jonathan_newman

<p>Thanks for the comment Joe but I'm pretty certain that's not the issue, I'm getting the incorrect metering not only with my eye to the viewfinder but also when metering from a dark room looking out of a window where no bright like can be entering the viewfinder from behind. The shear degree of underexposure is much too great for that to be a factor as well, I'm not using any ND filters on the lens and I'm getting around 8-10 stops underexposure from the meter in bright light.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, tried cleaning the contacts but sadly it looks like its just past it. Just contacted the seller and it seems he listed the meter as working after having it in a cupboard for a decade and not bothering to check it at all. Can't say I feel too bad about using ebay returns in that situation having spent hours checking and rechecking that he should have done.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response Craig, the camera does seem register aperture changes, in relatively low light indoors its giving quite accurate metering, in higher light levels though its recommending exposures that would be massively underexposed.<br>

This just seems quite odd behaviour relative to potential metering problems I'v read about on the net so I wonder if I'm doing something wrong.</p>

<p>I'v just picked up an F2(original version) from ebay that was listed as having a fully working meter and I'm in the process of testing it but I'm getting some very inconstant results.<br>

<br /> I'm using a Zeiss 50mm Makro(the old ZF version with the prongs) and I'v made sure I index the lens by twisting it side to side after attaching it giving an F/2 readout at the front. The camera was listed as having new batteries and the meter needle does move to the centre position when you press the test button.<br>

<br /> Performance wise the results I'm getting indoors seem to be pretty similar to my D800, say something like F/2 and 1/30 of a second set to ISO 100. As soon as I try it outdoors though the F2 meter starts to massively underexpose, in daylight for example its displaying proper exposure at ISO 50 to be at 2000/1 of a sec and F/16 where as my D800 would correctly read 13/1 of a sec with the other settings the same.<br>

<br /> Is there something I'm missing before I potentially get in touch with the seller?</p>

<p>I'm thinking more shutter speed/DOF control, a 28-50mm F/4 SLR lens wouldnt be valued as highly as a 16-21mm F/4 one.</p>

<p>"I think we have to assume that the original 28-35-50mm Tri Elmar sold poorly. <strong>It may well have something to do with it being slow (f4)-</strong> certainly I for one associate the M with fast lenses. Nothing wrong with its performance though."</p>

<p>That would be my guess, if it had say been F/2.8 I think it may have found more of a market. The modern wideangle version seems to make more sense as an F/4 lens, especially with the m240 and the ability to do without the big extra viewfinder.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Besides, I see the biggest benefits of mirrorless as being for wide angles that don't need to be (as) retrofocal and, mostly, portability"</p>

<p>Not sure whether there retrofocal or not but I think generally we've seen that on digital this talked about advantage doesn't seem to have appeared, mirrorless UWA's(at least the ones with decent performance unlike the Sony 16mm E mount) have all been pretty large/long lenses. That's at 43 and ASPC sensor size as well with only the Fuji and Zeiss primes being faster than F/4.</p>

<p>I look at the new FE lenses and to me they actually look significantly longer than I'd expect for similar DSLR designs. You look at say the 28-70mm kit lens and its actually almost exactly the same length as the Nikon 24-85mm kit dispite the latter being wider, longer and faster. I'm wondering whether the relatively modest specs on them aren't just an effort to balance the camera but rather to cover this issue?</p>

<p>Thanks I'll have a look at some of those.</p>

<p>A bit of a general question I spose but I'm wondering if anyone could offer me any recommendations. I'm considering picking up a 35mm compact to supplement my D800(and make use of a film scanner I have access to) as more of a take anywhere camera. Beyond the size price is an issue, not so much what I can afford as wanting to keep below a level I feel the need to "look after" too much, idealy below £100. I'm after something fairly fast in the wide/normal range lens wise with AF and at least a decent aperture priority mode.<br>

I'v looked at the typical luxury compacts such as the T2, 35ti, GR's etc and they generally seem to go for a bit above that kind of price. I'd be interested in any other recommendations(or lack of them if you think I'm scrimping too much and would be better off paying a bit more) that might offer good performance at a lower price.</p>

<p>Similar tactics to Canon I'd say, if you force DX users to buy DX lenses then you lock them much more fully into the system so there less free to swap brands if they upgrade to FF.<br>

Pentax offer more high quality crop lenses simpley because they don't have a FF option for people to upgrade to.</p>

 

