Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : Craig Zander (craig_zander@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:24 AM Monday 22 May, 2006

28mm lens...f2.8 vs f2. I really want to get a 28mm lens fd lens for my AE1-P. And I see 28mm 2.8 lenses all the time. However, the f2 lens is not as common and about 3 or 4 times more in price! My question to member is: Other than the obvious 1 step in speed, is there any other advantage to getting the faster lens or should I just bite the bullet and just grab a f2.8? I really just want to know if there is a quality difference between the two lenses. Anyone have any thoughts?? Thanks

2. From : Vic (Vixwoodham@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:04 PM Saturday 20 May, 2006

Ken, Thankyou for that, thats helped me loads!!!!! Vic

3. From : Ken Durling (kdurling@comcast.net)
Url : http://
Date : 11:17 AM Thursday 18 May, 2006

OK, I thought so: http://tinyurl.com/ctkoy In fact I don't even see another Sigma 70-200. I've heard this is a nice lens. Ken

4. From : Ken Durling (kdurling@comcast.net)
Url : http://
Date : 09:39 AM Thursday 18 May, 2006

Vic - If you don't absolutely need the speed, I understand that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 is a very fine optic and much more affordable than either of the f/2.8 versions. It is a constant aperture, so may have an advantage over the slower Sigma which I'm not familiar with. Isn't there also a Sigma f/2.8? Ken

5. From : vic (vixwoodham@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:55 AM Thursday 18 May, 2006

I have a canon eos 300D and am looking to get a canon lens 70-200mm. I understand that the sigma is cheaper option but the aperture is slower, so i have ruled that lens out. However, would someone be able to advise me on what 70-200mm lens would be good. Im getting very confuused with the aray of the same lens but eg. MK III, or DG etc etc versions. Are they much the same as long as get one that is compatible with my camera? Many thanks!!!!!

6. From : matthew rangel (eznereyes@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 11:39 PM Wednesday 17 May, 2006

I have a AI Nikkor 200mm f4 lens that has a stiff focusing barrel. I was wondering what can be done to alieviate this and why this happens? Is there anything that I can do to fix this without having to send it in to someone who will charge me more than I paid for the lens?

7. From : jerry (answer@noname.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:43 PM Tuesday 16 May, 2006

older Nikkor-N 28mm f/2.0
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/wides/28mm.htm

8. From : vince (vazkoz@gmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 02:11 PM Tuesday 16 May, 2006

Hi. I have a lens nikon nikkor-N.C Auto 1:2 f=28mm but i coudn't find any information about this lens . I would really appreciate if someone could help me with more information. What means N.C?
Thanks a lot
Vince

9. From : Jan Bentz (jbentz@inreach.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:57 AM Wednesday 10 May, 2006

Rick -- I was very interested in what you said about the series of Soligors in the 1980 ad. I seems odd they would make both a 135 f/2.5 and a 135 f/2. I just checked my 200 f/2.8 and it does have the C/D on it. Maybe the OM version does not for some reason. That 100 f/2 sounds like a strange one.

I have tested both the 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8 against the 180mm f/2.8 Nikon wide open on the stars which is a very severe test. The 200 was sharpest in the center and about equal to the Nikon at the edge of the frame while the 135 was just a tad softer at both the center and edge than either but still very good. These were 10 sec on rigid mount with mirror lock up. I didn't increment the focus through infinity every few thousandths but I did take several with each very close to the infinity mark. There is probably a fair variation in quality from these cheaper lenses as opposed to OM or Nikon.

I have heard of a 35-105 zoom C/D that is the same mechanical construction as the others, don't know about the optical quality.

10. From : rick (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 09:29 AM Wednesday 10 May, 2006

Hi Jan: I have a Soligor 200/2.8 in OM mount; I also used to have the 100/2.0 from the same series. I think they're C/D lenses, but the 200 is not marked that way. I did a comparison with the 100/2.0 and an Olympus Zuiko 100/3.5 on a Pen F half-frame SLR and found the Soligor sharper than the Olympus when both were at f/4. The f/2 was a little soft wide open, though, and it only focused to 5 feet.... not as close as I'd like to get with a 100. I sold it after I got an OM 100/2.8 which is sharper and focuses to 1 meter.

The 200/2.8 I think is similar in personality: a little soft wide open but competitive with slower lenses once it's stopped down to their speeds. I've never done a similar comparison between the 200 and another 200mm lens to check it out though.

This lens series (according to an ad in the December 1980 Modern Photography) included a 400/5.6, a 300/4.5, a 135/2.5 and a couple of wide angles in addition to the 100 and 200. All of the lenses look similar except for the 100/2.0, which looks as though it was made by someone else and private labeled... everything from the engraving to the rubber focus grip is different in that lens from all of the others.

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216