Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something

PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 7:53 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:02 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 12:57 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
In fact though, Peter has said his lens does not focus
to 1:1, only to 1:2. That suggests it is one of the
non-IF designs, and as stated the change in focal length
when close focused has nothing to do with Internal
Focusing.

Just to correct myself. The lens is 1:4, but it is
IF. The important thing is that the lens still works. I
don't use it all that often because I like the results
better with my 70-200.

Which lens do you actually have there Peter? Can you
list *exactly* the label on the lens, and give the serial
number too?

I don't know that Nikon ever made a 200mm f/4 that would
do 1:4 magnification. The macro 200mm lenses were 1:2
and then later on 1:1. The non-macro 200mm f/4 lenses
are more like 1:7.4 magnification.


The front of the lens reads: "Micro-NIKKOR 299mm 1:4."

The serial # is 182807.
the lens is not AF.

Okay, that nails it to the floor.

It is the Ai version, manufactured between 1978 and
1982. The 1:4 on the front of the lens is the aperture,
indicating an f/4 lens. It will do 1:2 magnification,
with a minimum focusing distance of 710mm (28 inches).
It indeed has an Internal Focus design, and was the
first Micro-Nikkor that did.

The IF design made it very different from the other
Micro-Nikkor lenses current in late 1978 when it was
introduced. They also had a 55mm and 105mm, which were
matched to the PK-13 and PN-11 extension tubes
respectively to get from the native 1:2 magnification up
to 1:1. But those are not IF designs...

Internal Focus means the lens is designed to be mounted
at a fixed distance from the image plane and they are
not intended to ever be used with extension tubes. That
also allows correcting for astigmatism both at close
focus and at infinity focus, so this was the first
Nikkor macro lens that was useful as a "universal" lens.
The other weren't all that sharp at normal focusing
distances.

The 200mm f/4 lens was matched to the TC-300 2X
teleconverter to attain 1:1 magnificaiton.

(Something the above discussion might add to your
thoughts is that the 70-200mm is also not ever meant to
be used with extension tubes. A 2X TC would work
better. At least to the limited degree it provides an
increase in magnification. And again, that isn't really
getting close to the macro range yet either, at about
1:4.)


I was just doing some reading. Your idea of using a TC
200 instead of tubes seems to be recommended in several
locations. There are several methods to accomplish the
same thing photographically. I will keep trying
different methods. The only method I have ruled out is
auxillary close up lenses.

Ouch, don't rule them out. Just avoid the cheap single
element sets. The good ones are called "achromat" or
something based on that. They have at least two glass
elements that can work together to correct fringing from
chromatic aberrations.

The achromats are much more expensive, but less than a
good teleconverter. I have an old +2.9 diopter Olympus
MCON-35. Something around +3 is useful.

And to go really wild with a diopter, use a 20 to 100mm
normal lens with a reversing ring. The value in
diopters is 1000/FL, so a 50mm lens is a +20 diopter.
It is also a very highly corrected diopter too! There
are untold numbers of really good 50mm lenses on the
used market that will work perfectly, simply because you
don't care who made it. Old Pentax screw mount lenses,
for example, would be a very good source.

They are like extension tubes though in that while they
are mounted you can't focus at normal distances and the
camera is stuck in "macro mode".

A TC has the advantage that it is good for general
photography too. For your D800 with a Nikkor 70-200mm
f/2.8G VR II the Nikon TC-20E is really good. The Kenko
2X is optically good, but does not have the solid build
of the Nikon TC. I haven't actually worked with any
other than Kenko and Nikon, but understand that they are
all optically good. I doubt that any have the build of
a Nikon TC. (That may or may not be of significance.
For me it is because they get bounced all over the
Arctic tundra every summer on 4-wheel ATV's. If I
wasn't doing that, the Kenko would be just fine.)


I already own several Nikon teleconverters. the TC1.4
and the 1.7. I also have an old Nikon TC200, which I
could use with the old 200 Micro. Plus my sets of
extension tubes. I see little need for the glass.
The only pieces of front glass I use a polarizers, ND
filtrs, and a homemade variable soft focus filter. The
latter is A plain UV filter, which I breath on and place
quickly on the front. It does not work on adry day, or
in cold weather.

But diopters do have an advantage: no loss of light.

TC's and extension tubes spread the projected image at
the sensor over a wider area, thus requiring more exposure.
The diopters don't do that, they just gather light rays from
a smaller area to start with.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Eric Stevens:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

How lucky I am that in half a century of making photographs I have
never heard of "focus breathing" and I have no idea what it is. I do
know that telling someone that they should switch from the brand of
anything that they know and like to some other brand because you say so
is a load of nonsense.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 1/17/2015 8:48 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 7:53 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 3:02 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 2:01 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/17/2015 12:57 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
In fact though, Peter has said his lens does not focus
to 1:1, only to 1:2. That suggests it is one of the
non-IF designs, and as stated the change in focal length
when close focused has nothing to do with Internal
Focusing.

Just to correct myself. The lens is 1:4, but it is
IF. The important thing is that the lens still works. I
don't use it all that often because I like the results
better with my 70-200.

Which lens do you actually have there Peter? Can you
list *exactly* the label on the lens, and give the serial
number too?

I don't know that Nikon ever made a 200mm f/4 that would
do 1:4 magnification. The macro 200mm lenses were 1:2
and then later on 1:1. The non-macro 200mm f/4 lenses
are more like 1:7.4 magnification.


The front of the lens reads: "Micro-NIKKOR 299mm 1:4."

The serial # is 182807.
the lens is not AF.

Okay, that nails it to the floor.

It is the Ai version, manufactured between 1978 and
1982. The 1:4 on the front of the lens is the aperture,
indicating an f/4 lens. It will do 1:2 magnification,
with a minimum focusing distance of 710mm (28 inches).
It indeed has an Internal Focus design, and was the
first Micro-Nikkor that did.

The IF design made it very different from the other
Micro-Nikkor lenses current in late 1978 when it was
introduced. They also had a 55mm and 105mm, which were
matched to the PK-13 and PN-11 extension tubes
respectively to get from the native 1:2 magnification up
to 1:1. But those are not IF designs...

Internal Focus means the lens is designed to be mounted
at a fixed distance from the image plane and they are
not intended to ever be used with extension tubes. That
also allows correcting for astigmatism both at close
focus and at infinity focus, so this was the first
Nikkor macro lens that was useful as a "universal" lens.
The other weren't all that sharp at normal focusing
distances.

The 200mm f/4 lens was matched to the TC-300 2X
teleconverter to attain 1:1 magnificaiton.

(Something the above discussion might add to your
thoughts is that the 70-200mm is also not ever meant to
be used with extension tubes. A 2X TC would work
better. At least to the limited degree it provides an
increase in magnification. And again, that isn't really
getting close to the macro range yet either, at about
1:4.)


I was just doing some reading. Your idea of using a TC
200 instead of tubes seems to be recommended in several
locations. There are several methods to accomplish the
same thing photographically. I will keep trying
different methods. The only method I have ruled out is
auxillary close up lenses.

Ouch, don't rule them out. Just avoid the cheap single
element sets. The good ones are called "achromat" or
something based on that. They have at least two glass
elements that can work together to correct fringing from
chromatic aberrations.

The achromats are much more expensive, but less than a
good teleconverter. I have an old +2.9 diopter Olympus
MCON-35. Something around +3 is useful.

And to go really wild with a diopter, use a 20 to 100mm
normal lens with a reversing ring. The value in
diopters is 1000/FL, so a 50mm lens is a +20 diopter.
It is also a very highly corrected diopter too! There
are untold numbers of really good 50mm lenses on the
used market that will work perfectly, simply because you
don't care who made it. Old Pentax screw mount lenses,
for example, would be a very good source.

They are like extension tubes though in that while they
are mounted you can't focus at normal distances and the
camera is stuck in "macro mode".

A TC has the advantage that it is good for general
photography too. For your D800 with a Nikkor 70-200mm
f/2.8G VR II the Nikon TC-20E is really good. The Kenko
2X is optically good, but does not have the solid build
of the Nikon TC. I haven't actually worked with any
other than Kenko and Nikon, but understand that they are
all optically good. I doubt that any have the build of
a Nikon TC. (That may or may not be of significance.
For me it is because they get bounced all over the
Arctic tundra every summer on 4-wheel ATV's. If I
wasn't doing that, the Kenko would be just fine.)


I already own several Nikon teleconverters. the TC1.4
and the 1.7. I also have an old Nikon TC200, which I
could use with the old 200 Micro. Plus my sets of
extension tubes. I see little need for the glass.
The only pieces of front glass I use a polarizers, ND
filtrs, and a homemade variable soft focus filter. The
latter is A plain UV filter, which I breath on and place
quickly on the front. It does not work on adry day, or
in cold weather.

But diopters do have an advantage: no loss of light.

TC's and extension tubes spread the projected image at
the sensor over a wider area, thus requiring more exposure.
The diopters don't do that, they just gather light rays from
a smaller area to start with.


