Lenses

[mercer]

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. 

You just have to adjust it so you can focus at infinity when the helicoid is not expanded and voila! 

( :

I really love that look, about how much does the set up cost?

[webrunner5]

Wow that thing is almost Too sharp. I can see a Pro-mist filter in your Christmas Stocking. Well done.

[heart0less]

2 hours ago, mercer said:

I really love that look, about how much does the set up cost?

Glad you like it!

I paid ~50 $ (that's right, fifty USD) for the lens itself, 24$ for the helicoid and 8$ for macro tubes.

I think it's a really good deal, isn't it? 

( :

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow that thing is almost Too sharp. I can see a Pro-mist filter in your Christmas Stocking. 

Haha, I wish!

These things are really hard to get in Poland, to be honest. If I wanted to soften the image a little, I think I'd use an actual stocking instead. ?

 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Well done.

Thanks!

[mercer]

Had a chance to get a few shots with the Canon 35mm f/2...

And here’s one from the Nikkor 24mm f/2 ai-s...

That last one could have used a little more diffusion on my Aputure M9 (awesome little light btw) but you can still get an idea of the characteristics of the lens wide open. 

[kye]

@mercer nice shots, and cool location!

[BTM_Pix]

41 minutes ago, mercer said:

Had a chance to get a few shots with the Canon 35mm f/2...

And the Nikkor 24mm f/2 ai-s...

What are your thoughts between them comparison wise?

Enough in the Canon to consider cashing in on the Nikkor ?

[mercer]

42 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

What are your thoughts between them comparison wise?

Enough in the Canon to consider cashing in on the Nikkor ?

Different lenses... I love the Canon. The IS seems as good as the IBIS on the GX85... so that is a huge plus. I’m looking to have two small sets... my Canon lenses for run and gun and a small set of Nikkors for monopod and tripod stuff. I was really testing the 24mm vs the 28mm f/2 sc Nikkor. The jury is still out on that one. I emailed Roland at Photosynthesis and he is going to put me in touch with some collectors about the Nikkor 24mm. With that being said, I did like the lens. I also just ordered a replacement 35mm 1.4... so we’ll see... lol. 

[BTM_Pix]

13 minutes ago, mercer said:

 I also just ordered a replacement 35mm 1.4... so we’ll see... lol. 

Welcome to the "Evaluate a lens and then just keep it and buy another one anyway" club.

What size would you like for your official members T Shirt ?

[mercer]

Yes, but I will definitely return or sell the odd balls I don’t like... of the t-shirt. 

[Nikkor]

I've always wondered about that 24mm f2, please make a Review  compare tanto the 28mm f2 nikkor.

[HockeyFan12]

57 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I've always wondered about that 24mm f2, please make a Review  compare tanto the 28mm f2 nikkor.

I have both... somehow managed to get three or four copies of the 24mm f2 and two 28mm f2s. But sold all but one of each. ?

The 28mm is probably better. I think most people would prefer it, at least. I prefer the FOV, too. The 28mm has much higher contrast wide open, while the 24mm has a LOT of spherical aberration wide open. By f2.8 it's pretty similar. The 24mm is similar to the 35mm f1.4 wide open, where it has good resolution but a lot of spherical aberration and coma. Sort of a soft focus effect with little blips around light sources at the edges. The Super Speeds also have this effect wide open, but a lot more coma and a lot less spherical aberration. I far prefer those.

I believe the 24mm f2 also has a bit more "nisen bokeh," like an S2 or S3 but not nearly as much or as nice. And it's about as soft as the 24mm f1.4 Rokinon, except the Nikon has character that I like and I much much prefer it, and it's much softer than the 24mm f1.4 Canon. For a "vintage" look it's nice, because it's not so messed up that it looks bad or is out of control or has gross flares like the Red Pro Primes, but it still has some character. The 28mm is already under control at f2, though. Both the 24mm and 28mm Nikkors are far far outperformed technically by the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, which is a fantastic lens if you want a modern look. There's something really amazing about it.

[Nikkor]

12 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I have both... somehow managed to get three or four copies of the 24mm f2 and two 28mm f2s. But sold all but one of each. ?

The 28mm is probably better. I think most people would prefer it, at least. I prefer the FOV, too. The 28mm has much higher contrast wide open, while the 24mm has a LOT of spherical aberration wide open. By f2.8 it's pretty similar. The 24mm is similar to the 35mm f1.4 wide open, where it has good resolution but a lot of spherical aberration and coma. Sort of a soft focus effect with little blips around light sources at the edges. The Super Speeds also have this effect wide open, but a lot more coma and a lot less spherical aberration. I far prefer those.

