NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku?
Of course I was talking about the 2.5(thread starter) ....The 1.8 is much better but at a much steeper price.raid amin said:
Sorry for the confusion,
Kiu
BTW I only paid $100 for my 2.5 LTM!
Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM Test shot
- Thread starter ericzhu
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 51
- Views 4K
- Status
Sorry for the confusion,
Kiu
BTW I only paid $100 for my 2.5 LTM!
raid
Dad Photographer
NIKON KIU said:
Still, where can I get the 35mm/2.5 for $200? Lucky you!
dexdog
Veteran
don't feed the trolls...
raid
Dad Photographer
merciful said:
Wow! I pass. Some people make such lenses into impossible deals for most of us.
doubs43
Well-known
gabrielma said:
??????????
VinceC
Veteran
That's a steep price. But the 1.8 is one of Nikon's best lenses ever. But I'd say there are plenty of LTM close equivalents by other makers at much more reasonable prices.
back alley
IMAGES
i think the 200 buck reference was to the 2.5 raid.
joe
joe
raid
Dad Photographer
back alley said:
Joe: Yes, this is the case. I have the Canon 35mm/1.8 and I am quite happy with it. If I sold the Canon lens then I would look for a Nikon [or Canon if I can't find one]. It is just for a change.
Madrigal
Three-Shot Rose
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd.Hanz
interesting opinion(s) you have there, trollish but interesting.
Todd
I love a challenge, as well as a good argument. Alas, I own not a single piece of Leica glass, but I don't take such opinions about my Nikon gear personally. Good grief. The only reason I am here on this forum is to learn. Period. I want as many different opinions as possible. Then, if I can't make up my own damn mind, it's just a rather expensive paperweight in my hands, afterall.
Anyway, I think he has a point. After all of the different lens comparisons here and in the Optics Forum, I have been made to think. Meanwhile, I go out and refine my skills in this most technical and humbling of art forms.
Originally Posted by Todd.Hanz
interesting opinion(s) you have there, trollish but interesting.
Todd
This is so off-the-wall. I see nothing wrong with Leica_Magus's comments. The man merely stated his opinion. That doesn't make him a "troll" or even "trollish", just because it's possibly not to my liking. Not by a long shot. The world would be a positively boring place if absolutely everyone did nothing but compliment and pat each other on the back.doubs43 said:
I love a challenge, as well as a good argument. Alas, I own not a single piece of Leica glass, but I don't take such opinions about my Nikon gear personally. Good grief. The only reason I am here on this forum is to learn. Period. I want as many different opinions as possible. Then, if I can't make up my own damn mind, it's just a rather expensive paperweight in my hands, afterall.
Anyway, I think he has a point. After all of the different lens comparisons here and in the Optics Forum, I have been made to think. Meanwhile, I go out and refine my skills in this most technical and humbling of art forms.
Last edited:
dexdog
Veteran
Madrigal said:
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Sorry, but that was pure troll. I own Leica, Canon, Steinheil, and FSU glass. Heck, I'm actually interested in getting much more Stienheil -VL glass. All have thier pluses and their minuses. His "opinion" was worthless at it's best. His commentary was as pure a bit of racism as I have encountered in a very long time.
There is more difference in technique than in any two lenses made to the same general design - just look to the multitude of Tessar clones for proof. I do, as I love the general look that _all_ of them share - whether made by Ziess (Tessar), Leica (Elmar), FSU (Various Industars), or Canon or Nikon or Steinheil or Kodak ... or... or... anyone else whoever made a Tessar clone. All will have certain things in common due to the simple laws of physics, utterly irregardless of the manufacturer or where said manufacturer is physically located. Period. His "opinions" can not change facts.
William
There is more difference in technique than in any two lenses made to the same general design - just look to the multitude of Tessar clones for proof. I do, as I love the general look that _all_ of them share - whether made by Ziess (Tessar), Leica (Elmar), FSU (Various Industars), or Canon or Nikon or Steinheil or Kodak ... or... or... anyone else whoever made a Tessar clone. All will have certain things in common due to the simple laws of physics, utterly irregardless of the manufacturer or where said manufacturer is physically located. Period. His "opinions" can not change facts.
William
back alley
IMAGES
Madrigal said:
it isn't what's said.
it's HOW it's said.
joe
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
OtherHalf
Newbie
As a long time lurker I have this to say,
Interesting that this man stated his opinion and suddenly some of you call him a troll! It is utter nonsense for someone to state "it isn't what's said.it's HOW it's said." I find it unfortunate that small minds have issues when a creative soul finds a tool that enables them to reach a new plateau. Fact is that you neither liked what he said and HOW he said it is irrelevant . To me (Insert my opinion) we should stick to the point on what he said and anything else is trolling on your parts.
:bang: :bang: :bang:
Mike
Interesting that this man stated his opinion and suddenly some of you call him a troll! It is utter nonsense for someone to state "it isn't what's said.it's HOW it's said." I find it unfortunate that small minds have issues when a creative soul finds a tool that enables them to reach a new plateau. Fact is that you neither liked what he said and HOW he said it is irrelevant . To me (Insert my opinion) we should stick to the point on what he said and anything else is trolling on your parts.
:bang: :bang: :bang:
Mike
back alley
IMAGES
well, that's how this small minded moderator sees it.
and if you honestly can't see the importance of how, well, i feel sorry for ya.
joe
and if you honestly can't see the importance of how, well, i feel sorry for ya.
joe
doubs43
Well-known
OtherHalf said:
Mike, this particular poster has, on many occasions, "stated his opinion" and it's gotten to be a broken record. If it ain't Leitz glass it's junk is the repeated message. So far no one has risen to the bait and had an open argument about it. No one here is giving him the satisfaction of an argument now. Anyone who believes that one specific manufacturer has a monopoly on quality lenses has a closed mind and anyone who debates the point with that person is wasting their time.
I agree with Todd that the post was a troll. If that makes me "small minded" in your opinion then so be it. But before you condemn us all, take some time to research this poster's past comments. You may change your mind.
Walker
W
wlewisiii
Guest
OtherHalf said:
Mike,
I was going to be subtle. Fubar that. The yahoo (look up the original definition, please) in question needs his mommy or daddy to give him a spanking.
Sometimes it really is that simple. This is such a case.
When he becomes a teenager, he's welcome to join us. But until we can believe he's 13 years old, in the US at least, we're legally required not to let him post without his mommy or daddy's sayso... 😱
:angel:
William
dexdog
Veteran
ALERT: ATTEMPTED THREAD HIJACK
Wlewisiii, I have a few steinheil lenses in M42 mount that I use with my Contax S. I have not used any in RF mouts, but the M42s are fine lenses/great performers on the Contax SLR. Thanks in part to the excellent and very cheap Steinheil lenses I have had to battle GAS for a number of Contax S lenses
Wlewisiii, I have a few steinheil lenses in M42 mount that I use with my Contax S. I have not used any in RF mouts, but the M42s are fine lenses/great performers on the Contax SLR. Thanks in part to the excellent and very cheap Steinheil lenses I have had to battle GAS for a number of Contax S lenses
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
back alley
IMAGES
your characterizations have been rude.
re-read your own posts.
and they are innacurate. if you are seeing a difference in lenses it can mostly be attributed to the difference between an rf lens and an slr lens and the deisign limitations for the slr.
re-read your own posts.
and they are innacurate. if you are seeing a difference in lenses it can mostly be attributed to the difference between an rf lens and an slr lens and the deisign limitations for the slr.
- Status
Similar threads