<p>Personally the big issue for me would be how the 24-85 VR stacks up to the 24-120 f/4 in IQ over the same range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon's MTF for the new 24-85 VR are comparable to 24-120/4 or slightly better (especially at the long end, but then it's a 120mm vs. 85mm comparison so we will have to see how they compare at equal focal lengths, also f/4 vs. f/4.5). This is very good news as the new lens is offered at a much lower price yet offers what appears to be similar image quality, or slightly better. Personally I felt the 24-120/4 is a good, but not great lens, and priced quite high, but many people have use it and are happy with it. Still I think there is a big market for the 24-85 and it helps people adopt FX by reducing the cost of admission together with the new 28/1.8, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>Now, what Nikon needs to do, in my opinion, is offer new, affordable but high quality lenses in the medium telephoto segment, both zoom and prime. The very high quality fast telephoto lenses (with the exception of 135/2 which could use AF-S and optical improvements) are in good shape, but there is nothing between the VR 70-300 and VR 70-200/2.8 II (a big gap IMO). Many people would like a 70-200/4; high quality yet more portable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep my guess is that the D800 and D600 are going to see alot of demand for lightweight zooms that are sharp stopped down for landscape use. Besides the 17mm TSE I'd say Canons biggest advanatge in the landscape market right now is its 70-200mm f/4's, I can't imagine myself carting the 70-200 2.8 around all day at altitude just to shoot at f/8.</p>

<p>The 24-120 f/4 might be a nice range but most of what I'v heard seems to suggest that from 85-120mm its really not going to make the most of these high MP sensors. Alot of users would probabley preffer to keep the wide and normal range where it seems to perform pretty well stopped down and carry a tele zoom aswell.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Shun Chung, that result kind of falls in the middle for me, I can see contrast and resolution are dropping by the bottom of the park sign/bollard on the left but as Robert says its really only in the extreme corner than it looks obviously soft.</p>

<p>How would you say the performance changes though the range? what really stuck out for me in the photozone review was its performance at 21mm(better than the Ziess 21mm and 14-24mm stopped down in terms of resolution according to them), between that and 24mm is probabley my most used range for landscapes.</p>

<p>How would you say the 16-35mm improves on the 17-35mm ritchie? sharper with better contrast at the boarders stopped down? does it hold up aswell at the long end?</p>

<p>Thanks Shun Cheung, would you say the 17-35mm's weakness at the wide end is limated to the extreme corners? I could probabley live with that but if the sharpness is dropping off greatly say 2/3rds of the way to the boarders even stopped down thats a potential issue to me althoguh as you say the 16-35mm seems to have similar or worse problems.</p>

<p>If I picked up either lens it would really be to use the entire range, alot of what worries me about the 16-35mm is the talk of its weak performance at the long end.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm weighing up a potential move to FF/Nikon this year with a D800/e purhcase and lens wise the main issue for me would be replacing my Canon 10-22mm with something that has a similar range and takes filters, the two obvious options seem to be the 16-35mm f/4 and the 17-35mm f/2.8<br>

I shoot mostly landscapes and specs wise the 16-35mm seems slightly more appealing with the longer range, VR and weather sealing but I do take enough action/shallow DOF shots that the 2.8 appature of the 17-35mm would not be totally useless to me, espeically at the long end.<br>

What I'v found really confusing though is finding comparisons of these two lenses performance, alot of big sites don't cover them both and those that do provide a rather contradictory picture with reguards to sharpness across the frame. Most sources do agree than the 17-35mm is soft in the boarders/corners wide open but really those areas are only going to be an issue for me stopped down to f5.6 or lower. In that appature range some reviews seem to favour the 17-35mm(most obviously photozone) and others the 16-35mm.<br>

Does anyone have expereince of one or both of these lenses on the D800 or the D3x? I'd be grateful to hear about your expereinces with them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I had the 17-35 2.8 for a while and used it on my Nikon D700, found it a little soft in the corners till stopped down to 5.5. I traded it in for the Nikon 16-35 f4 and find it a far sharper lens all round.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting, as someone who maybe upgrading to FF this year and considering the D800 and potential D600 I'd be interested in hearing anyone elses opinions on these two lenses on a D800/D3x.</p>

<p>The 17-35mm's boarder/corner softness wide open seems to be pretty universally acknowledged but for me those areas only really start to become an issue f5.6 and above. At those appatures opinion seems rather more divided as to which lens performs best, most obviously photozone pointing towards the 17-35mm.</p>

 

<p>It seems one group of landscape photographers who tend to be ignored are the Japanese, in the 70's and 80's espeically I think they were producing some of the best landscape photography. Shiro Shirahata's mountain photography espeically really stands out for me, not just pictures "in the mountains" but pictures "of the mountains" crafting endless variety from rock, ice and snow. If you see his books on the Karakorum or the Nepal Himalaya still in stock anywhere pick them up in an instant.</p>