I believe the 24mm f2 also has a bit more "nisen bokeh," like an S2 or S3 but not nearly as much or as nice. And it's about as soft as the 24mm f1.4 Rokinon, except the Nikon has character that I like and I much much prefer it, and it's much softer than the 24mm f1.4 Canon. For a "vintage" look it's nice, because it's not so messed up that it looks bad or is out of control or has gross flares like the Red Pro Primes, but it still has some character. The 28mm is already under control at f2, though. Both the 24mm and 28mm Nikkors are far far outperformed technically by the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma, which is a fantastic lens if you want a modern look. There's something really amazing about it.

Thanks, I really have to get the 24 2 ,28 2 ,35 1.4 and 105 1.8 some time

Don't Name the super Speed please, :(:( I Wish I had the 25 1.2

[mercer]

@Nikkor I’d have to agree with @HockeyFan12 ‘s assessment. The 28mm f/2, even the SC version that I have is pretty nice and clean wide open. Whereas the 24mm f/2 is kinda funky wide open, as he said... similar to the 35mm 1.4. But both have a ton of character. I was surprised to find that the 24mm seems to have more Pop than the 28mm but I only messed with them side by side for a few minutes. I really need to do some further tests. I’m hoping the 35mm 1.4 I just bought is in as good of shape as the seller stated. And if that’s the case, I’ll probably sell the 28mm and go with the 24, 35 and eventually pick up an 85mm f/2 and maybe the 105mm 2.5 or 135mm f/2.

I think the imperfections in these lenses wide open are really part of their charm. A couple months ago I bought the Japanese market version of the 50mm 1.8 to replace my Series E and even though the Nikkor gets way better marks, I found the Nikkor to be too good and kinda boring looking.

[HockeyFan12]

46 minutes ago, mercer said:

@Nikkor I’d have to agree with @HockeyFan12 ‘s assessment. The 28mm f/2, even the SC version that I have is pretty nice and clean wide open. Whereas the 24mm f/2 is kinda funky wide open, as he said... similar to the 35mm 1.4. But both have a ton of character. I was surprised to find that the 24mm seems to have more Pop than the 28mm but I only messed with them side by side for a few minutes. I really need to do some further tests. I’m hoping the 35mm 1.4 I just bought is in as good of shape as the seller stated. And if that’s the case, I’ll probably sell the 28mm and go with the 24, 35 and eventually pick up an 85mm f/2 and maybe the 105mm 2.5 or 135mm f/2.

I think the imperfections in these lenses wide open are really part of their charm. A couple months ago I bought the Japanese market version of the 50mm 1.8 to replace my Series E and even though the Nikkor gets way better marks, I found the Nikkor to be too good and kinda boring looking.

Yeah, messy can be good but then it's subjective. Cooke S3s must be the messiest lenses I've used, also probably the nicest "look." They have a lot of vignetting, flare, distortion, soft corners, soap bubble bokeh, cat's eye bokeh, etc. But they look amazing and are sharp in the center. I think 4k cameras and sharp 1080p cameras benefit from that. A 5D might not. I think in ten years, more and more cameras will be full frame, and the f2 and faster Nikkors will be a good set to have. They were used a lot for vistavision photography, they hold their own and look good but lack fast wide angle options for Super35. 

I was surprised to find that while the STM Canon zooms feel a bit flat by comparison to the Nikkors, despite better technical performance, Sigma's 18-35mm is both modern and really nice. If you're shooting crop and not looking for a vintage look, it's a great deal.

The 85mm f2 is a very good lens. The 85mm f1.8 has more character, but the single coated version flares perhaps too much. The 105mm is super sharp, really great, and then the 135mm is great, sharp at landscape distances but softer at portrait distances without any real "weirdness" anywhere. The 50mm f1.2 is also highly regarded, extremely sharp stopped down with a similar quality to the 24mm f2 wide open. I bet it looks incredible on FF.

3 hours ago, Nikkor said:

Thanks, I really have to get the 24 2 ,28 2 ,35 1.4 and 105 1.8 some time

Don't Name the super Speed please, :(:( I Wish I had the 25 1.2

The 24mm and 28mm are a bit redundant. I only have both because I have a crop sensor camera. I like 28mm more as a focal length and think it's a sharper lens, but I want something wider sometimes. If you have a FF camera, I don't think you'd necessarily want both, but you might. 

[mercer]

It’s funny, I prefer the Canon 28mm 1.8 over both the Nikkor and the Zeiss ZF. What it loses in sharpness, it gains in character. 

I originally went with the Nikkor 28 f/2 for my Nikon set because I didn’t think I’d find a 35mm 1.4 for the price I wanted to spend. And then I saw some Flickr samples of the 24mm and I regretted the 28mm purchase. I agree about the 28mm on a crop sensor... with a 40-45mm FOV, it’s a beautiful lens. 

