If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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) |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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] |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newsweek cover creates stir (Photoshop Hell) | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | June 30th 11 06:37 PM |
Stir crazy.... | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | January 4th 07 08:16 AM |
TESTS; Nikon D80, Canon Rebel XTi, Sony A100, Canon 30D | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | October 14th 06 02:53 AM |
comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM | gnnyman | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 5th 05 12:09 AM |
Canon Elph SD110, Kodak EasyShare CX7430, Canon Powershots A75 and A80, and Nikon CoolPix 3200 | Shannon | Digital Photography | 8 | August 19th 04 10:03 PM |