don't want to post a good scan sample?Originally Posted by faberryman
hmmm...
well, send me the negative
don't want to post a good scan sample?
hmmm...
well, send me the negative
The fixation on lines per mm and contrast numbers alone means much of NOTHING in real world expressive image making. What IS fact, focusing on numeric metrics alone to determine optics performance is simply myopic and inadequate.
This is also common for individuals who are more curious about techno-tinkering than expressive image making.
With about zero that will alter the mind-set of individuals like this.. Not amusing in any way, just mental masturbation for those who enjoy stuff like this.
Bernice
Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
I also vote for that, a well scanned crop of a distant shot, showing what's between the 210 circle and the 810 corner, who have that sample?
Well, photography (as we may understand it...) has an artistic and a technical side. A true artist may never be concerned about what mtf is, while he may fall in love with a glass after viewing an image. Incredible shots are usually made by incredible artists, this is about creativity, expression and other things I don't completely understand...
I the other side photography has a technical side, optical measurements can be irrelevant for practical photography, but there is nothing wrong in using that information to understand how a lens works, and to compare. At the end it's a personal choice to explore the technical side or not, what's clear is that the technology a lens has it's amazing, and how optical concepts evolved in the time alongside with aesthetics it's also something very interesting.
One of the (IMHO) most important shots AA made (Monolith, Face of Half Dome, the Zone System genesis) was made with a really crappy bulk of glass (an Adon). A true artist will get a sound result even if using the bottom of a coke bottle as the lens. But IMHO discussing technical features of lenses is not wrong at all. That perhaps it's not about art, but at least it's about photography.
I read the specs from Nikon and it appeared to me that the 360/500/720 doesn’t cover 810 to the degree I would need it to. Plus I already have a 360 and 450. No interest here in adding to any internet “facts” about a lens I don’t have any experience with, simply wanted to let the OP know that image quality of the convertible Nikkor lens I use was equal to the Nikkor “primes” and to beware of errors in exposure that using such lens can bring as the front element is the same no matter what length one has on the back.
Another reason to just never look at these forum sites. Extremely tiresome, and apologies for being involved.
Thanks for answering the question.
IMHO this discussion may be boring, but also it can clarify what kind of 810 usage may allow (or not) the 360/500/720, when you purchased the 600/800 you had to make a guess: "it appeared to me that the 360/500/720 doesn’t cover 810 to the degree I would need it to". If then you would have had that information from a reliable source that would had been nice. Just pointing that these forum sites are also an amazing vault of knowledge. Personally I've learned a lot here, sometimes from making wrong statements and being corrected.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/n...enses_141A.pdf
This is a pdf of the brochure I have here. Page 9 & 10 give image circle as 210mm. I suppose I will be called a fool by some for trusting Nikon on this, but so be it.
Well, if you read the previous posts there are people recomending T 720 for 810, aganist Nikon specs, because that I was asking it to you, as T set owner you could know it...
Some lenses have an illumination circle that's way larger than the "technically good" image circle, those lenses can be used in a larger than the intended format if the corners are to be OOF anyway, doesn´t it ?
The question was if the T 360/500/720 corners in 810 are "acceptable with limitations" or not, or if at least it can be used for near objects of for some shots with no detail in the corners, with sky there, for example.
Of course it would cover for close up work, one can use a 135 Xenar if you get close enough. How you expect me to know anything first hand about a lens I have not used is beyond me. I’m talking about quality of the 600/800 compared to the prime lenses, and about handling concerns with a convertible lens which were new to me and completely unexpected, namely exposing with the belief that one cell was on when another actually was, or using the wrong aperture scale on the shutter accidentally. The OP was interested in opinions on the 360/500/720 T-ED set and I believed this information could be helpful to him, as the handling would be the same. Since the lenses share some design I thought the findings on quality might be relevant.
Fuzzy corners annoy me. I’ve sold lenses for this reason. I have not found fuzzy corners with the 600/800, which Nikon specs for 810. I have not ever seen a 360/500/720 in the flesh, I simply took Nikon at their word that it wouldn’t cover 810 when I went looking for some longer reach than the 450. I am pickier than many when it comes to lenses, so I am not one to believe what I hear random people say online about lenses. I prefer to use them myself to be sure they will work for me. With a lens of this price I made the decision to go for the one with published tech specs that seemed more likely to satisfy my needs.
Interesting to watch all the quoting of spec sheets while some are successfully using the 720 version for 8x10 images.
” Never attribute to inspiration that which can be adequately explained by delusion”.
And many successfully use long expired film. Not my cup of tea.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks