by calibration, since he says he has a set

of new Nikon lenses. Assuming his camera(s) are working well with his existing lenses

(which is the first thing he should test), the real issue he should address is whether the

new lenses are all up to spec in the first place. Modern lenses, especially AF zoom lenses,

are incredibly complex. Because lenses are now largely assembled like other high volume

high tech gear, with tight manufacturing tolerances, but little final QC (i.e., individual

testing of each item), it is up to the purchaser to do the final QC and make sure he got a

good one. It may not be possible to "calibrate" a lens to good performance if it is

defective. That means you must systematically test all features of the lens before deciding

to keep it. Accuracy of focus at all focal lengths and distances, uniformity of field from

edge to edge, freedom from chromatic aberration, etc. If you discover problems within the

return period from the retailer, it goes back for exchange, If you discover them later, it

goes back to Nikon for repair or replacement. You'll discover that they are very

accommodating, because they know a certain fraction of lenses sold are defective and will

be returned. Same is true for all high tech manufacturers. They just can't afford to test

every item they produce any more.

The older lenses that we praise for being so solid, reliable, and uniform in performance

were assembled by methods that included individual testing, so probably few got into the

market that were out of spec, but this is not true any more. If you have a new "arsenal" of

lenses, I'd say you have a lot of QC work ahead of you.....

This question is for one of you who have used the M8. Is there a way to add lens information via the LCD

menu of the M8? I couldn't tell from the PDF of the M8 user manual. With my Nikon D200, it's a simple

matter to enter the focal length/aperture of any manual focus lens that I mount, so this info is

incorporated as I shoot. I have all my MF lenses entered as presets, so I just scroll through my lenses to

select the one I mounted. For AF lenses, this info is registered automatically, as with the Leica bar codes.

Is there a way to manually enter similar info into the M8? There aren't that many M lenses, after all, so it

should be a simple matter for menu entry, without the bar coding of older lenses.

One thing that surprises me about even these really good straps (e.g., Domke, Leica, etc.) is

that most of them grip on only one side. Why don't they make them with grip on both sides? I

seem to end up with the wrong side on my shoulder at least 50% of the time, and checking it

is an essential routine. Just a little annoyance that seems unnecessary....

Depends on how you see, of course, but many street photographers have found a 28 or 35

(on film) is an optimal combination of angle of view and depth of focus for catching rapidly

changing street scenes. I use a 24/2.8 AIS on my D200 (about same as 35 on film). I

prefocus for the distance things are likely to appear, touch up the focus if there's time, but

usually it's fine. For low light, the focus-confirmation rangefinder in the D200 works fine if I

have trouble focusing by eye. You really need an instant reaction, point-and-shoot strategy

for street photography.

My walking kit is the D200 with 24/2.8 AIS and 55/2.8 micro AIS. This is close to the 35/90

kit I came to prefer for 35mm film. You'll read reviews suggesting that the 24/2.8 is

unsuitable for the D200 because of CA. However, it's a 1-step correction in Photoshop or

Camera RAW, so that's not a significant issue for me. Both of these lenses perform well from

close-up to infinity, and are small for SLR lenses.

An alternative view: if you're starting out with digital photo management and processing,

skip Photoshop for now and go directly to Adobe Lightroom. It's still in Beta (version 3), but

is a much more natural way to download, catalog, and adjust your photos (shoot RAW!). It has

most of the functionality of Photoshop and Camera RAW with a much more intuitive interface.

I know Photoshop pretty well, but programs like Lightroom are where things are going for

photographers, with Photoshop probably becoming more of a retouching tool for special

problems. There are loads of free Podcasts (some with video) about Lightroom at the iTunes

store, so you can hear and see how it works.

About the 24/2.8 AIS, my own experience with this lens is that both the chromatic aberration

and the barrel distortion that are sometimes cited as its problems are very easy to correct in

Camera RAW or PS. I personally have not had problems with flare, although I rarely shoot

into the sun. The HUGE advantage of this lens is that it is tiny and light compared to almost

any zoom. This may not matter to you, since you seem to plan on acquiring large zooms, but

if you carry your gear all day long.....

One important difference is that the F8 clockwork gears are cut helically instead of square,

so the action is smoother and less likely to cause banding from irregular movement. I

think quite a few of the F7's had their insides retrofitted with F8 gears, once they became

available. All of the Wideluxes require care to avoid getting dust, grit, and film chips in the

gears. They shouldn't live in a camera bag unless you regularly vacuum out the bag, and

they need regular exercise to avoid banding.

I also use the NegaGuard archival system from Light Impressions, including the polyester

(side-loading) sleeves, archival folders (one per roll) and boxes (50 rolls per box). I don't like

pages that require you to slide negs--you're asking for scratches. I number and file each roll

sequentially, and each frame just keeps its number in the roll. 1098-21 is frame 21 on roll

1098. This is simple and unambiguous, so I can locate any negative without problem. My

C-41 negs go into the same system as my B&W. My color lab sleeves them in polyester, so all

I need is an archival folder for the roll. As to how you keep track of subjects, dates, and other

information to find particular photos, that's the job of a database that you need to keep up as

the photos come in.

