joe_petrik

Here are three shots taken with an F4 and 105 DC on Kodak Portra 400B&W, scanned with a Microtek 6700 flatbed.

Joe<div></div>

Frank,

I hope this link answers any remaining doubts whether the 9/11 terrorists entered the U.S. via Canada:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/security/borders.html#Q4

That said, it is a fact that several *unsuccessful* plots have been planned by foreign terrorists operating out of Canada.

(See http://www.terrorismanswers.com/security/borders.html#Q5)

To that I can only say how thankful I am that none has come to fruition. Yes, the potential for an attack by terrorists based in Canada is real, but neither country is served by false accusations.

Joe

Frank,

>First Canada allows terrorists to enter its porous border and sneak into the USA. Now it gives us math based humor. What's next?<

If you're referring to the 9/11 terrorists, none entered the U.S. via Canada.

Joe

Conny,

>...check out what Andrew Kalman says about the Nikon F3 TTL flash system and the Vivitar adapter on the MIR-website...<

Thanks. There's the answer I've been seeking. I just don't happen to like it. ;-)

Joe

Ken,

<If we are going to talk about bokeh, how about some imput from participants who are knowledgeable and have a sensitivity to Japanese language and culture to shed some real light on the subject?>

The term for how lenses render out-of-focus elements is indeed of Japanese origin, but why would anyone need to be knowledgeable and sensitive to Japanese language and culture to have an opinion on a photographic term? It's just a word (and English borrows so many from other languages) for a subjective aspect of lens quality. I mean, you wouldn't need to be any more Japanese to talk about bokeh than you would need to be French to talk about déjà vu.

Ilkka,

<I can't see anything wrong with the bokeh of my 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 105/2, 180/2.8 AF Nikkors, and since I didn't choose these lenses with bokeh in mind, which Nikkors then don't do the blur very well? And which brand in the same price class does it better than those lenses that I mention?>

I don't know if you directed your question at me, but I'll take a stab at it...

Of the Nikkors I've tried, the following have exceptional bokeh:

-- 45 f/2.8 AIS-P

-- 105 f/2 AF-DC

Of the ones I've tried, the following have very good to good bokeh:

-- 24 f/2.8 AIS (good)

-- 35 f/1.4 AIS (good)

-- 85 f/1.8 non-AI (very good until stopped down a couple of clicks)

-- 105 f/2.5 AIS (very good)

-- 180 f/2.8 AF (good)

These Nikkors have so-so to crap bokeh:

-- 18 f/3.5 AIS, though it's hard for anything to be out of focus with an ultrawide (great lens, crap bokeh)

-- 50 f/1.4 AIS (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

-- 55 f/1.2 non-AI (so-so lens, so-so bokeh)

-- 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

-- 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

-- 300 f/4.5 ASI IF-ED (very good lens, so-so bokeh)

Admittedly, this is not a definitive list of Nikkors (aren't there at least a 100 lenses in the full Nikon program?), and bokeh itself is clearly subjective, but, for what it's worth, I think some Nikkors do out-of-focus blurring much better than others. I'd rather do portraits with a 105 DC than with a 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, for example.

As for lenses with better bokeh than Nikkors in the same price class? I've got experience only with Nikkors but glancing at pix on Photonet, it seems that some of the Minolta and Canon lenses have rather good bokeh. Leica is almost always exceptional in this regard, but the glass is most definitely not in the same price class -- a 50 f/1.8 AF Nikkor is about $150 and a 50 f/2 Summicron is about $1000.

By the way, I'm a long-time Nikon shooter and have never shot a Leica, but I have a friend who does. The real kicker with bokeh is that one of the best examples I've seen is from a $50 Russian knock-off, the screw-mount Jupiter 50mm f/2. That was an eye opener! -- http://www.avzine.com/vuk/g01/BW010905-eatonC.htm

Joe

Thanks for the replies, but I'm even more confused now.

Looking at a pic of the Vivitar flash adapter (thanks for finding it on B&H's site) I assume it allows TTL flash metering with a recent-model, standard-shoe Nikon flash (an SB-25 in my case). It doesn't appear to be just a knock-off of the AS-4, since the Vivitar has an extra contact, presumably to allow TTL metering. (Or is the extra contact for the camera's "flash ready" indicator?)

I'm only after standard TTL flash metering, so if the only advantage of the AS-17 is its ability to do flash EV adjustments, I'll go with the Vivitar since fill-flash with the F3's slow synch speed is a bit of a mug's game anyway.

Joe<div></div>

Jason,

I thought Rob's use of "brokeh" was intentional -- a comment that Nikon generally doesn't do the blur thing very well, that Nikon's bokeh is brokeh.

Joe

Searching through B&H's site I discovered that Nikon now makes a

proper TTL flash coupler for the F3. Great, I thought, until I saw

the AS-17's $120 price tag. Of course, I could get the cheaper AS-4

for $30, but it doesn't have TTL coupling. D'oh!