I may skip the 50mm altogether. I was looking for the cheaper 55mm 1.2 but have already been burnt on two poorly described copies. The 50mm 1.2 is interesting but since I’ll use the 35mm most often, it may make more sense to save up for the 85mm 1.4 for close ups. Of course, I’ve recently learned how many films that were shot with a single prime lens and I must admit I am intrigued by that idea. I believe Polanski argued that the viewer can become more immersed into a scene when the perspective doesn’t change. So it is quite possible that I may just keep the 35mm 1.4 and then maybe the 24mm for those times where I need the width. 

But I really like the versatility of a fast 35mm. I also have an EF modified Minolta MC 35mm 1.8 that I adore. I’ve been looking for a 58mm 1.2 to go along with it but I’m too cheap to drop $500 for a good copy before I even pay for it to be modified. 

[HockeyFan12]

48 minutes ago, mercer said:

It’s funny, I prefer the Canon 28mm 1.8 over both the Nikkor and the Zeiss ZF. What it loses in sharpness, it gains in character. 

I originally went with the Nikkor 28 f/2 for my Nikon set because I didn’t think I’d find a 35mm 1.4 for the price I wanted to spend. And then I saw some Flickr samples of the 24mm and I regretted the 28mm purchase. I agree about the 28mm on a crop sensor... with a 40-45mm FOV, it’s a beautiful lens. 

I may skip the 50mm altogether. I was looking for the cheaper 55mm 1.2 but have already been burnt on two poorly described copies. The 50mm 1.2 is interesting but since I’ll use the 35mm most often, it may make more sense to save up for the 85mm 1.4 for close ups. Of course, I’ve recently learned how many films that were shot with a single prime lens and I must admit I am intrigued by that idea. I believe Polanski argued that the viewer can become more immersed into a scene when the perspective doesn’t change. So it is quite possible that I may just keep the 35mm 1.4 and then maybe the 24mm for those times where I need the width. 

But I really like the versatility of a fast 35mm. I also have an EF modified Minolta MC 35mm 1.8 that I adore. I’ve been looking for a 58mm 1.2 to go along with it but I’m too cheap to drop $500 for a good copy before I even pay for it to be modified. 

I've never used the 28mm Canon. I have a Nikon set so I kept it all Nikon just for consistency, maybe so they all focus the same direction.

The 35mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2, both of which I've owned but neither of which I own now, are fantastic if you like that soft wide open but sharp stopped down character of the 24mm. The 50mm f1.2 is really really great. I don't care for that focal length, either, at least in the context of video. On the C700 FF or something, I think that might end up being my favorite lens, though. The difference in depth of field and light gathering is really major between f2 and f1.2 and it has great rendering and is perhaps the sharpest Nikon 50mm stopped down. I sort of wish I went 24 f2, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.4, 135 f2, but it doesn't really matter that much.

I think camera placement matters more than shot scale, or it should be thought of first, but I don't necessarily think that means you need to rely entirely on one lens. Maybe you need a binocular POV and then what do you do if you only have a 28mm? But that's interesting, still. If you can get away with it, it seems like a cool idea, just not right for every project. I think Polanski also had a wider lens just in case he needed to show more on screen, but I remember reading he relied almost entirely on one focal length for some of his films. I think camera placement and blocking are underrated skills, and he certainly put care into that.

[kye]

@mercer @HockeyFan12 Interesting question about if a 50mm is needed on top of a 35mm.  I'd say that in the context of a controlled shoot, it's probably not.

I recently switched to a new setup of GH5, 8mm, 17.5mm and 58mm, which combined with the ETC crop mode give equivalent focal lengths of 16mm/22.4mm, 35mm/49mm, and 116mm/162.4mm.  

In practice the difference between the 35mm and 49mm is a lot less than I thought it would be before I started using it.  It's handy for my work, but I certainly wouldn't add an additional lens to my kit with the additional cost, weight, and extra work to colour correct it!  I've found that the jump from 49mm to 116mm is a big jump and often you want something a little shorter.  These two observations lead me to think that something around the 80mm mark would be the perfect next size up from 35mm.  By the time you "zoom in" with your 35mm by just getting closer, and can "zoom out" by swapping to the ~80mm and moving further back, I'd say that you wouldn't find much gap between those two focal lengths.

The gap between my 16mm and 35mm feels about right, and is a ~2x change.  A ~2x change from 35mm is also about 80mm so that checks out as well.

The idea of having one lens is pretty cool, and not changing lenses that much simplifies the shooting process quite a bit I've found.  You'll also be able to train your eye to 'see' in one focal length and really get into that headspace which might suit your creative process.

[webrunner5]

They sell zoom lenses you know. ?

[heart0less]

First review of the manual Viltrox 85/1.8 for Sony E:

https://sonyalpha.blog/2018/12/23/viltrox-85mm-f1-8-pfu-rmbh/

[kye]

14 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

They sell zoom lenses you know. ?

I know, but with your history with ENG cameras, you'd recommend this lens as a lightweight run'n'gun option!!