Don't forget Leica also has the 28/2.8 Elmarit-M, which is an excellent 28 at much less

cost. For architecture and landscape, you probably don't need the speed of the

Summicron.

Two suggestions:

(1) make sure the "More Accurate" box is Unchecked in Smart Sharpen/Lens Blur. If

checked, it seems to sharpen every grain in film scans or every noise bit in digital. It may

be enhancing small noise clusters that aren't evident in your starting image.

(2) The parameters for SS don't have the same effect as USM parameters. Try much larger

radius. With high resolution scans, I start with 100-150/2.0-2.5 for Smart Sharpen, while

I'd give the same scans 200-250/0.8/0 in USM.

Also, make sure to view the effect in 100% view. I've noticed that lower display

magnifications can be very misleading for SS effects; much less accurately rendered than

USM previews.

I agree with above posters that NikonScan tends not to be a good choice for color

negatives. For me, NS always clipped highlights and shadows of color and BW negs,

regardless of settings. Vuescan gives me scans that include everything. These often look

quite flat, as a full range scan should, if the next step is color and tonal adjustment in

Photoshop. I also use mostly Reala, NPH, and 400UC. I struggled initially with the fact that

the film profiles available in Vuescan are not really for these films, and may produce

inaccurate colors. However, color negs always need some adjustment, because of variation

in film stock, development, mask color, light source, scanner, etc., so everything goes

through Photoshop anyway. This quick fix in Photoshop---

Image>Adjustments>Levels>Options>Snap Neutral Midtones (plus Enhance Per Channel

Contrast or Find Dark and Light Colors) gets me right on for 95% of my scans. I was

surprised how effective this "automatic" correction is in the current Photoshop versions. It

stopped my fretting over the accuracy of the color profiles in the scan software, since it's

so trivial to click in. The resulting colors may not be spectrophotometer-accurate, but I

think most would find them to be very close to what they want for prints, and you can

tweak further if you wish. Try it--you may be surprised at a simple fix.

Faces of Photography, by Tina Ruisinger--a great book of interviews of noted

photographers (many Leica users) in their homes or workspaces, along with Ruisinger's

very good environmental portraits of them. Magnum Stories, by Chris Boot--a collection of

interviews or statements of Magnum photographers talking about their craft. Each

interview accompanied by a group of photos selected by the photographer. The Richard

Lorenz essays accompanying the monographs of Imogen Cunningham's work have many

insights on photography. The 1970's volumes of the Life Library of Photography

(Documentary Photography, The Art of Photography, etc.) have much intelligent writing on

photography, well illustrated.

You need to do everything you can to minimize the dust on the film before you scan. If

you are dealing with negatives you already have, the simplest is to hit them with

compressed air just before loading in the scanner. Stuck-on dust may require a gentle

brush or even film (solvent) cleaner. Look at the negs under side lighting before you scan

them, so you can see any dust.

If you are developing negatives now in prep for scanning, I strongly recommend doing a

final dip in distilled or deionized water plus an anti-static wetting agent (e.g., ECCO 1221)

and dripping off the excess by holding film by its ends at an angle before hanging to dry.

The anti-static agent neutralizes the film surface so it doesn't attract dust. Dripping at an

angle runs most particles to the edges of the film instead of streaking it the length of the

film. Choose as dust-free a drying environment as possible. Do not wipe the film.

I used the 12585 on a 2nd version 35/2 with no problems, but it clipped the corners of

negatives on my 4th version (pre-ASPH) 35/2. Better to use the rectangular 12524 hood or

the hood for the ASPH for that version.

Beanbags are a good tripod substitute, especially when traveling. You can find a material on-

site to fill the bag, at a local market, instead of packing it. I suggest trying smaller seeds or

grains

like linseed. The bag holds a form and dampens vibration better with smaller particles inside.

Larger

beans tend to flow around more and don't hold a form

An advantage of a cotton canvas bag over a "ballistic" nylon bag is that it is more gentle to

the clothing it rubs against. Depends on what you wear, but the tough textured nylons can

act as sandpaper against some clothing. Even the softer textured nylons tend to pill up many

clothing fabrics that they rub against.

The preview of sharpening with either Smart Sharpen or USM gives a fairly good

representation of sharpness at lower magnification, and the screen display remains

sharpened at low magnification after applying USM. Try the same with Smart Sharpen/Lens

Blur--the screen display initially shows the filter effect on the Preview, but reverts back to

unsharpened display after the sharpening filter runs on the entire file. It's not an issue of

inaccuracy of single pixel radius at lower magnification (and anti-aliasing at low mag)--try

it with different radii. It may be a feature rather than a fault, as you say, but is this

documented? We are used to viewing USM at 25% or 50% as a fairly good representation of

the filter effect.