I vaguely recall Vivitar making a TTL flash coupler for the F3, but

I can't recall what it's called. Have you heard of this accessory,

and is it still available? A search on B&H's site for "Vivitar flash

coupler" turned up nothing.

Help me O' Nikon cognoscenti, you're my only hope! [apologies to

Princess Leia ]

Thanks,

Joe<div></div>

Richard,

>Thank you Joe for your advice, I really do appreciate that.<

You're welcome.

>Did you shoot those at f2 and minimum focusing distance?<

I can't remember but probably f/4 and ~4 feet. At f/2 the depth of field is so shallow you're forced to decide which eye will be in focus.

>If there is anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask.<

A bit of a long shot but... do you have any experience with Minolta's new 5400-dpi film scanner (http://www.dimage.minolta.com/elite5400/top.html)? I'm tempted to get one but I'm holding off until I see a review. So far I haven't been able to find a thing on the Net, but someone must have bought one by now.

Joe

P.S. Great shot in your folder -- http://www.photo.net/photo/1444373

Richard,

>>So, have any of you had experience with a 105 2.5 and the 105 f2 DC? How do they compare?<<

For portrait photography what matters to me are sharpness (though not "clinical" sharpness), pleasing bokeh, and smooth, even tonality. As good as the old 105 f/2.5 is in those areas -- it really is a nice lens -- the newer 105 DC beats it at its own game...

* The old 105 is a bit soft wide open, while the 105 DC is sharp at f/2 and ridiculously sharp at f/2.8. So, if you want to blur out the background, but keep the subject sharp (well, the very shallow bit that is in focus if you shoot wide open) the 105 DC is the better option.

* Although people wax on about the 105 f/2.5's bokeh, it's impressive only compared with other Nikkors, and bokeh really isn't Nikon's strong suit. The 105 DC, on the other hand, has the sort of bokeh you expect from Leica, no doubt attributable, in part, to the DC's rounded nine-bladed iris. Plus, you can fiddle with the bokeh, favouring either the front or rear focus using the DC ring.

* I can't say if the 105 f/2.5 has choppy tonality (uneven tonal gradations from the blackest blacks to the whitest whites), but the 105 DC is silky smooth in this respect.

I don't have any comparison photos to show you, but I have uploaded a few pix taken with the 105 DC. Unfortunately, my flatbed scanning is a bit uneven (I got better as time went on), so some examples convey the 105 DC's strengths better than others. At the least, these pix will give you an idea what the 105 DC can do.

http://www.photo.net/photo/1553102

http://www.photo.net/photo/1558394

http://www.photo.net/photo/376346 (sorry about the crappy scan)

http://www.photo.net/photo/1141692

http://www.photo.net/photo/1000742

Hope this is of some help.

Joe

A bit of Googling has paid off...

http://www.majid.info/radio/stories/2002/08/25/aTaleOfThreeLenses.html

This site doesn't answer whether the 45 f/2.8 is Leica-like, but it does answer the bokeh question. The 45 seems pretty good, certainly much better than the 50 f/1.8.

Thanks for the replies.

Joe

Johann: 45 f/2.8 made by Cosina? I don't have info to the contrary but I thought Nikon was looking to Cosina for only their cheapest consumer zooms, like the 70-300 f/slow to f/slower G-series, not a pricy prime.

Jerry: I do like the 35 f/1.4 and it is a particularly respectable Nikkor, but its bokeh is only fair to middlin. (See http://www.photo.net/photo/792914 for an example. I'm also willing to take my lumps that this pic is somewhere between crap and mediocre, but it was my first attempt at a streeter.)

My understanding is that the 45 f/2.8 has very good to excellent bokeh, and according to Tom it could very well be.

Tom: Comparable to a 35 Summicron?... well, that's encouraging.

Henk: I have a 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (not the older f/3.5 you mention) and can vouch for the lens's resolving power, but pleasing bokeh? It's certainly not a 50 'cron killer.

Vuk: I understand what you're saying. Even if the 45 Nikkor is Leica-like, will nagging doubts eat away at me whether I would have been better off getting an R4 and 50 'cron. Fair enough, but if the 45 is good enough -- and for all you know maybe it's even better than, say, a 40mm Summicron ;-) -- it'll be good enough for me. I'm not interested in owning the best, simply kit that's good enough.

Thanks for the replies. Any other comments are more than welcome.

Joe

First off let me apologize for posting a Nikon question on the Leica

forum. But there is method to my madness -- I'm more likely to get

the info I want here than if I posted on the Nikon forum. (Of all

35mm photographers, Leica users are most likely to understand bokeh

and tonality.)

Is the AI-S Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P any good? By Nikon standards it's

pricey -- actually more than the 50mm f/1.4 AI-S -- though still

cheap by Leica standards. I'm hoping the cost isn't just clever

marketing.

Does the 45 have Leica-like qualities -- sharp, contrasty, smooth

bokeh and broad tonality? And how does it compare with the 35 f/1.4

AI-S Nikkor? (I have the 35 f/1.4 and, since the 45 is so close in

focal length, I would only get it if the 45 truly were a gem of an

optic.)

Thanks,

Joe