I know that. But it's not a free lunch.

The price even with the apochromatic glass, is possible distortion, and
with the additional uncoated surfaces, probable introduction of glare.


--
PeterN

On 1/18/2015 12:01 PM, Davoud wrote:
Eric Stevens:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

How lucky I am that in half a century of making photographs I have
never heard of "focus breathing" and I have no idea what it is. I do
know that telling someone that they should switch from the brand of
anything that they know and like to some other brand because you say so
is a load of nonsense.


Thom hogan has a good explanation of focus breathing in this discussion
about the Nikon 70-200. Note that he concludes that it is not a defining
issue in most cases.

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

--
PeterN

Davoud:
How lucky I am that in half a century of making photographs I have
never heard of "focus breathing" and I have no idea what it is. I do
know that telling someone that they should switch from the brand of
anything that they know and like to some other brand because you say so
is a load of nonsense.

PeterN:
Thom hogan has a good explanation of focus breathing...

Thanks, but you may have missed my point. How important can "focus
breathing" be [to me] if I have muddled along for half a century
without knowing about it?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 1/18/2015 2:11 PM, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
How lucky I am that in half a century of making photographs I have
never heard of "focus breathing" and I have no idea what it is. I do
know that telling someone that they should switch from the brand of
anything that they know and like to some other brand because you say so
is a load of nonsense.

PeterN:
Thom hogan has a good explanation of focus breathing...

Thanks, but you may have missed my point. How important can "focus
breathing" be [to me] if I have muddled along for half a century
without knowing about it?


Thom Hogan confirms your comment.

--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 1/18/2015 2:11 PM, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:
How lucky I am that in half a century of making photographs I have
never heard of "focus breathing" and I have no idea what it is. I do
know that telling someone that they should switch from the brand of
anything that they know and like to some other brand because you say so
is a load of nonsense.

PeterN:
Thom hogan has a good explanation of focus breathing...

Thanks, but you may have missed my point. How important can "focus
breathing" be [to me] if I have muddled along for half a century
without knowing about it?


Thom Hogan confirms your comment.

Unfortunately a lot of folks who read what Thom Hogan said
never realize that is what Thom Hogan said.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , nospam wrote:

nospam:
he claims lenses have xx megapixels of resolution, which is not
how resolution is measured in a lens.

Sandman:
No he's not. He's citing DXOMark, which calls it "Perceptual
megapixels", and it's a rating for every lens. You may not agree
with it, or the term, but it's what he's basing it on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_MegaPixel

i know what he's basing it on. it's bull****.

You may not agree with DxO, but "he" isn't the one claiming that lenses
have a specific resolution, DxO is. Ane he's not alone in using DxO's
numbers for comparisons.

nospam:
he bitched about the nikon 50mm being expensive (which it isn't)
but they make a cheaper one that would work just as well on the
cameras he'd be buying.

Sandman:
You need to listen to what he says - he's talking about
entry-level cameras, and the 50/1.8D won't autofocus on those.

he's not an entry level consumer and entry level consumers don't
want nor need a 50mm lens. they buy one, maybe two kit lenses and
that's the end of that.

But, regardless, that's still *what he is talking about*. He can talk about
those cameras even if *he* isn't an entry-level consumer.

for his use (portraits), it's a bad choice, and it also contradicts
what he said elsewhere, where he usually shoots at 150-200mm for
portraits, so why did he even mention it?

He's not talking about his use, he's talking about what he tells people
that want an entry-level SLR to get. It's obvious if you look at the video.

nospam:
he also neglected to mention the nikon 14-24mm, a lens so good
that it motivated someone to build an adapter ring for canon
bodies that is electrically compatible in addition to
mechanically so that it could be used on canon with minimal
fuss.

Sandman:
True, this I agree with. While he objects to the 70-200, the other
trinity-lenses aren't mentioned, which is odd.

nothing odd about it. he's being paid by canon so he's going to pick
and choose what makes them look good.

Yeah, right. *rolleye*.

--
Sandman[.net]

On 1/15/2015 7:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

20 years ago this was still true. Canon always has had the better
selection of glass with Nikon lacking key lenses. Nikon had the better
bodies. Nikon fell behind in the early days of digital bodies but has
now caught up and surpassed Canon.

When I bought my first SLR I was all set to buy Nikon until I looked at
the available lenses, especially the lenses I wanted. Nikon eventually
came out with equivalent lenses but it was a couple of years later.

Third party support is a valid issue that he points out. Nikon support
from third parties comes later or never.