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>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1110391">E. J.</a><br> At the risk of being offensive...<br> 1) I admitted that I wasn't the best photographer in the world. I try, when I can, and I enjoy it. I have been doing it for a while, not 50+ yrs or whatever... I do it because I enjoy it. Occasionally, rarely, some one else likes what I do as well. <br> 2) I know gear has its place, I also have had experience with good and bad gear. If possible, I like gear that does what I like it to. In general, I can make do with an iphone, p&s camera (which was all I have had for long periods of time), a full frame digital, medium format film, 35mm, aps-c, whatever. It is about knowing what you want. I don't usually have the ability to plan for days for a shot. I don't have the time and freedom to do so sir. <br> 3) I do think about, at least most of the time, my shots. Usually that time is short for two reasons, 2 year olds dont have the most predictable behavior all the time... but if I can watch something happen MAYBE it will sort of repeat itself. Or maybe I will be able to get it to happen again, but you may not have any idea how hard it is to get a 2 yr old to cooperate... (don't know if you have ever dealt with kids... ). The places I have visited on deployment in the military or on vacation are not always places that I have a lot of time with or can readily plan my time at. I can get an idea of what I want... but that is about it. its limited. More like a photojournalist, some times you get what you get because that is what is there when you are. <br> 4) I agree with the pinhole camera thing, I have actually stated that a couple of times. It is something that I have thought about trying actually. For more practical everyday stuff, it isn't what I want... I know some people do, and they make great stuff with that vision in mind. It isn't me. You know, my wife is great with stippling, I myself am a bit better with realism and colored pencil drawing. My wife hears the bass line and therefor plays bass; I don't, I play violin and viola. That isn't to say I cant play bass, I don't play bass (very much...) and I wouldn't buy one for myself. <br> As far as your Ansel Adams references, believe it I am actually familiar with Ansel's work and some of his writing about it. Ansel a) had great tools capable of great resolution and that gave him a certain aesthetic quality that he was after. He spent much time perfecting the process and the tools. You cannot deny that his tools and technical ability are very much a part of his work. That he thought about what he wanted and was an artist is primary, but his gear and methods were, at least by reading about them, pretty important as well. You knew the man, so maybe I am wrong... I only know what I've read...<br> Lastly, you seem to be acting like I am one who can never be content with my gear and just work on my photography. Believe it or not... this is far from the case. The gear that I was happiest with I used ALOT for quite a few years. I was very happy with it. I ended up having to take a break from it and that stuff was sitting around my house for a number of years rotting. I sold it so that some one else might get a bit of use out of it. I regret that... then I tried something else, when it broke, I heard so much about reliability problems and customer service issues that I didn't want to keep going in that direction, though I was generally happy there. SO I decided to go back to one of the big two => nikon. I had always thought nikon was great from the outside. Not so sure about some things now that I am here. But the point is, I am with nikon (probably to stay here) and I have to work out the quirks until I am content with it. I don't have money to waste on gear I don't like and cant be happy with. I hate that. I dont have money to wast on stuff that doesn't work or isn't going to be compatible later. I wont buy sigma lenses, as much as I like many of them, for that reason. All of it is a step above pinhole... but, only in some ways. <br> You are getting to the point were you are being offensive. As you continually attack me about the same topic, though, I have already stated that I believe you are correct. To some large extent, I believe you are trying to say that the problems I have with the 85D are completely irrelevant, and I agree with you... to a point. I am willing to save up for someting that suits me better, but I came here to ask for advise on something that would perform mor along the lines with what I want. I <em>want, </em>better micro contrast because I like to see my daughters eyelashes like I could with any of the pentax or canon gear i've used, or my cell phone for that matter. Some of my best photography has been done on a cell phone or a point and shoot. Mainly because I could SEE what it was that I was shooting and get the composition a little better than through one of the little dark findered DSLRs. But, I am occasionally very disappointed with the end result => the print, and wish it wouldn't been done on better gear. My wife just asked for a 20x30 this morning for her office of a photograph I took, with my little point and shoot, that only really really prints up to 8x10 well (11x17 if you were able to be really careful). Going back to the music analogy, Pearlman wont necessarily play a 200 Chinese violin better than his Strad... but, the strad sounds better and projects better!<br> The gear does matter to some extent. I asked for input/ shared experiences and possibly suggestions on a set of lenses that fit a focal length range I like to work with and have grown accustomed to over much experience (for my lifetime...) using. I didn't ask for a lecture on art. While not totally irrelevant, it can be over done in this situation. I will never be Adams, Porter, Bresson, Cob, McCurry, Abel, Kelby, or even a number of nameless people on flickr. But, I like you, practice this thing called photography. </p>

