RT Panther
All-Pro
Hmmm.....Most of my Df glass is non-AI and 99% purchased at KEH.....KEH prices too high?
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Nikon Showcase Post Nikon Df Photos
- Thread starter Country Parson
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon
Hmmm.....Most of my Df glass is non-AI and 99% purchased at KEH.....KEH prices too high?
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
RT, do you shoot your old glass in non-AI mode (adjusting both the aperture ring and the in-camera setting) or do you convert the lenses to AI so you can use just the aperture dial? When I buy a non-AI lens, I'll shoot with it long enough to see if it's a keeper and, if it is, I have it converted to AI. I hate that extra step and I figure if I try to maintain a set of both AI and non-AI lenses, at some point I'm gonna jam a non-AI lens on there without moving the little tab out of the way and I'm gonna mess up the tab for the vast majority of my lenses, which use it.
As far as KEH, I'm guessing Peter doesn't have easy access to them from overseas? I rarely buy from them, preferring to bargain hunt on ebay. I end up not loving some of these lenses and turn them back around pretty quickly and I sometimes end up selling to KEH more than buying from them... But by buying cheaper than them I don't take quite as much of a hit when I sell to them... And I've generally had pretty good luck with buying on ebay - KEH sells some of their semi-rejects there too. I guess stuff that's not quite good enough to list as "bargain" quality on their site. But their bargain quality is really good and I'm usually satisfied with stuff that's a bit more beat up than that if the optical quality is still OK...
-Ray
Last edited:
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
Peter, are you just referring to the way the vertical lines by the fireplace seem to be moving in opposite directions? That's just because I'm shooting a wide angle lens at an odd angle, from above rather than getting down to the same level as those columns (as I do in the second shot). I don't think that's distortion - that's just inherent in any wide-ish to wide lens. Other than a tilt-shift lens that can correct for just that kind of thing with building... Or are you seeing something other than that? I don't find any objectionable distortion in this lens...
-Ray
ajramirez
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Caguas, Puerto Rico
- Name
- Antonio
Some informal portraits:
Ivelisse Rivera by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
Vaquero urbano by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
El vendedor de cigarros by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
The first three with the 100mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ZF.2 and the last five with the 35mm 2.0 Distagon ZF.2.
Cheers,
Antonio
Ivelisse Rivera by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
Vaquero urbano by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
El vendedor de cigarros by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
The first three with the 100mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ZF.2 and the last five with the 35mm 2.0 Distagon ZF.2.
Cheers,
Antonio
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
I have a slight preference for the intimacy of the 3 with the longer lens, but you do a wonderful job in close with the 35 too. I'm not good enough manually focussing to get shots like this without an AF assist, at least not consistently. Wider I tend to use zone focus, but at 35, 58, and 105, for unposed people shooting (some of yours appear posed, but several not) I really need AF. Actually, 35 is still kind of an open question given how I use the lens, but not 58 and 105. Really fine job with these, though, regardless of the lens or focus method...
-Ray
pniev
Student for life
I guess I did not look carefully enough because I thought the angles were not the same but not that different. Now looking again, the differences in angle is substantial. I thought you were shooting from a lower angle so the vertically convergent lines seemed to be rather strong. When I wrote my response I had lost the right wording in English (vertically convergent) so I used distortion instead. Initially I thought distortion included convergence and divergence but it's another thing.
Next time I will just wait with a response until I find the right wording. My apologies for the confusion. I will also look more carefully. So weird that I did not look properly.
pniev
Student for life
I thoroughly enjoyed looking at your photos. I bet they would look even better on print. The facial expressions, the context in #4: I love it. If I may say (but who am I to say this) #7 lacks a bit of the intimacy of the other 35mm shots. Probably it is because the others drag me into the scene. It's amazing that these people remained so relaxed while you were so close when you used the 35mm.
pniev
Student for life
As Ray says, I don't have access to KEH. In fact, i was not even aware of its existence. Besides, I primarily look for AI or AI-converted lenses. But you made me aware that I need to look at other places than I usually do! Thanks.
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
Your wording isn't a problem at all. I guess my main point is that's not a defect of the lens, it's just a matter of how I shot it. Which could be considered a defect of the shooter! Or not, depending on whether such things bother you in a photograph...
