Nikon D200 and Nikkor 24-50 3.3-4.5 AF
-you are right, like the telephotos, I remember 16-35/4 very long (one bit longer and it’d seem like something is flawed about this uwa). all are long, uwa fast primes also. - and understand your point - people scared off (or worse).
I’d watch out for flare as it’s an old design on digital sensor I am thinking – but Wales is not Texas in terms of sunshine. And I would be interested to see some of your images with it, samples look with plenty of detail – resizing won’t safe any lens that is soft. Having your 50/1.4 as a benchmark in your set you have pretty good idea how the lens fares and where it drops below requirements. This is by the way my favorite way of making a picture about lenses – relative to each other.
Also I am constantly surprised by the optical quality of these older lenses and enjoy exploring their abilities. Especially when they cost the same as half a tank of petrol in the UK.
Absolutely John. My guess is this copy is very good at 5.6, too, at least when borders are not critical. In any case a careful work with the lens can bypass a need for more investment now and can be producing splendid photography although we have to work a bit more. – like you say it’s all part of it.
- Fujifilm X-T223.6%
- Nikon D50025.4%
- Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E8.2%
- Olympus M.Zuiko 12-100mm F47.5%
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-G857.2%
- Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art6.7%
- Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art5.1%
- Sony a63006.4%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III3.7%
- Sony Cyber-shot RX100 V6.3%
|Kingfisher by cjf2|
from An A to Z of Subjects- Week 11, K
|Bull Rider Being Launched by RBFresno|
from FX bodies and very high ISO