The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

My D50 has a lot of sensor dust since I change lenses a lot.

Anyone have good experience using any sensor dust removers? I see a lot of them are designed to make contact with the sensor (!!!!!). Scary! I was wondering if using something that makes compressed air would work...

[stuartr]

Compressed air is a bad solution. Those canned air things have far too much force. It can also induce a charge at the sensor which will actually INCREASE the amount of dust on your sensor. The most basic thing you can use is a bulb blower (the giottos rocket blowers are good), but they mostly just blow the dust around. The best things to use first the bulb blower, and then specially made sensor cleaners or sensor brushes like the ones from Visible Dust. They have a lot of information on cleaning at their site: VisibleDust - DSLR Camera Sensor Cleaning
They work really well. The downside is that they are quite expensive. The upside is that they are cheaper than replacing your sensor!

But don't be too worried about the tools that touch the sensor...if you do it carefully, it is fine. It is covered in glass, which is rather sturdy stuff.

[Towert7]

Thank you very much Stuartr. I just ordered the rocket blower. If that does not remove enough dust, I'll proceed to the sensor brushes.

[Csidinim]

about visible brush- many believe (and performed comparison tests to show) it is simply a nylon bristle brush, flat edge, identical to one that you can purchase at any art store for under 10 bucks. since it is plastic, giving it a few blasts of air with a bulb blower will naturally build a static charge on the bristles which vd markets as some sort of unique feat. what you would need to do to prepare it though, is clean it thoroughly with dish soap to remove manufacturing contaminants. a sensor brush helps, but you shouldn't need to perform contact cleaning all that often so set expenses accordingly.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I am really liking the Sigma 24-60 I got recently from Cameta's dirt-cheap clearence. It makes for a nice standard range on the D200 (36-90), and has sharper corners, faster focus, and better build quality than the Tamron 17-50 I returned to Best Buy. I'm not so sure I'll keep my 35f2 with this lens around, as I rarely feel the need to swap out lenses for only one more f-stop. Perhaps if it were a 1.4....

[milkpowder]

I stumbled across a gem of a camera shop today whilst walking around. They had a lot of very nice discontinued gear. I was like a kid in a toy shop for the first time! So I quickly asked to try a few lens: 50/1.8 AI, 50/1.8 AI-S, 50/1.4 AI, 35/2 AI-S, 28/2.8 AI-S and last but not least the 35/2 AF-D.

I was immediately put off by the cheap build of the 35/2 AF-D. Having used one before, I don't recall it being as plasticy as this. Next to the AI-S and AI, the AF-D feels like a toy. How I wish Nikon would build lens the same way... Optically and cosmetically, all of them were in very good condition. There was no way for me to test them so I made a calculated gamble and took the 50/1.8 AI home with me. The reason I didn't get the AI-S was because the AI-S has a plastic focussing ring whilst the AI is full metal. The 50/1.4 AI was a couple times more expensive and I've read that it isn't as good as the F/1.8. The 28/2.8 AI-S is tad too slow but it was the price which put me off. The 35/2 AI-S was completely mint and felt very nice, but again it was quite pricey. I wasn't quite ready to shell out $300 on a old lens just yet!

Initial impressions:

• Towert7, you've been harping on about how sharp primes are. Now I believe you!!! Wide open, it's as soft as cotton but there is a major improvement at F/2 and onwards.
• I love how well built it is. The focus ring is a bit stiff but isn't really a problem. Let's just call it "aggressively dampened"
• It doesn't give aperture, focal length data to EXIF.
• Only does spot metering? (camera info and brief shooting/experimentation confirms this) IMO a waste of the D300's advanced metering sensor.
• Manual focus is challenging but made easier by the "aggressively damped" focus ring Getting a perfectly in-focus shot becomes a very rewarding experience!
• Very visible CA wide-open. Haven't really tested extensively at other apertures but it seems improve somewhat when stopped down.
• I love the aperture ring; I finally understand how to use the DOF button! That said, I'm still learning how to control DOF. I never knew F/2.8 and smaller apertures had such a shallow focus.

Conclusion? I've really fallen in love with the build quality, aperture ring, contrast and sharpness. The 60/2.8 AF-S is still on my really-WTB list, but since today, I find myself really wanting the 35/2 AI-S. My wallet is empty though and won't be replenished until at least two months time. I'm praying that the 35/2 AI-S will still be there because I really want one! Does anyone know if the AI-S can focus as closely as the AF-D?


Here's a snapshot taken on the way home. I apologise for the out of focus bits, but I can't quite judge DOF accurately just yet, especially when it was so dark! There are a 'hundred things' wrong with the photo not counting the poor focus, but I am really amazed at how great the detail and contrast is! The bits in-focus look so crisp and life-like! If the light was better I'm sure the results would've even been better...


Click to Enlarge. 1600x1200

[M0T0XGUY]

Yeah, that shot looks pretty sharp to me. I'm assuming, based on your assessment of the wideopen quality, that it was taken around f/2.8? Either way, it's cool that you chose to go with a manual-focus only lens. I've been meaning to check out some older, cheaper AI and AI-S lenses, but I don't think I have the skill level yet to walk away with consistently sharp shots; regardless of focus indicator.