<p>That may be true. I think it can definitely be true depending on your output. <br> The, iPhone for instance, can be amazing in some ways. I have seen some people do pretty impressive stuff with it. I have made nice prints with it as well ( up to 8x8, which is probably pushing it a bit... but viewing distance helps). I actually like a lot of stuff I do on my iPhone with a bit of help from lightroom. <br> After getting used to how it works, I can take quite a bit of fringe out of my photos from the 85D. The shear amount bothers the heck out of me still. But maybe it shouldn't. There have been a couple of situations where it just wont budge and it absolutely ruins stuff that might otherwise be interesting. </p>

<p>E.J. I agree with you probably more than it looks like from what I've posted here. I keep trying to remind myself of something Micheal Kenna said, "I don't need the most resolution... I still shoot 2 1/4," which, to some large extent, is valid. His images could be done with a D3000 and kit lens and no one would likely care, more so for Adams. <br> I agree, and am guilty, of wanting better gear more than spending the time to make that perfect shot. Most of my photography is candid stuff of my family. The occasional on the fly landscape photo during vacation, etc... <br> I have watched a number of those videos where Scott Kelby goes out with an 18-200/28-300 and a camera and comes back with these awesome images with flaws and fixes all those little lens issues with photoshop... I have thought a number of times about doing the same thing. It would be easy in a lot of ways, but for most of the indoor shots of my girls, f2.8< is really handy, especially with out a flash to speak of. I probably should just lower my standards and call it a day. I am a terrible photog anyway, so it is really stupid to spend more money on gear just because some of it bothers you. <br> Thanks</p>

<p>Kent, thanks. Will probably keep my eyes on that one then. It does seem to be the one every one recommends. <br> More what I was getting at with the possibility of the 105s instead of 85mm is that there are a number of 85/1.8Ds around that seem like they are getting dumped for the G series lens. So I wouldn't be able to get rid of the one I have.<br> The one I have, though I may be crazy..., I dont really like. I don't like the lack of either resolution or micro contrast (not really sure which but it doesn't perform the way I like) for portraits, but it's tolerable. For longer distances, mountains and trees a little ways off, it seems to not really retain the detail at any aperture. It does seem to be a bit better in portrait distances. It doesn't handle contrast that well (purple and green fringing...). <br> The idea was, if I were to augment this lens, mainly for landscape use because that is where I feel this lens really falls short, with a lens that would also be more to my liking for portraiture, something more comparable to the 70 ltd, what would I use? What is there that isn't quite the same as what I already have but would basically fill the same or similar role? that is why I was looking at the 105s, I have also looked a bit at the 135/2.8 ais, the 180/2.8D (maybe the ais), the 85/1.4D is almost a specialty lens and I have seen some good stuff out of it in a more landscape style use, by all the test charts it seems to be sharper across more of the frame at narrower apertures and the colors seem (on the net... ) to be more pleasing than the 1.8D (may not be real...). So I could <em>possibly</em> see saving for one if it were to solve the problems, but its not that likely. I really didn't want a direct replacement for the 1.8D. Was looking for something to augment its use. </p>

<p>ok...</p><div></div>

<p>Rodeo, you are right, she was moving towards me. Running actually, so there is possibly a small amount of motion blur. I will try and find another that is decent. </p>

<p>Alright, the first example of the 85/1.8 may be not in perfect focus, however, I am not posting pictures of the one static subject I have, i.e. my wife, for various reasons. But I assure you, that the absolute thinness of the eyelashes that is driving me nuts is the same even when in perfect focus. For some reason, my old 70 ltd and 100/2.8 Pentax seem to make the eyelashes stand out where this one makes them thin and almost invisible. It looks weird. On almost every shot. It just drives me nuts. I would even take slight misfocus, but what I hate is that when not in perfect focus with my old 100/2.8M my girls had all their facial features and with this lens, they don't. Its really the strangest thing I have ever seen. Even the 70 ltd, when not in perfect focus doesn't make those lashes invisible and thin. </p>

<p>That last shot is pretty awe inspiring!!! <br> I am pretty impressed by how much that particular lens gets in focus. If I tried to take a similar shot at f11, I don't think I would be able to read the speed limit signs all that clearly. <br> I tried a few test shots in a field, about 10 am on a sunny morning, on a tripod, ISO 100, varied the aperture from 5.6-11, tried focusing at 1/3 way into the framed shot, infinity, etc... nothing really in focus in a landscape type shot. at a decent distance, that shot of the horse drawn wagon is about as good as it gets. It's just rough. </p> <p>The 1.8G is better ?<br> IS it worth looking at any of the 105 variants?<br> I use this focal length for 2 things, landscapes and photos of my girls. Would the 1.8G or the 105/2/2.8G/2.8D be better for landscape use? or are you going to see that much difference between the 85G and the others?<br> Haven't ruled the tamron or tokina out totally either. Just hate the idea that I might get burned and be out 3-400 dollars on one of these later when they no longer work with newer bodies. I've had this issue before... </p>

<p>I meant to apologize for my photography earlier, I try not to post stuff so that people don't have to look at it. But these are some of the issues I am having... not the worst examples, actually some of the better examples from this lens so far. </p>

<p>And lastly, the fringe... </p><div></div>