raid
Dad Photographer
Welcome back, Frank.
I like the focusing with the Bessa T. It has a magnifyer [but no viewfinder], and it allows me to focus easily with it.
Raid
I like the focusing with the Bessa T. It has a magnifyer [but no viewfinder], and it allows me to focus easily with it.
Raid
BillBingham2
Registered User
I am working on my vacation carrying kit for places I need a bit more reach. While I have 135s for several mounts and use them from time to time, I am looking to jump from a 105 to a 180 (with a 2X converter) on an SLR.
I am very happy with 85/90 and even a 105 on my RF bodies, 135 is find outside, but there are times when I need to reach out a bit more, so I am finishing up my SLR kit (55/3.5 macro, 180/2.8, 2x teleconverter).
B2 (;->
I am very happy with 85/90 and even a 105 on my RF bodies, 135 is find outside, but there are times when I need to reach out a bit more, so I am finishing up my SLR kit (55/3.5 macro, 180/2.8, 2x teleconverter).
B2 (;->
Dougg
Seasoned Member
This fits my understanding too, Frank, and I believe the equivalent baseline for the SLR is the diameter of the aperture. I suppose magnification would have to be calculated into that as well...FrankS said:
willie_901
Veteran
The more I use the 85mm focal length, the more I like it. I found http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikule/tags/85mmf2ais/ to be a useful gallery for learning about how to make the most of 85mm.
I find the ZI finder very easy to use with a Nikkor 85/2 lens for available-light work. I have a 28-85/3.5-4.5 AIS Nikkor zoom on my Nikon F3HP and I use it for macro shots or when I only want to carry one lens with the F3. Of course this lens is slow (for me) and not suitable for low-light applications. I find the F3 harder to focus in general (50/1,4 AIS and 35 1.4 AIS) in low light compared to the ZI finder. In bright conditions the F3 is easiy to focus. Since I acquired the ZI, I only use the F3 for macro and wide-angle (24mm) shots. The lens I almost never use on the F3 is the Nikkor 200/4. I reach for my rangerfinder when a 85mm focal length will get the job done.
The FM3A finder shows 93% of the image so I think a RF camera is just about as precise. The FM3A will show correct object-size relationships and the DOF preview button can be useful too.
For low-light work a Nikkor 85/1.4 AIS on your FM3A should be great. In your case I think it's a toss up. Since you already own a RF 90mm lens, just slap it on the camera and use it for a couple of weeks.
Have fun.
willie
I find the ZI finder very easy to use with a Nikkor 85/2 lens for available-light work. I have a 28-85/3.5-4.5 AIS Nikkor zoom on my Nikon F3HP and I use it for macro shots or when I only want to carry one lens with the F3. Of course this lens is slow (for me) and not suitable for low-light applications. I find the F3 harder to focus in general (50/1,4 AIS and 35 1.4 AIS) in low light compared to the ZI finder. In bright conditions the F3 is easiy to focus. Since I acquired the ZI, I only use the F3 for macro and wide-angle (24mm) shots. The lens I almost never use on the F3 is the Nikkor 200/4. I reach for my rangerfinder when a 85mm focal length will get the job done.
The FM3A finder shows 93% of the image so I think a RF camera is just about as precise. The FM3A will show correct object-size relationships and the DOF preview button can be useful too.
For low-light work a Nikkor 85/1.4 AIS on your FM3A should be great. In your case I think it's a toss up. Since you already own a RF 90mm lens, just slap it on the camera and use it for a couple of weeks.
Have fun.
willie
James Brannan
Established
I use from time to time a Nikon 85mm 1.8D with a D100 and a D200. To tell you the truth I picked it over the 85mm 1.4D because I really wasn't sure how much I'd like it with a crop body. It has uses for me but unless I know I need it, I never carry it with me. Frankly 85mm just seems an odd focal length (speaking to my tastes) on a SLR (50mm is as long as I usually need) or on a DSLR (where I prefer 135mm when going longer).telenous said:
If you are interested here are a few shots http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/1462059/1 using my 85mm and various digital bodies. Personally I don't think the 85mm is that hard to focus properly be it with a digital or film body Nikon. This is assuming you are doing wide apeture (or used to doing wide apeture/macro) work by manually placing your focus point where it need be. I don't find any AF body (speaking to the Nikon D70, D100, D200, F65, F80, F100, and F5) accurate enough to reliably (reliable = 75% of shots with the focus point where you want in my mind) handle an 85mm lens at 1.8 much less 1.4.
