|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes we all become too interested in the camera body because that is where most of the gadgets are. But it is the lens that makes the picture and most often the lens has a more direct influence on the eventual image quality 'output'. If economy is a consideration, you should consider buy a less expensive camera body rather than less expensive lenses. If you buy a SLR camera with only one lens is also not logical because you might as well buy a cheaper camera with a fixed, non-interchangeable lens like a P&S. But modern lenses has such fantastic features such as high power zoom with previously unimaginable zoom range which actually makes a single-lens-do-all photographic system viable. All those messages posted on the variuos Message Boards for SLR Models are not short of interesting comment and remarks on lenses. Well, not to confuse others who are just interested in cameras, I thought there is a neccessity for a separate Message Board for those who are interested in discussion on various issues on lenses as well..
Unlike the Message designed for camera of various makes, this MB is one-for-all type and thus I hope this section can be maintained as a peaceful zone. The maintainer of this site reserved all the right to censor or even delete any un-related, excessively hostile messages posted herein. This site is specifically created just for lenses. If your intention is to dispose your optics or looking for any used unit, please use the Free Trade Zone site instead. The Photography In Malaysia has no Guestbook on its own, because it is an integral part of the MIR site. But if you want to leave a note on your experience visiting this site, you may use the MIR's MIR Guestbook | instead.
Add a Posting to the Message Board
A kind reminder: Please do not misuse of this message board system.
Canon Manual Focus FL-mount Lenses | FD(n) Manual Focus Lenses | Autofocus EF Lenses
| Nikon RF-Nikkor Lenses | Nikon Manual Focus Nikkor Lenses | Autofocus (AF) Nikkor Lenses
| Olympus OM Zuiko Lenses | Contax T* Lenses
Url : http://
Date : 12:44 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
I recently purchased a Canon FD 35-105MM lens that has some slight marks in the fron lens that look almost like dried rain drops. I've tried cleaning it with lens tissue and lens cleaner and they don't seem to come out. I'm hesitant to rub to hard in fear of damaging the lens. Is this what they refer to as "fungus" on the lens? Is there any way to correct this if it is? Thanks for the feedback. PS Have not developed any film from it as of yet so I don't know if it affects the photo's.2. From : Michael (michael1597@xstream.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 12:44 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
teresting. The 105s get all the accolades but this lens is much more subtle though it does slightly lack that sharp snap of the 105. It's small and has very good speed but the look of the glass is different from any other Nikkor, very high quality look similar to Zeiss. The rendition of contrast is quite the best I have seen, so what gives? this is a very beautiful lens to have.3. From : Thomas (thomas@rovingsociety.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:44 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
Thanks for all the answers re. my initial post about lenses in the 200mm region. I did not mean to compare brands because I know that takes us nowhere, sorry if my first posting seems like I wanted to. Also I know that "bad" zoom lenses can take very good images, I once had a cheap 28-70 no name lens, taking macro photos of insects at more than 1x magnification when combined with a set of extension rings, and a Kenko 2x Teleconverter. Add electronic flash, stop down to f/22, and some of the images don't show any evidence that they were taken with such an "inferior" equipment (even when scanned to highest res. with a drum scanner.) Well that zooms lens (and the Cosina SLR that I had with it) fell in pieces after about 2-3 years so I learned my lesson. The very same Cosina camera has now been heavily modified as a viewfinder camera and is sold with great success as the new Voigtländer with that famous 15mm wideangle lens and is, from what I heard, a very good camera with very good lenses at very sensible prices. Of course, a lot of optical problems (like distortion) are not visible in such a macro shot. I should probably write some more detailed questions about the 200mm lens issue. For example, I do take architectural shots, so I am worried about too much distortion which I of course already have experienced with zoom lenses. Surely anyone already has tried architectural images with e.g. a Nikkor 80-200mm 4.0 (even if he would have preferred to have a set of primes with him during that occasion)? I know that a prime is a better choice, but for now I just want to buy one lens, still I am just curious how that 20-year-old zoom holds up against the primes in that respect. To Apostolos, I have a very old 50mm 1.4 but I very much prefer to use my Micro Nikkor 55mm 3.5 or the 35mm 2.0 AI whenever possible. I never had the 50mm 1.8 or 2.0, and my 50mm 1.4 is a very old design (Nikkor-C) so of course the coating is very inferior to later renditions of that lens, but I don't know if the lens design itself was ever changed? Anyway, my 50mm 1.4 gives images which don't lack any sharpness or contrast when stopped down (compared to e.g. the Micro Nikkor), at 1.4 it seems a bit soft and contrast is clearly lower. The 1.4 is not usable for any kind of close-up reproductions, which I think can be done with the 1.8 (of course no issue if you have a Micro Nikkor anyway), although if you reverse the 1.4 lens I found it can take very good macro images in nature. With distant photos, vignetting is very low and the main problem of my lens is false light and generally lower contrast when shooting against the sunlight, but this of course is directly related to the inferior coating of my old lens. Generally, I would opt for the 1.8 if I would not need the extra power of the 1.4, but isn't that the point of 50mm lenses? With many regards, Thomas.4. From : Apostolos (apostolosrokkas@ath.forthnet.gr)
