nasmformyzombie
Registered
I hear very good things about the Canon 35/f2. If I get a 35mm lens, it will be the Canon f2 or f1.8.
M
merciful
Guest
Thanks a lot, Guy. It's down to the M3 and taking my time: I get a really good percentage (considering the DOF available): well over half, I'd say.
This one is at minimum focus distance, from the day I got the lens. She was perhaps a bit tired of my test by this time: I think this is frame 35.
This one is at minimum focus distance, from the day I got the lens. She was perhaps a bit tired of my test by this time: I think this is frame 35.
grainhound said:
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
vrgard
Well-known
Yep, Merciful, it does look like you were beginning to push your luck just a bit with that model! 
-Randy
-Randy
VinceC
Veteran
The 85/2 Nikkor is also one of my favorites. Posting some shots taken last weekend below. Pretty much the only way I shoot it is up close and wide open or f/2.8. My focusing accuracy is 50 to 75 percent using the 1:1 finder on a Nikon.
I think the Russian Jupiter 85/2 can be as good a lens, but it has problems with sample variation and inferior coatings. In LTM mount, the Russian lens is particular prone to allignment problems.
I think the Russian Jupiter 85/2 can be as good a lens, but it has problems with sample variation and inferior coatings. In LTM mount, the Russian lens is particular prone to allignment problems.
Attachments
ferider
Veteran
Nr 3 is gorgeous, Vince. I assume you have it framed ?
Roland.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
For $125 you cannot beat a Canon 85mm/2.0.
I use both, the Nikkor 85mm/2 and the (chrome) Canon 85mm/1.9. Both are equally good in most applications. The Nikon may have a slightly nicer bokeh.
Raid
I use both, the Nikkor 85mm/2 and the (chrome) Canon 85mm/1.9. Both are equally good in most applications. The Nikon may have a slightly nicer bokeh.
Raid
VinceC
Veteran
>>Nr 3 is gorgeous, Vince. I assume you have it framed ?<<
Thanks, Roland. I just took it on Sunday, so I haven't done anything with it yet. But that's a good idea.
Thanks, Roland. I just took it on Sunday, so I haven't done anything with it yet. But that's a good idea.
jano
Evil Bokeh
Vince, very nice. I keep looking back at how well everyone has their color film scanned, and get so frustrated because mine don't scan as such anymore
VinceC
Veteran
Jano,
I have my film processed at Wal-Mart. They charge $4.55 to process and scan to CD, with no prints, creating files equivalent to a 2 megapixel camera on a Fuji Frontier machine. I have an Epson flatbed for when I need more resolution. But the 2 MP files are fine for most of what I do, which is sharing pictures with far-flung family and friends. The two color images were on Fuji 400 bought at Wal-Mart, and the black and white picture is on the Kodak black-and-white film that can be processed on C-41 machines.
I have my film processed at Wal-Mart. They charge $4.55 to process and scan to CD, with no prints, creating files equivalent to a 2 megapixel camera on a Fuji Frontier machine. I have an Epson flatbed for when I need more resolution. But the 2 MP files are fine for most of what I do, which is sharing pictures with far-flung family and friends. The two color images were on Fuji 400 bought at Wal-Mart, and the black and white picture is on the Kodak black-and-white film that can be processed on C-41 machines.
ferider
Veteran
raid said:
Raid, IMO, the difference shows up in OOF behavior, and in sharpness when you scan at higher resolutions, print on 8x10 or larger, and shoot in daylight (possibly with ND filters) and higher shutter speeds. At 1200 dpi, with on-line images smaller than 1000x800, and with slower shutter speeds in available light it is not surprising that - beside OOF behavior - there is little difference. But, under the latter conditions, there will be little difference to any 85/90mm lens, including, say, a 90/2 Apo Summicron. I think this is consistent with your short tele test.
Roland.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
ferider said:
Roland: I have to agree with your assessment. It then depends what the user of such a lens is looking for. If a general purpose tele for general photography with results to be viewed online is needed, this is different from making larger prints.
Raid
VinceC
Veteran
Even with 2 megapixel scans, I can tell the difference between a good lens and a bad one, a sharp picture and a muddy one. I share printable jpegs with my family and friends, and there are huge quality differences if I'm not using one of my best lenses or have missed the focus. My 2 megapix drugstore scans are technically far superior to 3.2 and 4 megapixel images taken by our two very capable digicams, a Canon G1 and Canon G2.
willie_901
Veteran
nasmformyzombie said:
I have no experience with the Canon 85/1.9.
I bought a nice example of a Nikkor 85/2 last summer. This lens makes lovely images. It has a nice 3D drawing quality in both B&W and color images. You can see some examples here http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/85mmf2pc/
This is a heavy lens. It is easy to focus. The aperture ring is backwards so it takes a bit of practice before you can use it without thinking.
If you don't mind the weight, the Nikkor 85/2 is a cost effective way to own a great, fast medium telephoto lens.
willie
VinceC
Veteran
Nice images, Willie!
I really liked the Busch Stadium verticle. ... Nice colors wide open.
(Regular Nikon shooters don't think the lens is backwards ... it's kind of like being left-handed).
I really liked the Busch Stadium verticle. ... Nice colors wide open.
(Regular Nikon shooters don't think the lens is backwards ... it's kind of like being left-handed).
Krosya
Konicaze
Another option J-9
Another option J-9
Hi,
I have Nikon 85/2 chrome and Canon 85/1.9. Both are nice. I also have a FSU Jupiter 9 85/2 lens. It's very good too. I really don't know which is better - thats why I have all 3 - all have different "fingerprint" and all didn't cost me all that much ( well, all in great mechanical and optical shape, but all have signs of use, like worn finish or a bit bent filter ring, - nothing that affects performance though). But for whatever reason I find that I prefer my J-9 over the others. It's true, these in LTM are known for problems. I had one that wouldn't focus right, no matter what I tried. The one I have now is a second try and it's a winner.
Well, see a couple of photos - both at 2.0 and pretty close distance. (yellowish tint is due to tungsten light on a reg print colour film)
Another option J-9
Hi,
I have Nikon 85/2 chrome and Canon 85/1.9. Both are nice. I also have a FSU Jupiter 9 85/2 lens. It's very good too. I really don't know which is better - thats why I have all 3 - all have different "fingerprint" and all didn't cost me all that much ( well, all in great mechanical and optical shape, but all have signs of use, like worn finish or a bit bent filter ring, - nothing that affects performance though). But for whatever reason I find that I prefer my J-9 over the others. It's true, these in LTM are known for problems. I had one that wouldn't focus right, no matter what I tried. The one I have now is a second try and it's a winner.
Well, see a couple of photos - both at 2.0 and pretty close distance. (yellowish tint is due to tungsten light on a reg print colour film)
