steve_ql

Sharpness is only one aspect of a lens. Although I've only

tested two samples of the 35 f/1.4 AIS and one of the 35 f/2 AFD,

I found the AIS and AFD to be equally sharp at each equivalent

aperture. The AIS has f/1.4, which in real world conditions is

usable, but it really isn't that good. The AFD has f/22, but

again, it isn't the best aperture to shoot with, but is usable in

real everyday situations for added depth of field.

When considered as a whole,

the 35 AFD is lighter, more flare free, has less ghosting,

focuses closer, focuses faster (manually), can work with

matrix ttl flash, and is less susceptible to extreme temperature

fluctuations and jarring impact damage. (I do not use UV/skylight

protection filters on any of my lenses.) When you put it all

together, the 35 f/2 AFD is a more flexible lens which gives

an artist more colors to work with. I believe Nikon still makes

this AFD lens for this very reason while the AIS is available just

for the f/1.4 low light application. I've been using the f/2 AF more

frequently than any other lens in the past 4 years because of

it's ease of use and brilliant results.

Open your eyes and look. See for yourself. No one

can decide for you what you like or don't like about

the shots taken wide open. If you like the effect,

no one else's opinion really matters. And if you

can't tell the difference or decide for yourself

upon looking, then what's the point? I know Pros that

rent that lens all the time just because they need to

use it at f/1.4 for its unique effect.

If the guy over the counter told you that vanilla

ice cream leaves a horrid aftertaste, does that mean

you should avoid it for life? Your taste is your own.

I wouldn't say the f/1.4 is better than the f/1.8 85mm lens.

But the 1.4 does produce a very unique look which you cannot

replicate even with similar 85 1.4s from other lens makers.

The focal length, lens speed, aperture curvature, and optical

formula all contribute to this.

Whether you like that look is a personal preference. To my

eye, I find the resulting photos very pleasing.

In a controlled studio, 400UC has pretty accurate colors that

are more saturated than 400NC.

Color accuracy can be affected by the lighting you shoot under.

Or the film could have been exposed to too much heat.

Bill,

It depends on how important this image is to you. If it's something

you're willing to blow up to that size, it must have some special

meaning. If I'm already going to blow $20 on "taking a chance",

then I'd rather just spend a bit more and be assured at Calypso.

Their work is very professional and staff will actually help you out.

You can get an idea of their work quality from the

prints they have displayed on their walls.

The maker of the F2 just happened to be Nikon.

I would have gotten the F2 regardless of who

made it because it's the best mechanical SLR

out there.

Thanks Bill. I also got the impression that Ctein liked Reala

more compared to 100UC. As for the 400UC, it sounded like Ctein

wanted to compare it to Optima400 just as you said. The thing

that surprised me was that Ctein found the Ultra Color films

to be almost as low contrast as the Portra NC films with excellent skin tones. I thought it was lower in contrast than the

typical Superia 400 type film, but as low as Portra NC?

Tamara Staple's chicken photography article was excellent. I actually

turned to that first before reading Ctein's Kodak review.

Ektar 25 was "best" when it came to bigger enlargements with an

attractive color balance and tonality. But I wouldn't call it

best in terms of flexibility compared to a higher speed film

like a 400 or 800.

Thanks guys for the in depth explainantions. I've

also answered my own question by finally finding a

copy of the latest Photo Techniques and Ctein's

test results and opinions. Ctein states that

amazingly Kodak Ultra Color has nearly the same

contrast as Kodak Portra NC but much better saturation

and could probably substitute UC for most any situation

that he would use NC. I got the impression that Kodak

Ultra Color is Ctein's new favorite Kodak film since he

prefers a film low in contrast but high in color saturation,

and the 400 UC is the best overall 400 speed film to date.

Thank you Ron.

I suppose by "normal" counterparts he refers to

the Portra NC films. I recall Ctein liked the low

contrast of Portra NC but not the low color saturation in

a previous 100-160 film comparison.

I wonder if he found ultra color film to be a higher contrast

film since many films claiming higher saturation

just have jacked up contrast.

I have heard that Ctein reviewed the Ultra Color films

from Kodak in an issue of Photo Techniques. I can't seem

to find that issue in my local stores. Has anyone read

his review and know what he thought of the UC film?

Dave you're right about a bright clean viewfinder with

a bright clean lens making a difference.

But I have to agree with Shun in that the two 28mm lenses are

both excellent enough and trying to distinguish the optical

differences is rather pointless.

If there's anything wrong with the photograph, I highly doubt

that one lens would have corrected the problem over the other.

Quoting Shun:

"IMO, you are much much better off spending your effort on improving your skills as a photographer, rather than chasing minute differences among lenses."

The 28/2.8 AF-D is like having the 28mm focal length on the

many times more expensive 28-70 AF-S zoom. It's more than

good enough.

Owning the best tool without the skills to make use of it is

just like not owning it at all.

I use my F2 for travel, wedding (available light),

landscape, and wild life photography. I use color and

black & white negative film (Kodak 400UC, Tri-X) because

I like having lots of prints to look at.

I find it easier with manual focus and manual exposure

simply because I don't take rapid burst shots in changing

lighting conditions. I find I get far better shots with

good planning, and knowing what kind of shot I want.

