Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dave, Interesting about your 100 Nikon E lens. ?I had one also and it was not even close to the performance of my 90 Elmarit R. Gene -------------- Original message from "David Rodgers" <drodgers@casefarms.com>: -------------- > Len, > > >>It's surprising how good the old glass is though.<< > > It's fun and easy to compare lenses on a digital body (and with a D700 > all the way out to the corners of designed coverage). I have three > 50/1.4 Nikkors. The oldest is converted AI with a scalloped focusing > ring. It's very sharp -- at least as sharp as the 50/1.4 AFD. My hunch > it that the older lens would be more prone to flare, though I haven't > tested that. OOF areas look different in all three lenses. The 50 AI is > currently my favorite. It focuses more smoothly than the 50/1.4 AIS and > IMO has better bokeh than the 50/1.4 AFD. It also is the best looking of > the three. Plus I like using Classic lenses. :-) > > The lens that really surprised me was the 100/2.8E. I can't tell any > difference between it and the 90/2.8 R that I converted to F mount, and > it's a little bit shocking. The 100E isn't much bigger than a 50/1.4. I > never used it much. It felt like a toy and I assumed it performed like > one. I bought it used for $25 a couple of years ago. I keep doing tests > comparing the 100E and 90R because my gut says the 100E can't be that > good. I want it to perform like crap, but it won't! > > Another lens that surprised me is a 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor. Years ago I hand > picked it from 3 samples I tested (film). I dropped it shortly after I > bought it. The outer focusing ring bent. (Something similar happened to > my 35/1.4 ASPH M, but Sherry Krauter magically restored it to like-new). > I assumed the 24 Nikkor was ruined. I put it in a junk drawer. I > recently tested it for fun and I can't find any problems, optically. > Focusing still binds at one point. I'm anxious to compare its > performance to my 28/2.8 Elmarit R that is currently being repaired. > > So much has been written over the years about different lenses. I wonder > just how much is factual. I believe in a few generalities. I believe > Leica lenses are the standard by with all other lenses should be > measured. Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not from > Missouri, but still, I need to see something before I really believe it. > > > Now more pixels just means more peeping, and I think I'm about peeped > out! OTOH, it's nice to be able to see for myself, without having to > develop and print (which also introduces more variables). One time I bad > mouthed a lens. It turns out the lens was fine, but my enlarger was out > of alignment. When I bought a Zig-align all my lenses improved. I wonder > if buying a new computer will have similar results. :-) > > BTW, I glued 2 Nikkor rear caps together in order to attach two lenses. > With a third on the body I can carry 3 lenses easily. The 45P Nikkor and > 100/2.8 together are lighter than the 90/2.8 R, and they take up about > the same volume. The auto dust removal features in new digital bodies > makes swapping lenses more practical. I don't find myself swabbing the > sensor so often. > > DaveR > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information