Url : http://
Date : 12:43 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
##To Thomas, and everyone concerned## It seems I need to clarify a few of my points: 1. By my thesis on lens testing and comparison I definately mean "don't get consumed in lens testing" rather than "don't talk about lens technical issues".Most primes available three decades now by all major manufacturers are good enough to deliver fine pictures. It's all right to ask for other people's opinion before you go at the stores. I posted a question about a lens at the end of my previous message, too. But I think getting absorbed in comparing brands will get us nowhere. Each brand, each lens in every brand's product line,has its own pros and cons. Discussion over those pros and cons and tips on how to use a certain lens more creatively is the most fruitful thing to do, but side by side brand comparison, I think it'a waste of time. Optical performance is difficult to judge, given that most modern lenses achieve high resolution. So, after asking some people who's opinion counts for you, see for yourself,trust your eyes and form your judgement accordingly. Don't get disappointed if you read infavorable articles or comments about a lens you love. If you like a lens, keep it, regardless price, brand status etc. What's important too, is that most viewers can't tell a thing about the lens quality. Intrestingly, non-photography related viewers found my AF Nikkor 35-80 F4-5,6 too sharp(!!!). Viewers just see the picture, nothing more. 2.Zooms are getting better and better but a cheap or fairly affordable zoom is still inferior to a prime in terms of optical performance and other merits, such as fast aperture. There are high performing zooms, like the 28-70 f2,8 and 80-200 f2,8 made by Nikon, Canon, Minolta etc, but can the average amateur afford them? Or better, who are those lenses made for? I think these lenses are for reporters rather than landscape and macro shooters. However, deciding which lenses to buy is highly related with the special interests of the photographer. If any-time readiness and portability are most important, then an autofocus zoom fits best, because if you don't take the picture, then nothing else matters. I'm a still life, close-up, portrait and night photographer. Thus, I have plenty of time to focus, arrange composition and lighting, plus I need large apertures and things like detail, contrast, rich color or greyscale count most for my shots. Obviously, manual primes are the ones for me. Thank you.5. From : TomR (trigilano@singerfru.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:42 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
MC Lau - Thanks, its always good to have one's curiosity sated. Not at all confused, you hit my question dead on.6. From : MC (mclau@pc.jaring.my)
Url : http://
Date : 12:42 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
Are zoom lenses inherently inferior compared to their equvalent fixed focal prime lenses? Considering, the complexity of lens design and the efforts that are required to correct for the many aberrations (There are 7 basic types of abberration involved in a lens design: spherical, coma, astigmatism, field curvature, distortion, chromatic and lateral colours.), and that a zoom lens has to be corrected for all these abberations at each and every focal lengths (theoretically speaking), I am inclined to say "yes". Indeed, if we were to dwell on the complexities and compromises involved in the design of an optical system, we will be extremely surprised and pleased to have a zoom lens at all in the very first place! However, in his book "A History of the Photographic Lens", Rudolf Kingslake wrote " ....thanks to the computer optimization programs now available, most zoom lenses yield an image quality close to that of a normal lens having the same focal length and aperture". And that was written in 1989. Now, with the advances in computer thechnology, and computer aided manufacturing, I have no doubts that leading lens manufactuers are capable of producing zoom lensed equal to the prime lenses in image quality. Indeed, Leica claimed that their APO 70-180 f2.8 lens is equal, if not better, in all respectes compared to the prime fixed focal length lenses in its zoom range. No such claim were made on their previous zooms. But that lens cost you a fortune! Having the capability to produce a top notch zoom lens is one thing, producing a top notch marketable zoom lens is another. It is therefore not surprising to note that lens manufacturers are producing mostly consumer grade zoom lenses of medium speed as a compromise. But these lenses are not necessary bad tools, as long as the compromises are practical and sensible, and as long as we are aware of its strength and short comings. For instant, the AF Nikkor 24-120 f3.5-5.6 D lens is a sterling performer overall (for its price), but suffered from high distortion in its wide end. Unfortunately, Nikon did not tell us consumer this in their promotion literature, and the photographer who bought this lens mainly for achitectural photography will obviously be disappointed. But, for those who purchased this lens for general or travel photography were delighted by its images , portability and versatility. So, opinion on lens performance is relative, not absolute. And it depends on your type of photography and needs, among others. I felt that this Message Board will be much more beneficial to its users, if we could use the message board as a forum to , among others, exchange such valuable information based on your personal experience with your equiment, and offer rational advice to other fellow photographers. Sorry for the long post, and best of lights to you all !7. From : MC (mclau@pc.jaring.my)
Url : http://
Date : 12:41 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
######TO Thomas ####### Apostolos was obviously quoting one of my earlier posts in this MB, which was written some many months ago. I find your questions posted here both logical and sensible, and, No, I am not upset. Cheers, and best of lights.8. From : MC (mclau@pc.jaring.my)
Url : http://
Date : 12:41 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
######TomR######## The f-stop, or f-number, is a measurement of the area of the iris opening in a given lens. In fact it is inversely proportional to the size of the physical opening. By defination, the f-number is the number by which the focal length of the lens must be divided to give the iris diameter. To let in double the amount of light in relative to a choosen aperture, the opening must be opened to twice the area of the current iris opening (not twice the diameter, mind you!). if you work out the maths, the current diameter must be increased by a factor equal to the sqare root of 2, that is 1.414. To simplify matters, 1.4 is used. Now mutliply 2.8 with 1.4, you have 4 approx. Mutliply 4 with 1.4, you will get 5.6 and so on. So now you will see the series 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, ans so on. Still confused? I suggest you borrow a book from your local library on basics of phtotgraphy, that will help. Cheers.9. From : JWoods (centurywoods@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:41 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
#Thomas#: It is perfectly all right to use zoom lenses - although I don't enjoy too much with majority of them especially with the overall performance and built quality when directly compared them in specific focal length to focal length situations. I am using Nikon system, shifted from Minolta AF system and safe to conclude such remarks using comparison with another manufacturer. I do enjoy seeing this MB maintaining its status as transparent as possible in discussing all these hiccups of HOW one's feel about their lenses owned. I do own the few lenses you mentioned, the MF 180mm f2.8 ED is a gem among the pack, but I have disposed it in exchanged for the new AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f4 IF ED (After reading such a strong recommendation in this site..) and I do agreed it is a marvelous lens by any standard and easily one of the best AF Nikkor - except for its weight. Although the two zoom lenses you mentioned also enjoyed a fine reputation but it is really difficult to compare them with prime lenses of equivalent focal length. But as of why zoom lenses are so popular, it is like what you have pointed out, it is mobility and portability that has the edge over the prime focal length lenses. I do love to believe all those lovely data published on magazines and reviews (Making me believe either I am owning a classic or a rotten piece of plastic), but over the years, I have learnt to trust my visual judgment more and conserve my monies on something that I am more comfortable with. The Message Board, in this case, is very useful to permit us sharing mutual experiences regardless whether one is using a Nikon, Leica, Canon, Contax or Pentax system etc.. It helps to broaden our knowledge on other system as well. WHY Not ? But of cause, such convenience could lead to a possible danger of abusing its power and influent others' perception even on something that could be terribly bad (After all, no one likes to admit he has invested in something stupid, right ? Peace !10. From : TomR (trigilano@singerfru.com)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
Url : http://
Date : 12:40 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001
Can anyone help my curiosity? How are the numeric values for f-stops determined? I understand the relative differences in f-stops in terms of exposure values, i.e., if you open the aperture one full f-stop, you must half the time the shutter is open to maintain the exposure value. I'm just curious to know why twice the light of aperture f/4 ( in a 35mm format) receives the designation of aperture f/2.8.
Maintainers for Various Optic Message Board:
Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com); Greg Chappell (gregmchappell@nww.net), Luigi D. Sandon (cp@sandon.it); Ken Durling (kdurling@kendurling.net); Robert Glenn Middleton (the_redd_groyne@hotmail.co.uk)
In memory of Mr. Ken Durling (1951-2007)
who had served this board for the last 8-10 years with al his love and passion on photography.| Post a Message to the Message Board |
Canon Manula Focus FL-mount Lenses | FD(n) Manual Focus Lenses | Autofocus EF Lenses
| Nikon Manual Focus Nikkor Lenses | Autofocus AF-Nikkor Lenses
| Olympus OM Manual Focus Zuiko Lenses | Contax T* Lenses
Back to Message Board of
Various Optics
Disposing/Looking
for New/Used photographic equipment
Various Brands of Optics
Administrator Page
Home - Photography in Malaysia
Copyright © 2007. leofoo ®. MIR Web Development Team.
Version three Re-Programmed by our in-house Fairuz Sulaiman, improved from original version by Ang Seng Leong ,Yeak Ngai Siew, Rizal Yahya, Halimaton Yahya (Members of the MIR Web Development Team)MIR Guestbook On-line. Developed & Copyright � 2001 by MIR Communications Sdn. Bhd.
