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

1. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 06:15 AM Sunday 22 April, 2007

Ouch. A bundle, I expect... but you might get lucky. There's no way to repair a scratched element, it would have to be replaced, and I don't know if these are freely interchangeable or optically matched and tested when the lens is made. The only source for a replacement element would be a donor lens or, if you're really lucky, possibly one might be available from Nikon.

If the replacement part is available, the labor cost should be very small. If they are consistent enough to be interchangeable from one lens to another, the repair will be satisfactory.

2. From : Senya (senkam@gmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 07:08 PM Saturday 21 April, 2007

I've got this Nikkor 20mm 2,8D wide angle lens. Lens/cell to the back of body (the part that goes into the camera body) is very badly scratched. Can anyone tell me how much approximately I should expect to pay for repairing?

Thank you all in advance for your kind answers.

3. From : J.F. Lofting (add@mycomment2.com)
Url : http://none
Date : 06:18 PM Saturday 21 April, 2007

Just found this via a google search, apparently this is also from this mir website http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF28105mm/index.htm
I guess it is not ready yet.

4. From : J.F. Lofting (add@mycomment2.com)
Url : http://none
Date : 06:17 PM Saturday 21 April, 2007

Dear Desmond, I think Mr. Rick has put up his very good suggestion clearly. Personally, the option for 28-105mm should be your choice as 28mm has a more practical range as compare to the start up angle of 35mm found in the 35-135mm. The telephoto range may not be that significant for day to day general photography. IF I am not wrong, the 28-105mm is a newer model and it is an AF-D while the 35/135 is a non-D lens.

Bottom line is the price, but if the differences is not too great, just put priority on the 28/105.

5. From : rick oleson (rick_oleson@yahoo.com)
Url : http://rick_oleson.tripod.com
Date : 08:09 AM Saturday 21 April, 2007

Hi Desmond: This is a very subjective question, mostly it depends on whether you like wide angle or tele compositions better (or whether your photographic situations need a w/a or a tele more).

For me, 35mm isn't wide enough to feel like a wide angle, so if you like that exaggerated perspective you will need the 28mm to get it. On the other hand, 135 is a very nice tele length, significantly more reach than 105, so if you like the compressed perspective effect or need to pull distant subjects in close, the extra 30mm at the long end is good to have. If you can't decide which you think fits your needs better, then the difference in cost is as good an argument as any.

6. From : Desmond KOK (nospamming@hotmail.com)
Url : http://
Date : 05:14 PM Friday 20 April, 2007

Dear Gurus: Between an AF 28-105mm and 35-135mm which is more practical ? I have two offers but the 35/235mm is so much cheaper than the 28/105mm. Undecided for my daughter as I have just bought an used Nikon D70 (older model). Can provide some suggestion ?

Thanks. I am from H.K.

7. From : J.J. (private@nospam.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:25 PM Thursday 19 April, 2007

Hi..Didn't expect my question can raise a discussion. By the way, thanks Marko/Rick/Luigi, your thoughts may be different BUT make plenty of common sense with all the replies. Actually, I have just found this link from a lead at Nikonian on the Nikon F4. I have spent two days reading all these messages, I have picked up many stuffs as well and I think this forum is most valuable.

8. From : Jack (jackal@nospam.com)
Url : http://no
Date : 12:11 AM Wednesday 18 April, 2007

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2463/1153/1600/mag_1.jpg

Yea yea yea.. seems like the "BOKEH" helps brighten up your photo. So, it doesn't really matters to me with this subjective matter. That seems like more for "lens-perfect" photographers, but pictures-perfect photographers do care much. haha.. just present my own view too, peace-man.

9. From : Marko (kensai@arcor.de)
Url : http://rfvirus.blogspot.com
Date : 05:34 AM Tuesday 17 April, 2007

Puhh.. It has start a new discussion about, what is a good lens. Everybody has its own opinion what a good lens is. For me, i donÂ´t like plastic very much. In the first time i had a Nikon F80 with a China build AF Nikkor 1.4/50mm and a Japan build AF Nikkor 2.0/35mm. The lenses are not bad, especially very lightweight. But it was not so the right for me. I switched to the rangfinder section with a Bessa R3a. I search the rangefinderforum.com site for example pictures from older Leitz lenses and, wow, there i found a lot good candidates. I decided for a Leitz Summar 2.0/50mm. A example shot with this lens you found here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2463/1153/1600/mag_1.jpg

That i have taken on efke/adox CHS 100. A very special bokeh, not very sharp not contrasty but a great image (for me..). What i will say.. Its not the question MF or AF, plastic or glass. Is the question what image will you produce? The older lenses have a special flair what you cannot found at the new AF lenses. But on the other side the AF lens range has very sharp lenses in stock and a wider range of using (zoom lenses or leightweight plasics and so on). The older lenses are very good when you take prime lenses but this lenses are heavyweight and have often problems with sun flare. But if you search such "problems" you should take the older..

Ohh.. the BOKEH question. BOKEH cames from the japanese word Bok-eh and means "fuzzy" by peoples in old age. The current issue from the english b/w photography magazine (the Mike Johnston column) have taken this theme to new life. If you will learn more about this read this article.

Thats all, now you can start to mangle me..

10. From : Luigi D. Sandon (cp@sandon.it)
Url : http://
Date : 04:35 AM Tuesday 17 April, 2007

"plastic" does not always mean "cheap fragile item" compared to "sturdy metal ones". F1 cars are nowadays made with carbon fiber, and airplanes use a lot of parts made in composite materials. They could be lighter and sturdier than steel or aluminium. Also, one can achieve more complex designs. And when I have to carry lenses all the day, maybe in the mountains, I'd like the lighter ones :)
Also increasing computer power allowed to calculate and test much more designs than were possibile in the past. CAM made aspherical and other special lenses much more cheaper - and glass production improved. It is true they introduced more "entry-level" lenses, but in the past not everyboady could afford a Nikon, a Contax or a Leica. Many started with very humble cameras, maybe a Zenith and its lens!!
There were great lenses in the past too, but I won't despise all new ones just because they are not exactly like the old ones.

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