Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/09/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Having just checked the S system I see they do make a standard zoom. I'm not sure if anybody ever made a wide medium format zoom Hasselblad sure didn't not Zeiss. But unlike many I am as fond of normal zooms as I am wide zooms. As I am long zooms. And am very ok with no zooms. "The Leica Vario-Elmar-S 30?90 mm f/3.5-5.6 ASPH. has the same imaging characteristics as a 24?72 mm zoom lens in 35 mm format." On 9/18/13 2:24 AM, "Mark Rabiner" <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > Here's the Pop photo charts and review. I've been reading those since 1965. > Erwin said once that they are amazingly good and surprised everybody. (on > the > lug) > http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2013/08/lens-test-nikon-18-35mm-f35-45g-ed > > http://tinyurl.com/kkerez7 > > The D lens came out in 2003. An even decade ago. > Should we assume Nikon and the whole camera optics industry has learned a > thing or to in ten years? > The fact that is so light weight it feels hollow is enough to sell me. > Also the lens is groups. > And I'm more concerned that my lens is gorgeous than my pictures be > gorgeous > after all... > > I'll probably be getting one soon. > The AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED > http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_18-35mmf_35-45g_ed/ > > $746.95 at B&H pure cane photo. I'm all over it. > Don't need no stinking 2.8's! > > I certainly got lots of mileage out of my 12-24 when I was shooting cropped > and this is the full frame equivalent of that. Or visa versa. > Wide zooms are cleaning up. Taking over the universe as we know it. > Is there one for the S serious? > For the M there is the TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21 mm f/4 ASPH > And I could convince myself it was a zoom. Its just missing a few of the in > between focal lenghs. > > On 9/17/13 9:30 PM, "Frank Filippone" <red735i at verizon.net> wrote: > >> I am trying out the 18-35 D lens. Not the G. I am now warned where to >> examine >> the test shots. If my example shows similar lousy results, i will try to >> find >> a G lens. Otherwise I will stick with the Leica. The 16-35 weighs too >> much. >> >> Lightness counts as much as IQ. YMMV. >> >> For those who have responded with reasonably monosyllabic responses as to >> the >> greatness of Leica to Nikon optics. Please pontificate in more detail. I >> need something reasonably more scientific. >> >> Frank Filippone >> >> On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Frank. Which 18-35? I had the D version and it was a real piece of >>> crap. >>> Center was pretty good, but the edges, or even the outer third, was >>> pretty >>> bad. It worked pretty good on my cropped D7000, but when I went to full >>> frame D600, all bets were off. It had to go. I dumped it and got the >>> 16-35/4. BIG improvement. Then about 6 months later they finally >>> improved >>> the 18-35 with the G model. I was thinking, drats, I should have >>> waited. >>> My >>> father-in-law bought the new G model and it is WAY better than the >>> original >>> D >>> model but not up to the 16-35. It is a pretty nice piece of glass, >>> albeit >>> rather big. His G 18-35 is not bad. I can easily tell which lens has >>> taken >>> the photo. The 18-35G, while MUCH better in the outer third than the >>> original, still shows a lot of CA, where the 16-35 is not bad in this >>> regard. >>> >>> My experience with all three lenses. >>> >>> Aram >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Frank Filippone >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:19 AM >>> To: Leica Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast >>> >>> I appreciate your comments. I also have accepted the idea that IF I >>> switch >>> to a Nikon DSLR, that switch must include the acceptance of AF. I can >>> use >>> my >>> MF lenses but I will not consider them mainline lenses for travel. I do >>> mostly landscape/travel shots. I have the need for lightness of kit >>> weight. >>> So a WA zoom is what I have selected. In this case a 18-35 lens. I have >>> purchased a reasonably cheap one from Ebay and will do some testing of IQ >>> compared to my Leica gear. If the IQ is lacking, the whole idea goes out >>> the >>> window. >>> The test will use the M9 as the camera with adapter for the Nikon lenses. >>> Same sensor means the variable in IQ will be the lens >>> >>> I am pretty certain the D800e body will outperform the M9. But the optics >>> are >>> the variable. Test them and I will know which is acceptable. >>> >>> Again thank you for your comments >>> Frank Filippone >>> >>> On Sep 6, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My father-in-law had the D300 and I had a D7000 and they both were >>>> difficult >>>> to focus manually for my 62 (at the time) year old eyes. The D7000 was >>>> better. I now have a D600 and it is a bit easier, but still difficult. >>>> And >>>> the indicators are not much help, as there is quite a range when they >>>> are >>>> lit telling me it is in focus. But when I look at the images, the focus >>>> plane may be in front or in back or right on. Depends on chance, I >>>> think. >>>> I >>>> find myself focusing wide open and then stopping down to compensate for >>>> the >>>> miss in focus, but that doesn't work for shallow DOF shots that I often >>>> try >>>> to do. The only really solid way to focus at full aperture is with live >>>> view, but that is not great for action or moving subjects. I use an >>>> eyepiece magnifier and that helps a bit. I am slowly seeing the >>>> writing on >>>> the wall and shifting to auto focus lenses with deep regret at not >>>> using my >>>> Leica R glass as much. Macro is still fine since I can take all the >>>> time I >>>> need to focus u >> sing live view. It has been a slow regression over the last few years. >> The >> pits getting old eyes. I pulled out my R8 the other day to finish a roll >> of >> film and found I could focus just fine with it. Too bad they don't make a >> good viewfinder for a DSLR, at least in ones I have looked at. Have not >> looked at a D3 or D4. Maybe they are much better at manual focus. But >> too >> heavy for me. >>>> >>>> Aram >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Kayai >>>> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 9:41 AM >>>> To: Leica-Users-Group >>>> Subject: [Leica] OT. Nikon screen brightness and contrast >>>> >>>> I borrowed my son's D 200 body to see just how easy it was to focus a MF >>>> lens. Without using the in focus indicators, it was pretty difficult. >>>> Brightness was not too bad but contrast was miserably low >>>> . My D1x was both brighter and more contrasty. The D200 would not work >>>> for >>>> me. >>>> >>>> I am wondering if someone who has had a D200 and D300s and maybe a D3 >>>> or D4 >>>> could comment on relative focus ease. Keep in mind that I own >>>> predominantly >>>> MF lenses. >>>> >>>> TIA >>>> Frank Filippone >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/