Look at the recent issue of Time magazine with the

swimmer Phelps on the cover. The photographs are by David Burnette

for the olympics cover story: all done with his array of manual

cameras (often from his 4x5 speedgraphic) and black&white film.

I'm not saying that you can't do the same with a modern AF camera.

It's just that well thought out, well planned, and well timed

photographs can be taken just fine with a manual camera.

My money saved from changing to another "modern" camera is used

for film and processing and lots of nice prints that I like to

look at.

For a lens in the "normal" range, you may want to consider

the 55 f/2.8 AIS, if the speed of the 45 is ok with you.

I do not believe that any of the other "normal" range

lenses are as sharp from f/2.8 - f/11, nor as distortion free.

The background blur of the 55 is also better than all

the other 50s (except the 45). As a bonus, you can focus close enough

for 1:2 macro photography; an added feature for your creativity.

Although sharpness is your only concern, you still must consider

focussing distance, because sharpness varies depending on that.

For instance, the 35mm f/2 AF-D is sharp in the center and

a bit softer near the corners at f/2 and 9 inches away from

the subject. On the otherhand, the Leica 35mm f/2 is

soft all over at that focussing distance (because it cannot

focus that close).

I took Scott's advice on Impresa for a car shoot and the prints

from a Frontier were very impressive. From what I've seen so far,

Impresa looks even finer grained than Reala (comparing 35mm film).

The Impresa colors look different compared to Reala though.

I don't think there's a difference in Fuji film, but

there is for Kodak film. According to Ron Mowry, Kodak

adjusts the colors according to geographic tastes, so

there are subtle color differences between US, Europe, and

Asian film. That might explain some of the different

packaging for similar film. But film of the same name

could also be slightly different. Of course the printing

stage will have a much greater impact, but if we're just

talking about film, then there ARE differences between

import and domestic colorwise, but not qualitywise.

The 24s have the same optical formula, but the AF-D lens is

more dent, shock, and temperature resistant.

The 28 AIS has a superior optical formula that is sharper and

focuses closer.

The 35 AF-D is lighter, closer focusing, flare resistant, has

none of the AIS ghosting, sharper, and more consistent from

sample to sample. For manual users, this lens works

brilliantly as well since it focuses very quickly and smoothly.

Of all six lenses, this one does the most and does it all very

well. If you throw in the 28 f/2 AIS, that's another story;

it has better correction of Coma and beats the 35 f/2 in every

other category except weight. If you could only have one wide

lens in the Nikkor line, the 28 f/2 would have to be it.

The Leica and 50 will do just fine.

The only other gear you need is film. Bring lots and

use it all.

A change in focal lengths may help you, but as far as

gear goes, you have all you need.

What do you think people used when the D2h/D1h or F5 wasn't out?

(no, the answer is not a Canon)

Some of the greatest classic shots were created with

being in the right place at the right time and knowing

how to operate what was available. Your knowing how to prepare

and anticipate a photo

will get you better shots than anyone with the quickest camera

or trigger finger.

I recall that the shot of a sobbing Mary Decker was captured

because the photographer did not wait at the finish line like

all the other cliche shooters with their cliche producing lenses.

I'm thinking "Light and Flexible".

Get the 70-200 VR with TC (replacing your 300 and 60 lenses).

It will compliment your 18-70 with two bodies. Plus, the

faster 70-200 and VR gives you much more flexibility for

indoor shots.

The D70 gives you extended range, so depending on your

positioning, you may not need a TC.

The 85 easily destroys the 70-200 at f/2 and f/1.4.

The 35 kills the 17-35 at f/2.

If you're using the lenses to freeze action, instead of 1600 speed

film with the 70-200, you could use 400 speed film with the 85.

If you're pushed to the limits of handholding a shot in dim light

at 1/8 seconds

with the 17-35, you could use 1/15 seconds if you had the 35 f/2.

It depends on the lens. Some flare more easily than others

depending on the design. Early 4 element tessars like the ones

used in the Rollei TLRs flared like crazy and a lens hood should

be used all the time. Certain lenses come with the hood or are

built in; these should be used all the time as well. Some lenses

like the 28 f/2.0 AIS and the 35 f/2.0 AF-D do not flare that easily

and using a hood seems to have very little benefit with these.

You could also use other devices (hat?) to shade the front element

from light if you don't want to use a hood. The whole point is

to reduce the chance of lens flare.

Like Shun said, test the lens out to see if it's what you

prefer. Lighting is more important than the lens since

even a soft lens works with glamour shots. Get a nice

lighting setup and experiment freely (easier since you use

digital).

I really do not believe that a zoom is absolutely necessary

for a wedding. Primes are faster, lighter, and higher resolving.

I have seen plenty of successful "Jobs" done with a Mamiya,

Bronica, and Hasselblad, and none were equiped with zooms.

Handheld with bracket flash or on tripod with appropriate

lighting, all produced excellent results.

Just because a wedding progresses swiftly does not mean you'll

be fumbling with your gear due to a lack of zoom lenses. A well

equipped photographer will have two bodies with different film

and lenses set up IN ADVANCE. The place will be scouted out, and

he'll know the sequence of events and have planned ahead. If you

aren't at this stage yet, you should at least spend some time

assisting someone who knows what he's doing rather than using

expensive gear as a fix-it-all.