If I'd used a 28mm lens, even the most perfectly optically corrected one, the effect would have been worse, worse yet with a 24, and worse yet with a 20. One of the things I like about wide angle lenses is the way parallel lines almost always converge, sometimes pretty radically, and that can result in some pretty interesting compositions. In this case, I wouldn't say it did that, but I just don't personally dislike when that happens in a shot - I'd usually rather have the angle I want, even with artificial looking converging lines, than change the angle to keep parallel lines parallel. Now, if I specialized in shooting architecture, I might feel differently. But I probably wouldn't to be honest...-Ray
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
A couple just to demonstrate the best first impression I've yet had with one of the vintage lenses I've been checking out. I've generally found this old lens thing to be a bit hit or miss. The longer lenses were REALLY good back in the day but the wide angles have gotten a lot better over the years. I like the 24 and 28 AIS lenses quite a bit, but the really old stuff isn't much more than OK. I've ended up selling off quite a few and keeping just the cream of the crop. Given how little I paid for all of them, I'm not worried about the small losses I've taken on some of the one's I've sold. I'm getting pretty close to having this old lens collection down to a set of keepers at a variety of focal lengths, generally mirroring more modern lenses at the same general lengths...
My most recent acquisition is a lens just two years younger than I am, from 1961, and it's blowing my mind. It's a 58mm f1.4, labelled as 5.8cm back in the day. I spent a LOT of money on the modern 58mm f1.4G a few months ago and I really love that lens, but if I'd discovered this one first, I may never have gone there. The rendering of this lens isn't quite as soft, either in the focus plane and in the OOF areas. The bokeh has a little bit more shape to it and doesn't just dissolve into nothingness like the new 58 does. But it's got an overall character that won't quit. So far, I've taken photos of absolutely nothing worth photographing just because I love the way this lens renders so much. I'm gonna keep the new 58G because, between it's AF and softer rendering, it's become my go-to people lens - almost all of the family shots I did over the holidays were with this lens. So I'm really happy to have it. But for walk-around shooting, I think it's gonna be the old 5.8cm version of this lens. Here are a couple samples of subjects not worth shooting, except that anything that ends up in the frame of this lens ends up being sort of worth it... It cost me about 10% of the 58G...
58 testing-2-Edit by Ray, on Flickr
58 testing-3-Edit by Ray, on Flickr
-Ray
My most recent acquisition is a lens just two years younger than I am, from 1961, and it's blowing my mind. It's a 58mm f1.4, labelled as 5.8cm back in the day. I spent a LOT of money on the modern 58mm f1.4G a few months ago and I really love that lens, but if I'd discovered this one first, I may never have gone there. The rendering of this lens isn't quite as soft, either in the focus plane and in the OOF areas. The bokeh has a little bit more shape to it and doesn't just dissolve into nothingness like the new 58 does. But it's got an overall character that won't quit. So far, I've taken photos of absolutely nothing worth photographing just because I love the way this lens renders so much. I'm gonna keep the new 58G because, between it's AF and softer rendering, it's become my go-to people lens - almost all of the family shots I did over the holidays were with this lens. So I'm really happy to have it. But for walk-around shooting, I think it's gonna be the old 5.8cm version of this lens. Here are a couple samples of subjects not worth shooting, except that anything that ends up in the frame of this lens ends up being sort of worth it... It cost me about 10% of the 58G...
-Ray
pniev
Student for life
it seems to be a lens with character and beautiful rendering, Ray. I do agree that the 58mm 1.4G lens seems to render the OOF areas softer (which I like better). It also seems to isolate the main subject better, but that might be an illusion.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and photos).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts (and photos).
D
dalethorn
Guest
A couple just to demonstrate the best first impression I've yet had with one of the vintage lenses I've been checking out. I've generally found this old lens thing to be a bit hit or miss. The longer lenses were REALLY good back in the day but the wide angles have gotten a lot better over the years. I like the 24 and 28 AIS lenses quite a bit, but the really old stuff isn't much more than OK. I've ended up selling off quite a few and keeping just the cream of the crop. Given how little I paid for all of them, I'm not worried about the small losses I've taken on some of the one's I've sold. I'm getting pretty close to having this old lens collection down to a set of keepers at a variety of focal lengths, generally mirroring more modern lenses at the same general lengths...