As far as rangefinders go, I've never used a lens longer than 50mm with one.
James Brannan
Established
Let me add one thing. If you just want longer for the reduced DOF and don't want to spend a fortune and have a body that will meter with whatever is thrown on it then I'd suggest looking for a Vivitar t-mount 135mm f/3.5 on eBay (also under the Ponder and Bends brand name). This lens wide open still has enough DOF (for me) that I don't have to be too careful in placing the focal point (or bracket focus as I do with some lenses), is the equal of the Nikon 85mm 1.8D in sharpness at any apeture (although it gives slightly lower contrast/ both copies I own have uncoated elements), does a great job of eliminating distracting backgrounds, and even gives a quite unique "film like" look on digital bodies IMO. They can often be found in near new shape for practically nothing.
It's a very compact lens. Here it is mounted on a small digital (D100) body...
Nothing earth shattering but here is what I consider a typical shot wide open with it using the same camera...
It's a very compact lens. Here it is mounted on a small digital (D100) body...
Nothing earth shattering but here is what I consider a typical shot wide open with it using the same camera...
Nachkebia
Well-known
Strangly enough it is very hard for me to focus, even on the bright light 
though with rangefinder I can focus in every situation without even thinking about focus
though with rangefinder I can focus in every situation without even thinking about focus telenous said:Well, that's the seven hundred quid question! I dunno, at less than the price of a new Planar ZF one can get a used Summicron 90 or two used Nikkors AIS.
My FM3a has the standard splitprism. Generally it is easy to use - admittedly, it is not so easy with low light. But that's the time of the rangefinder
Rico
Well-known
I don't see myself using an RF for tele, particularly since I already have the lovely CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 in Contax/Yashica mount. When paired with an Aria or 139Q, one has a picture-taker of RF proportions and framing is trivial. Off-center focus and DOF eval is easy with proper GG screen. Size advantage for RF is lost on the long end.
telenous
Well-known
Thanks very much for all the input here - Suggestions and ideas came in thick and fast. The thing of course is that I remain undecided on the matter, with each side of the argument being alternately appealing.
Let me summarize the plot:
Medium long lenses for rangefinders allow snappier, more decisive, and arguably more accurate focusing, on the condition of course that the rangefinder is accurately calibrated. Use of slower speeds should also be on the cards, so rangefinders are the kings of low light in that focal lenght as well.
Medium long lenses for manual SLRs provide crucial information for depth of field and they can be more reassuring as you focus on exactly what you see. Also, faster lenses result in brighter viewfinders and hence easier focusing. They are heavy but the weight advantage enjoyed by RF lenses is not so pronounced (if at all) here. I am not sure if there is a price advantage to SLR lenses, prices appear to be variable, so perhaps not (although it is interesting to note that the Zeiss Sonnar 85 ZM costs practically twice as much as the Zeiss Planar 85 ZF).
As is usually the case I think one does not know if one does not try first. I am thinking of getting a used SLR Nikkor 85 for a while (the f1.8 seems cheap and able), use it alongside my Elmarit 90, and see where it goes from there.
Many thanks again,
Let me summarize the plot:
Medium long lenses for rangefinders allow snappier, more decisive, and arguably more accurate focusing, on the condition of course that the rangefinder is accurately calibrated. Use of slower speeds should also be on the cards, so rangefinders are the kings of low light in that focal lenght as well.
Medium long lenses for manual SLRs provide crucial information for depth of field and they can be more reassuring as you focus on exactly what you see. Also, faster lenses result in brighter viewfinders and hence easier focusing. They are heavy but the weight advantage enjoyed by RF lenses is not so pronounced (if at all) here. I am not sure if there is a price advantage to SLR lenses, prices appear to be variable, so perhaps not (although it is interesting to note that the Zeiss Sonnar 85 ZM costs practically twice as much as the Zeiss Planar 85 ZF).
As is usually the case I think one does not know if one does not try first. I am thinking of getting a used SLR Nikkor 85 for a while (the f1.8 seems cheap and able), use it alongside my Elmarit 90, and see where it goes from there.
Many thanks again,
Nachkebia
Well-known
telenous : I would not recommend buying f/1.8 version, even if it is cheaper... get AFD f/1.4 and not AI-S version, it is the best 85mm that nikon has ever created