hnl_imaging

<p>Steve, I have been really interested in that 105/2.5 ais. it is a pretty perfect focal length and max aperture. It generally seems to produce what I want in an image. It's worth looking at for the D7100? how soft is soft at f2.5-2.8. I would use it there fairly often. </p>

<p>I've never used my nikon lenses on any other camera, so I wouldn't know if there was a change. They are practically bran new to me so I have no idea how they act in print. I know one is pretty scary on screen sometimes though... </p>

<p>Pete, thanks. I did know that the FX sensor and DX sensor are infact different sizes... I should've worked it out instead of going by the old fable that the 5D and 30D were equivalent if you were to crop the 5D down to APS-C equivalent.<br> I admit, I don't print that big that often. But I do print that big when we can afford it and the wife wants something. The last large print I made was from the 30D. Other than that its been 8x10, 11x17. <br> But, if the lenses behave the same way at the same print size basically regardless of the megapixels then it isn't a big deal. As long as the greater megapixel count doesn't exacerbate the issues to where I would have to print smaller. </p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, yep being able to see it really is awkward. Especially if its readily apparent. The question is, how apparent is it. <br> Yes, the image should be more important than the lens defects, etc... but some times, especially with excessive CA those defects cover up the image quite literally some times. Softness maybe not as bad. And real contrast desirable as well. <br> I am not sure how current this is, and I have other things going on... but back in the day the Canon 30D and 5D were said to have basically the same pixel density at 8mpx and 12mpx respectively. Proportionally the 5D was 12/8=3/2 more pixels over a full frame image. Providing that still holds, a D800=36mpx and a D7100=24mpx :. 36/24=3/2. IFF what you are saying is true, what else is missing in the math? They seem to be pretty equivalent otherwise, over the same sensor dimensions. <br />If the above is true, that would mean that the D600 should have about the same resolving power as the D7000 but produce a larger image. I get the 1 px worth of CA on full frame is probably ~1.5 pix on APS-C. But a drastic change in resolution isn't readily apparent. <br> I am not saying you are wrong, just saying that I was pretty content with my gear for a LONG time and didn't keep up with this stuff until just recently when all of my gear changed. So what am I missing.</p>

<p>Clive, yeah, color seems to be a real difference for sure. I found that at least in Pentax. The old lenses were nice in a lot of ways but didn't render the same way as the new ones did. <br />I have been contemplating the purchase of an older lens and have seen some amazing things out of it even on digital. Even on D800 others, but when ever I look at D7k with this lens I only see "it doesn't have the resolution to be good with this body, its beyond its prime." The lens should still have the same character which would make it desirable, but when reading about it, it seemed that the new bodies amplified the flaws in the lens so that say even a small print done with that lens would look terrible. But I haven't had a chance to try it. <br> I know from Pentax I was a little concerned about the resolution of some of my old M and K series lenses, but they were nice in many other ways. Many of them were really sharp. But the color looked quite a bit more natural than the new lenses (usually...). The new lenses seemed a little over saturated and some times a little overdone in print for some reason. </p>

<p>Aye, great. used D7K is the first "hi-res" sensor I've owned. Reading about it makes it seem worse than it is. Thanks.</p>

<p>True enough. It is quite frustrating that the new lenses aren't affordable. They are actually quite outrageous. </p>

<p>E.J.<br> HAHA, that is great. I have often said the same thing. I know there are many people around who want the same thing. If a manufacture would just make a reasonably priced digital camera with say 10-16 mpx, manual only mode, a decent viewfinder that one could see out of and compose with, accurate AF or at least focus aids for MF, no video, no programmed garbage etc... that would be great. Just a reasonable camera that was easy to use. <br> The 85/1.8 is staying for a while. It will probably be something that I get used to... I may still look for that perfect lens of about the same focal length. Its far off though. It may never happen. I just wanted to pose the question and see if there were any other good Nikon alternatives. <br> But you're right, all gear is a compromise!</p>

<p>Andy, now that is the real question... I have printed, in the past, 20x30s from an 8 mpx (30D) and 6 mpx (10D) with a little help from photoshop. and they look pretty decent. Especially from ~4ft away or so. But neither of those out resolved the lenses, as far as I am aware. But the prints, in general, were beyond what most seem to consider the practical limit of those sensors. <br> SO, if I were to print past the limit of say a 30D (8mpx) and closer to the useable limit of a D7000 with the same lens (theoretically...) at say 20x30, you won't notice the difference? That is great! I haven't had a chance to try something similar yet. <br> I have been contemplating using an old lens that people say is passed its prime, on a D7000 and may end up making larger prints with it (wife likes to print big). If it doesn't really magnify the flaws as bad as every one makes it sound, it may be doable. </p>

<p>interesting... I wonder if it is worth downgrading a body to continue to use lenses reasonably?<br> Whats the point in having better resolution iff it makes your lenses look worse? or makes reasonably priced lenses look bad when they otherwise would've been fine. </p>

<p>The non-OS version... Interesting. I may have to look for that. </p>

<p>At the risk of causing a bit of stir...<br> It seems that around various places on the net, there are many who say that a camera such as the D7000 won't work well with such and such a lens because it has so much more resolving power than say, a D90 or D300s. It seems like the jump from 12.3-16.1 mpx isn't that huge, but is there some sort of threshold in there somewhere where all these old lenses wont perform on the newer bodies?<br> The D7100 is quite a bit of a jump so that makes more sense. I am just wondering why I keep seeing it posted that a lens that seems to work beautifully on a D300 is made completely obsolete by the d7000. Especially since the Sony people and the D800 people seem to be using these lenses and getting really good results with similar or greater pixel density/resolution. <br> Does any one have an explanation?</p>

<p>My computer crashed... </p><div></div>

<p>That sigma looks nice. I have looked at it a bit before... I may have to look at it again. those don't come very cheap though. <br> E.J., for what its worth, I think you are right. Modest gear is sometimes the best. I have have seen that myself. I am not out to buy a lot of gear or depend on gear to do anything other than what it is supposed to do... I think... basically I just want to be able to replace the kit that I had and move on... Use that gear to the best of my very limited ability.<br> Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the 85D as doing the job. I feel like I got ripped off $300 for a lens that performs at about half the level of my old Pentax 100/2.8M. Which was a manual focus lens that you can buy on ebay for ~$150. That lens had micro contrast, a certain acuity and look to it (It may not have even been as sharp as the 85/1.8, especially since little girls are hard to focus on with a manual lens). The 85D doesn't have either of those things and fringes something terrible. I thought the 100/2.8 was bad when I first took it out, but nothing like the 85D. I don't think I have ever had a photograph so completely ruined, passed the point of being able to fix it due to PF with any other lens. And I have used some pretty old and cheap gear. While I find that the colors are really nice, usually form this lens, it really lacks that acuity. It may not even be sharpness. Its nice in that it doesn't show every pore, but that comes at a bit of a price as well. <br> This shot isn't perfect, its not really well focused and the bokeh isn't smooth (I don't mind...) but it does have a certain character and contrast that I don't get from the 85/1.8... </p>