My most recent acquisition is a lens just two years younger than I am, from 1961, and it's blowing my mind. It's a 58mm f1.4, labelled as 5.8cm back in the day. I spent a LOT of money on the modern 58mm f1.4G a few months ago and I really love that lens, but if I'd discovered this one first, I may never have gone there. The rendering of this lens isn't quite as soft, either in the focus plane and in the OOF areas. The bokeh has a little bit more shape to it and doesn't just dissolve into nothingness like the new 58 does. But it's got an overall character that won't quit. So far, I've taken photos of absolutely nothing worth photographing just because I love the way this lens renders so much. I'm gonna keep the new 58G because, between it's AF and softer rendering, it's become my go-to people lens - almost all of the family shots I did over the holidays were with this lens. So I'm really happy to have it. But for walk-around shooting, I think it's gonna be the old 5.8cm version of this lens. Here are a couple samples of subjects not worth shooting, except that anything that ends up in the frame of this lens ends up being sort of worth it... It cost me about 10% of the 58G...
58 testing-2-Edit by Ray, on Flickr
58 testing-3-Edit by Ray, on Flickr
-Ray
Those 2 can sell the lens, for sure.
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
After a day of shooting with it today in Philly, I've changed my opinion. While it's VERY good in some situations (seemingly close focus in relative lower light - ie, at home), under a wider variety of shooting situations, it doesn't compare to the 58G. Under an awful lot of situations, the bokeh from this lens is just plain busy, sometimes flat out ugly. In selected situations, I really like it, but overall, not nearly as much as the 58G. And, it turns out, the aperture ring on the copy I bought turns pretty freely in some situations but really binds up badly in others, to the point that it's really difficult to turn. Sometimes on the camera, when moving from a smaller aperture to a larger one, I can't turn it without grabbing the little rabbit-ears piece and using that as a handle. I talked to the guy I bought it from and he said to send it back, so back it's going. Oh well, you win some, you lose some!
-Ray
lenshacker
Veteran
The Nikkor-S 5.8cm F1.4 has very similar rendering to the Leica Summarit 5cm F1.5. The design starts with a classic 1-2-2-1 double gauss and splits the first element into two of lesser power, a 1-1-2-2-1 configuration, shown in Neblette's "Photographic lenses". What I am not sure of, and there are two series of these lenses- did Nikon change the formula to a 7 element in 6 group. The Summarit is a 1-2-2-1-1.
Ray Sachs
Legend
- Location
- Not too far from Philly
- Name
- you should be able to figure it out...
They only made about 40,000 of them between late 1959 and early 1962, and all were 7 elements in 6 groups. Here's a page outlining the changes it went through over it's short lifespan, but they were all pretty much surface changes...
Nikon Nikkor-S Auto 58mm f1.4
Here are a few last shots with mine before it goes back. I got this one for a good price, evidently for a bad reason. They seem to be a bit of a collectors item (nowhere near the 58 Noct, but not the same level of lens either) and prices for good ones can be upwards of $300, which is beyond my budget for this old lens experimentation phase. So I doubt I'll own another...
-Ray
ajramirez
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Caguas, Puerto Rico
- Name
- Antonio
A bit of color:
La vecindad - La verja by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 74 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 25 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 40 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 28 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
And, one black and white for good measure:
La vecindad - Ventana al mar by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
All on the Df and 35mm 2.0 Distagon ZF.2. In Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Cheers,
Antonio
La vecindad - La verja by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 74 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 25 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 40 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
La vecindad - El 28 by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
And, one black and white for good measure:
La vecindad - Ventana al mar by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
All on the Df and 35mm 2.0 Distagon ZF.2. In Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
Cheers,
Antonio
lenshacker
Veteran
The confusing part: the Nikon/Nikkorex and Nikon/Nikkormat manuals published when the 58/1.4 was current list it as 7 elements in 5 groups. The air gap is shown, but the designers considered it to be a group.
Some informal portraits:
Ivelisse Rivera by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
Vaquero urbano by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
El vendedor de cigarros by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
JDP by Antonio Ramirez, on Flickr
The first three with the 100mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ZF.2 and the last five with the 35mm 2.0 Distagon ZF.2.
Cheers,
Antonio
These are fab Antonio.
I'm intrigued by the cold water colour photograph. Is there a story with the RIP headstone? So unusual to see one outside a shop.
ajramirez
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Caguas, Puerto Rico
- Name
- Antonio
It is very unusual, and what first caught my attention when I saw the scene. The shop in question is an "antique" shop (I use quotes because it really is more of a junk shop) in Old San Juan. Based on the year of the inscription and the shape, I would say that the headstone was a cover for one of the niches in the mausoleum in the cemetery in Old San Juan, which has recently been under renovation. Somebody probably took it, and brought it to the store to sell.
Thank you for your kind comment, Karen!
Cheers,
Antonio
RT Panther
All-Pro
With this being "Superbowl Sunday"...
unday".....
