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

1. From : Thomas (thomas@rovingsociety.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:39 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

To Apostolos and MCLau. I am sorry if I upset you with my inferior questions on what lenses to buy. I thought this is a discussion forum for people who buy and use lenses and seek for advice? That's how other message boards work, anyway. "Buy a set of primes and forget zooms" does not work for me, it is sometimes very impractical to carry 5 prime lenses instead of 2 zooms. With many regards, Thomas.

2. From : Abn (cheerio_honeybee@yahoo.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:39 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

i just bought a canon 35-105 constant 3.5 and noticed that the seal in the first two element are partly missing. the seal are intact but someohow it misses about 2 cm of it. well my question is, is this a sign of the lens' elements might have been replace? and if they were are they usually canon original 35-105 elements? I don't want to have an off brand elements in my lens that is all. thank you !

3. From : Apostolos (apostolosrokkas@ath.forthnet.gr)
Url : http://
Date : 12:39 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

First of all, I agree with MCLau on his point about this MB turning into a comparison site for hardware consumers. Sure, we all have decisions to make on which lens we'll spend our money. Sure, hardware can cost a fortune and thus decision making becomes more critical. All this debate here reminds me of an article which I read on a Greek photo magazine. It was about a photography teacher who told his students to stop wasting time and money on film and harware comparison and use their time and energy to improve their skills instead. About my lenses experience: I 'm a Nikon user, and so far I have experienced the AF35-80 f4-5,6D and AF28-105 f3,5-4,5D IF on my F70, and 28 f2,8 , 50 f1,8 , 85 f1,4 and Micro 55 f2,8 , all Ai-S Nikkors on my FM2. Actually, I don't own the AF system any more. I didn't like the zooms I mentioned above. Low sharpness, low contrast, poor mechanical construction. Especialy the 28-105 seems to suffer by heavy flare and ghost image problems. I don't want to hurt feelings, since the 28-105 is very popular, but according to my experience, fine image quality can only obtained by using prime instead of zoom lenses. So, what I have to say about lenses is forget all this comparison mania, invest on a set of primes (Nikkors, Canons, whatever you and your budget like most) and focus on how to make the best out of them. By the way, has anyone used the Nikkor 50mm f1,4? I would like to know about how is this lens doing when shootind wide open and if it is any better than 50 f1,8 when stopped down. Thanks.

4. From : Thomas (thomas@rovingsociety.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:38 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

I'm looking to buy a used manual lens in the 200 mm range. Options include: 180/2.8, 200/4, 200/4 Micro, and 80-200/4 or 4.5 . I'd like to get opinions as to the optical quality of any of these lenses. I am on a rather tight budget so might forget about the 180/2.8 anyway. I am very interested in quality differences of the 80-200/4 in comparison to the fixed 200/4. The lens will be used for landscape shots, general reportage, and macro photography of dragonflies etc. so the added flexibility of zoom would be a benefit but I want best picture quality first. Now there a millions of new third party zoom lenses around which cover 70-210, 28-200, or 80-200, and so I also wonder how the rather old 80-200/4 compares to all these new designs? What about the older 80-200/4.5 which sometimes turns up at nice prices. Thanks for any replies and with regards from Germany, Thomas.

5. From : Steve Bakalos (stefan.bak@videotron.ca)
Url : http://
Date : 12:37 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Thanks GenHolst and Kai Pin, I appreciate the information and this confirms that my unit is in fact the latest AI none ED version. I purchased it for $300.00 (Near Mint with both original caps) I hope that this was a fair price. I've shot a few rolls with it and compared it to a 300mm IF-ED F4 that I already have and there is a difference in contrast especially. When looking at the front elements of both lenses however (other than the diameter difference) the glass coatings or greenish purplish reflections look the same. I understand that the Second front element is one of the ED elements in the AF 300mm IF-ED. Does a front ED element have a particular color characteristic? Thank you for your responses. Steve.

6. From : Kaipin (kaipinc@tm.net.my)
Url : http://
Date : 12:37 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

FOR STEVE: Only those Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 lenses with serial numbers having 19xxxx has the ED element in them. TO BABYFACE: This is just a reply to your posting and not a debate of any kind; It is only in the mind that the polycarbonate construction barrel of a lens, like the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, is fragile as compared to its manual focus counterpart. All AF lenses need to have two sections in their focusing constructions, one is for manual and the other for AF operations. This sort of construction gives the feeling that the internal section is somewhat loose and "fragile" to some users. On the older manual lenses, there is only one section used - for manual focus. And yes, the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is made in Thailand. Soon, some of the budget-priced Canon EF lenses will also be manufactured in Malaysia at the 10-year old lens manufacturing plant in Shah Alam.

7. From : Babeface (A30178@netscape.net)
Url : http://
Date : 12:36 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

kking#: I don't want to raise a debate, it is just a personal opinion. Current AF Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is believed to be Made in Thailand. No one doubts about its optical quality as magazine reviewers rated it among the best performers in the 50mm focal length class. The only discomfort to a guy like me is the lens construction seems very fragile if you use an older MF lens to compare it side by side. I love the MF version of 50mm f1.8 and find the current autofocus lenses are very much similar to those E lenses introduced many years back by Nikon (to be fair, this is NOT just a Nikon's problem but similar things are happening in the photographic industry as a whole). While on the other hand, price of a new 50mm f1.4 lens costs almost double that of a midrange camera 15 years ago. There must be something wrong somewhere. The manual focus Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is a fine performer optically but the best fact remains, since it is not an AF lens and price shouldn't be too expensive even for a mint condition unit. If I have a choice, I would rather take the manual focus version. Peace !

8. From : Genholst (Genholst@excite.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:36 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

#Steve#: Over the years, there should be be more than two versions of the AI 300mm f4.5. If I am not mistaken, the ED version has three in total, two being AI (ED and ED-IF) and the third was an AIS IF-ED (f4.0). Non-ED 300 f4.5 has even more, I understand there were actually 4 versions in total where the last two was just more on cosmetic while their optical formula was not been changed. Hope it helps.

9. From : KKking (adekoh@tm.net.my)
Url : http://
Date : 12:35 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

Does anyone know the different between Nikkor 50mm f1.8AF and 50mm f1.8 AI (MF) lens in term of quality, sharpness...etc.? Please let me know if you have try this two lenses before.

10. From : mark (mbach10074@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:35 AM Wednesday 25 April, 2001

I just bought a Canon FD 300mm 5.6 S.S.C. the lens does not say Flourite on it anywhere, is it a flourite lens, and does anyone know what it is worth.

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