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

1. From : ralph redding (rsredding1@juno.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:05 AM Monday 22 June, 2009

Question:

I have a NIKKORMAT FT3 with several lenses (AF, F bayonet mount???).

I am looking at a new NIKON D60 SLR Digital.

Will the older NIKKORMAT lenses fit the NIKON D60?

Thanks

2. From : nick matthews (nick@transportanswers.co.uk)
Url : http://
Date : 02:08 AM Sunday 21 June, 2009

Hi
A little help please?
I have recently come back to photograpghy and bought a Fuji S3 with Nikon mount.
Came across a Nikon Teleconverter TC-301 2X and bought it for a few pounds.
Purpose is to attach to a 300mm plus lens for sailing shots, I am ok with everything being manual, non of my more modern lenses will fit this as they are not deep enough to accept the convertor.
Would I be correct in thinking that only Nikon Ai lenses will fit?
Thoughts and guidance appreciated.
regards
Nick

3. From : Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 10:30 AM Wednesday 17 June, 2009

Hi Nancy:

I'm not positive, but I think I have a guess. Early Nikkor lenses were marked with a letter code indicating the number of elements, by the first letter of the Latin names of the numbers: Uni-, Bi-, Tri-, Quad-, Pent-, Hex-, Sept-, Oct-, Nov-, Dec- .... letters U through D representing 1 through 10 glass elements in the lens. The letter series did not accommodate numbers beyond 10.

The 15mm wide angle has 14 elements. Q and D are the code letters for 4 and 10 elements respectively, so I am guessing that QD is the Nikon letter code for 14 elements.

4. From : Nancy Zaleski (nzmail@juno.com)
Url : http://
Date : 07:37 AM Wednesday 17 June, 2009

I actually have a question and not a comment. I have a Nikon 15mm Auto QD.C f/3.5 lens that belong to my late husband who was a photographer. This site was helpful in giving me information I need on this lens, however, I have been asked and still cannot answer the question as to what "QD" stands for. (Understand the "C" relates to coating?) Any info. that can be provided on this would be helpful. Thanks.

5. From : Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 10:15 AM Wednesday 27 May, 2009

Hi Scott:

No, I'm afraid they are not.

In the interest of full disclosure, if you search on eBay, you will find adapters to use FD lenses on current Canon EOS film and digital cameras. These adapters are of 2 types, neither of which I consider entirely satisfactory, but opinions may differ.

The first type is a simple adapter ring with a male EOS mount at the rear and a female FD mount at the front. With this adapter, you will be able to mount your lens on a new camera. However, because the EOS camera body is thicker than the FD body, and to this you have to add the thickness of the adapter, the lens is farther from the film plane than it was on the FD camera. Therefore, it will not focus to infinity. How far short it falls from infinity focus will vary based on the particular adapter and also based on the focal length of the lens, with wide angle lenses being the most severely affected. If you have lenses that perform well close up, and if this limitation is acceptable to you, then these adapters will work. Of course, you don't get autofocus, and also the diaphragm will close as you stop the lens down, darkening the view in the finder.

The second type of adapter is similar to the above, but it has an added glass element in it which makes the lens focus to infinity. Unfortunately, the image degradation from this added element ranges from moderately bad to really awful, while at the same time its presence increases the cost of the adapter. It also magnifies the image, which exaggerates the already-present magnifying effect of the smaller image format of the digital camera ... and it also magnifies the unsharpness caused by the adapter. These, in my view, are unacceptable for any purpose. You also have manual focus and manual diaphragm operation as above.

I believe the adapter situation is much the same for the Olympus and Panasonic 4/3-mount cameras. There is a new format about to come out, though, called micro-4/3, which features a very slim camera body, and I would not be surprised to see FD adapters become available for this mount once it gets off the ground. These cameras are not actually SLRs, they have an electronic viewfinder system instead of a reflex mirror and groundglass. But they will handle and perform similarly to an SLR and will accept interchangeable lenses. If you want to wait a while and see what develops, this might be worth the wait. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're going to have to replace your lenses when you go digital.

6. From : Scott Haigh (haighsd@gmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:35 AM Wednesday 27 May, 2009

I have a number of Canon FD lenses circa 1980-1985...

Are they compatible with any of the newest Canon electronic cameras?

Please let me know if you have any idea or can point me in the right direction to find out.

Thanks

Scott H.

7. From : Evey Loyo (eveyloyo@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 04:42 AM Tuesday 26 May, 2009

Looking for a Nikon lens for my DSLR camera:

Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor Lens

8. From : Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 06:42 AM Monday 25 May, 2009

Hi the other Jim (maybe you guys should get together and decide which of you is going to change his name):

Anything that says "Micro Nikkor" on it is going to be something that you can grow into. Of course, none of them are very cheap. There is the excellent 60/2.8 D at a bit under $500, the even excellenter 60/2.8G ED for about another hundred or so, and the longer 105/2.8G ED for closer to a thousand. Each of these is capable of the highest level of professional results, and each step up in price is worth it, if you have the money to spend. The G series lenses add a more sophisticated antireflection coating for higher contrast, and the 105 has vibration reduction in addition to the extra working space that you get from the longer focal length.

I'm not speaking from personal experience on any of this though: my own Micro Nikkor is a 55/3.5 that dates from around 1970. It's not as good as these, but it's better than I am.

9. From : Rick Oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 06:18 AM Monday 25 May, 2009

Hi Jim:

No, the OM lenses do not fit directly onto any digital camera. There are inexpensive adapters that will allow you to use them on either the Olympus or the Canon series of DSLRs, but there are drawbacks: there is no autofocus, of course, and you will find that the DSLR's viewfinder is much harder to focus sharply with than the finder in your OM1; there is no auto diaphragm, so your screen will darken as you stop the lens down; also remember the difference in image size with the digitals: the "normal" lens on the Canons is a 30mm, and on the Olympus it's 25mm, so all of your OM lenses have become telephotos. This also means that the digital camera is twice as picky about lens sharpness, as it takes twice as many lines per millimeter of resolution to give you an equally sharp photo. There's a good chance that you will end up preferring the new lenses made for the digital camera, even if you do get the adapter for your Zuikos.

10. From : Jim (Jwakaratt@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 08:54 AM Saturday 23 May, 2009

I have a Nikon D-70S and would like to do more with micro. Any recommendations on a good quality lens that i can grow into. thanks,

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