t_du_vernet

The shutter lag has nothing to do with a gummy mirror buffer. It is in the electronics. I doubt it can be fixed without ripping out some circuit board. I have a Leica R5, which is based on the XD series and suffers exactly the same problem.

The F100 has really plummeted in value. Not sure why. It could be that all the electronics and rubbery feel of the body puts them at risk for long term service vs something simpler. But that would also apply to the F6. Maybe its more like watch jewellery, both tell time, but one is considered stylish and the other merely an appliance. BTW, for the guy mentioning an F6 for photo classes, really one of the best cameras for that is a Minolta SRT 102. Simple as simple can be.

I don't have the current 70 - 210 or even an older one anymore. I had the 80 - 200 from years ago. It was OK sharp, not like an Apo Telyt R 180 though. I have the 28 - 70 in non-VR form. People rave about these lenses being so sharp, etc. Actually, I've found the distortion to be quite wonky and the sharpness generally OK but nothing extraordinary. I have been told and read in reports that the f. 4.0 version of the 70 - 200 is sharper and also obviously a whole lot cheaper. With the ISO ratings going through the roof, does it make sense to spend several hundred more for the extra stop?

Hello,

 

I have the Rokkor X lenses, not as many. I use glassless adapters on the A7R. Works great. (I have it forsale btw). Some lenses work great and others are a waste of time.

<p>This question is a fishing tease. You will get every response from arm chair "experts", casual wanna be pros to nerds to do nothing but test lenses. Sharpness is both a subjective and qualitative character of an image. Who cares whether a lens is "sharp". It is the result that matters. There are so many other characteristics to consider. Most Nikon lenses have pretty wonky distortion. Compared to the Zeiss Planar, Nikon lenses are wobbly and crude. For your next experiment, put on a converted Summicron 90 f.2 to see the 3D like quality of smoothness and colour really look like. For my money, the sharpest lens is the 45mm perspective control lens or a Tamron 24 - 70 f.2.8 (much sharper and a whole lot cheaper than Nikon). Check out the distortion and edge vignetting on the 50mm lenses. They are awful. Another fun experiment, put on a 80mm or 120mm Hasselblad Planar. Wow! Real glass.</p>

<p>As a photographer who has used various medium format cameras including Hasselblad, varous Zeiss lenses and Schneider larger format lenses, very few Nikon lenses come anywhere close to great lenses like the Planar, Apo Lanthar or Apo Symmar. Nikon lenses maybe sharp, as in the 50 mm 1.4, but the distortions, vignetting, etc. all compromise. Furthermore, all of Nikon's lenses have a curved field. The Planar is the ultimate wedding lens. It focuses evenly across a flat field an has totally predictable dof characteristics with beautiful transitions. Nikon lenses also suffer from rather harsh colour and shadows. For the best lenses on a Nikon? Use the pro lenses and a few Tamron or Sigma versions. </p>

<p>Some of you are missing the point. Sure there is software, sure there are shift and tilt lenses for dslrs, sure SOME modern lenses are good. BUT!! There is no Apolanthar for my Nikon, no 80mm Planar 2.8, no Apo Symmar 120, etc. Many of the old lenses were actually very sharp and don't suffer the distortions of mega zooms. We forget in the world of digital that the lens continues to be the most important part of the process. What would be better is a mount with a helicoid ring and a screw mount for the view lens.</p>