For what it's worth though, I don't mind the build quality of the 35 AF-D and other's like it. It's not an all metal tank like some of the older lenses, but it gets the job done at the end of the day; and the focus ring is as smooth as butter on mine.

EDIT: After you shoot with it some more, can you give a general assessment on its ability to control flare? It seems strange that such an indirectly lit subject would cause such an issue, but then again I've seen worse things in this respect.

[stuartr]

One thing you will probably notice with use is that older high speed lenses tend to be sharper at a distance when they are wide open. Your shot does not look particularly sharp to me, but that is probably the fact that you are not using the lens for what it was designed for. The old 50/1.4's are going to be soft at close focus when wide open. The aberrations in the lens multiply at the closest distances and it will lead to softness. This is why they created things like floating elements, aspherical elements and "Close Range Correction". If you try it at 2m or greater, you will probably find it to be significantly sharper.

Build quality is what it is...it is nice to have, but it is not always directly related to image quality. Some old Nikon lenses are vastly superior in build quality to new Nikon lenses, but most of the new lenses are better optical performers. If you really want to see build quality, take a look at the old Nikon rangefinder lenses. Or Leica lenses from the same era...or C series Hasselblads for that matter. The ultimate build quality in cameras are with pretty esoteric companies like Alpa and Linhof.

[Towert7]

Glad to see you are enjoying your new 50/1.8 AI. I've never used the older AI or AI-S lenses, though I have had experience with the way they feel from other companies.

You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects.

I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55).

The 85mm F/1.8 AF-D has the same build quality of the 35mm AF-D, and that works like a dream too. In fact, it's some of the older lenses that I didn't like the feel of. My old 35-70mm push pull is a pain to work with, and the M-A ring on the 60mm F/2.8 is a pain.

Towert7, you've been harping on about how sharp primes are. Now I believe you!!! Wide open, it's as soft as cotton but there is a major improvement at F/2 and onwards.

Glad to see you are enjoying it. I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all.
My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm!

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

Yeah, that shot looks pretty sharp to me. I'm assuming, based on your assessment of the wideopen quality, that it was taken around f/2.8? Either way, it's cool that you chose to go with a manual-focus only lens. I've been meaning to check out some older, cheaper AI and AI-S lenses, but I don't think I have the skill level yet to walk away with consistently sharp shots; regardless of focus indicator.

I guess it comes with practice. There's no doubt it is incredibly difficult... I'll be 'focus-bracketing' just in case

For what it's worth though, I don't mind the build quality of the 35 AF-D and other's like it. It's not an all metal tank like some of the older lenses, but it gets the job done at the end of the day; and the focus ring is as smooth as butter on mine.

Oh, the 35/2 AF-D is very well built. It just doesn't feel as robust. I would have no quirms with owning one considering the amazing reviews.

EDIT: After you shoot with it some more, can you give a general assessment on its ability to control flare? It seems strange that such an indirectly lit subject would cause such an issue, but then again I've seen worse things in this respect.

Sure thing.

Originally Posted by stuartr

One thing you will probably notice with use is that older high speed lenses tend to be sharper at a distance when they are wide open. Your shot does not look particularly sharp to me, but that is probably the fact that you are not using the lens for what it was designed for. The old 50/1.4's are going to be soft at close focus when wide open. The aberrations in the lens multiply at the closest distances and it will lead to softness. This is why they created things like floating elements, aspherical elements and "Close Range Correction". If you try it at 2m or greater, you will probably find it to be significantly sharper.

Build quality is what it is...it is nice to have, but it is not always directly related to image quality. Some old Nikon lenses are vastly superior in build quality to new Nikon lenses, but most of the new lenses are better optical performers. If you really want to see build quality, take a look at the old Nikon rangefinder lenses. Or Leica lenses from the same era...or C series Hasselblads for that matter. The ultimate build quality in cameras are with pretty esoteric companies like Alpa and Linhof.

Thanks for the advice! I've noticed the 50/1.4 is able to resolve finer details than my 18-70. It's almost a let down whenever I view downsized photos because the very fine details are lost. It's a field day for 100% pixel peepers

Originally Posted by Towert7

You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects.

That has never crossed my mind. Hong Kong will never be cold enough for anything to really freeze but it does get quite chilly in Edinburgh during the winter.

I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55).

I'm not crazy about my 18-70's build quality. The front is slightly loose and that was part of the original design. I would say the 35/2 AF-D is much better built and if the 85/1.8 is similar then there's nothing 'wrong' with it either.

I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all.
My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm!

I considered AISs & AIs because of Bjørn Rørslett's reviews. It seems like he has a liking and at times, a preference for the older versions. Of course, the lack of support matrix metering, auto-focus, various shooting modes, etc may prove to be too basic or lmiting for some... That said, don't people tend to manually focus macros anyway?