peter_maxwell1

<p>I am still using one on my D700 where it performs superbly. This generation of Nikon lenses were bult to last and have managed to do so now for over 20 years. I recently saw a comparison between this and the 24-70mm f2.8, Nikon's current top end standard zoom. Apart from the wider range of the new lens and better coating on the lements there was not much in it in terms of results . In fact it was hard to pick between the images even when pixel peeping. The older lens was right up there in terms of its resolution. It is a good alternative to the 24 -70mm and costs what, a quarter of the price?</p>

<p>While I would not normally recommend using a D70 or D70s in low light situations there is no doubt that you can still get good results from them with a modicum of post processing. The following shot was taken in darkness by sitting my old D70s on a pillar in night time conditions and setting the exposure to 3 stops below.<br>

In general though I would prefer more modern sensors that perform much better in low light.</p>

<p>

<p>Why on earth is no one suggesting the classic Nikkor 18-70 mm f3.5-4.5G? It was the standard lens with the D70s and is still an excellent lens even though its perhaps, what 6 years old. About the only thing people report is that there is a bit too much barrel distortion at the wide end. Other than this (and this is corrected easily in post) its superb. Good contrast and very sharp plus being a G lens it is fast to focus and works well on Nikons latest crop of cameras. I have one still and often use it instead of my 17-55mm when I need something lighter. To be honest I find it hard to see the difference in image quality even though I am very picky. Its also cheap and readily available. I seriously cannot recommend it enough. Probably its major downfall is just that its so readily available and so vice free its not regarded as "sexy" by some.</p>

<p>Funny enough, without exception, whenever I get admiring comments about my camera (Leica M8 or occasionally a Nikon D200 with a BIG lens) its from young women. Have not yet been offered the bonk around the back of the building though. Damn I will have to try harder. I think there is something in this video.</p>

<p>I have read that this lens works perfectly well at infinity but that the older 55mm f2.8 AF micro Nikkor is slightly sharper at infinity. I have the latter and can say it is extremely good although I find the contrast is slightly lower than expected (not a bad thing with digital). It also has the advantage of focussing 1:1. I would have no qualms about using the 60mm in this way.</p>

<p>I can only speak for the D lenses of which I have owned both. I sold the 1.8 when a second hand (but still expensive) 1.4 became available. The 1.8 was a fine lens in its own way but I always thought it was still a bit "so what" ie lacking a certain je nai ces qua by comparison with the 1.4 which always had a stellar reputation. So I did not use it as much as I should have. I have not regretted buying the more expensive lens which I use much more than the 1.8. I would say that the 1.4 really shines when shot wide open in portrait work and the like. If thats not your scene then go for the 1.8.</p>

<p>I have been using Leica M lenses (And Canon / Nikon) with my NEX 5 and getting good results. Much better in fact than with the kit zoom that comes with these cameras. Reviews claim the NEX 5n and NEX 7 have better IQ than the 5 so I suspect you will not be dissatisfied. I find it rewarding. Focusing using the screen is much better than I had anticipated. The zooming MF assist works well - even better than focus peaking. Of course the NEX 7 has an eye level finder so I cannot say how that works with MF lenses. The experience is different from a rangefinder camera but quite satisfying. While the IQ is good I do think my DSLRs are better with one eception - the dynamic range is excellent.<br>

BTW I do not believe that DOF increases with an APS C sensor. DOF as I understand it is a function of the physical size of the lens aperture in use. Thus it varies with lens format and focal length. (Plus other factors like distance to target.) Thus a 28mm prime lens in 35mm format has greater DOF, other things being equal, than a 50mm lens in the same format (say 35mm full frame) at an equivalent aperture setting. (Conversely a lens designed for a medium format camera, which is physically larger will have a smaller DOF at any given that aperture setting.) This should not change just because the lens is placed on a camera with a smaller sensor. But cameras with smaller sensors usually have more DOF when used with their kit lens, because the kit lenses designed specifically for them are designed to be commensurately smaller. Hence they have a smaller physical aperture size at each f stop.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5266/5631122948_0f1f356789_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="695" /><br>

<img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6125/6021354733_09232064e2_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="756" /><br>

<img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3233/3065576688_0a6c93553a_b.jpg" alt="" width="681" height="1024" /></p>

 

<p>I have recently bought an NEX 5 and have some mixed feelings about it. I love the form factor and the way it sits in my hand. I also love its dynamic range and low light capacity. But there are things I like much less about it. Both standard kit lenses (the 18-55mm and the 16mm) are in my view pretty compromised and have overall poor resolution in the mid - outer part of the image unless stopped way down. You can get away with this by using auto ISO and relying on that to keep shutter speeds reasonable but that still screws things up if you want shallow DOF.<br>

I guess this is a result of need for a physically small lens that covers a physically large sensor while keeping price down.<br>

I am also less than confident about the camera's auto focus. I find that when using multi focus I lose many shots - they are simply too blurry for my liking. Things sharpen up a bit when you elect to use a single central spot and positon that carefuilly, but that only works in program and aperture mode (probably in manual and shutter as well although I have not tried them.) Change to one of the scene based modes or intelligent auto etc and the camera switches to multifocus points (it gives you no choice)<br>

I will persist and am buying an adapter for Leica M lenses and look forward to using it with focus peeking. Heres hoping it makes up for its sins in that department. But as it stands I have to say I think there may be better options out there if you are a picky shooter and propose to use the kit lenses a lot even though part of me still likes this range of cameras.</p>

<p>I have this lens also. Its very sharp. One of Nikons best. But it was not well loved as it had that unusual early AFZ styling that many Nikon afficionados hated. Still - makes for a bargain buy. As I understand it this lens is sharper at infinity than the 60mm micro lens that followed and there is obviously nothing wrong with its micro performance.</p>

<p>I used an aftermarket grip for my old D70s which had a similar arrangement - using the IR transmitter. I never bothered. But I did like the extra battery life afforded by having two batteries and I liked the balance the grip gave with larger lenses which were no longer so front heavy.</p>

<p>I have turned off easy exposure comp for this reason - I often accidentally turned it on and it does not automatically reset itself. And I did not always notice that it was still on. At one level its a good idea - at another its a damn nuisance.</p>

<p>Or both if you have a mirror</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2596/5856095184_9bd98bae4f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="712" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are planning to mainly shoot at the long end I would suggest seriously thinking about the 180mm. Not that there is anything wrong with the 80-200mm. Both are fine lenses. But I love the optical quality of my 180mm Nikkor. And the bokeh is simply sublime.</p>