"Gordon
Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3F14521C.322EEFB0@attglobal.net...
>
David Ruether wrote:
>
> "T P" <tp@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:bvv7hvgcop4j6jhjgqr8jbsnh0tekvdbtl@4ax.com...
>
> > nospamXXX@voyager.net wrote:
>
> > >How does this lens compare with the 35mm f2.0D? in terms of
distortion
>
> > >and sharpness?
>
> > It easily beats the 35mm f/2, which never impressed
>
> > me. I owned an AIS and later
an AF-D.
>
> > The only 35mm Nikkor I liked was the f/1.4 AIS,
>
> > which has "3-D" qualities and interesting bokeh.
>
> I've owned a few 35mm f1.4 Nikkors, several 35mm f2 AIS Nikkors,
>
> and a couple of 35mm f2 AF Nikkors. I liked the f1.4 least, for its
overall
>
> lower contrast and resolution (particularly at the edges) compared with
the
>
> MF f2.
> I
will agree on that. I borrowed one of the manual focus f1.4 lenses, and I was
surprised
>
that I liked the 35 mm f2 AIS results better, both wide open and stopped down.
It was
>
disappointing enough that I would not be buying one to add to my current
lenses. Also, the
> f2
is so close to the shift lens I already own, that I will be passing on that one
as well.
>
Any comments on the manual focus 24 mm choices?
The
late AI, AIS, and AF 24mm f2.8 are identical optically (the early non-AI
is
different, I think, but I don't know when the switch was made), and excellent
from
f5.6, good at f4, and not too bad at f2.8 if some edge/corner softness
is OK
(not for me...;-). The center is good at all stops, and performance is
fairly
consistent with focus distance changes. It is an excellent lens, and a toss-up
in
performance with the excellent 20mm f2.8 Nikkor, though not as good at f2.8
or f4
as the AIS 28mm f2.8. I do not like the Nikkor 24mm f2 - it is too soft
at the
widest stops; the 28mm f2 Nikkor is considerably better - but I must add
that
the newer-version Canon 24mm f1.4 AF is better than either of these...;-)
>
> (I guess this is what "good bokeh" is, huh...?;-) The [35mm] AF
f2 is a
>
> good lens, sharp everywhere, but not as "crisp"-looking as the
AIS MF...
>
> I also like the latest-version of the 35mm f2.8 PC for its excellent f2.8
>
> performance...
> I
use my 35 mm shift lens quite often wide open. It was an incredibly good choice
for a
>
couple paid location assignments this year. I originally got mine when I was
photographing
>
interior architecture for a client, then when that client moved to video only,
I started
>
using it as a more normal lens. While the aperture selection can be a pain,
leaving it at
>
f2.8 works nicely for many situations.
Yes -
the illumination and resolution are very good and even to the corners,
and the
contrast is also very good wide open...
>
Now I am thinking of getting rid of my 28 mm and getting a 24 mm instead. The
28 mm has been
>
good, with one image from it currently hanging in a gallery, though I think I
could make
>
some more use of a 24 mm.
I swing
between the 20 and 24, with a preference for the 20 much of the time,
even
when shooting people. I may replace both of my 24mm f2.8s with the new
VR
24-120, though...
>
Stop down performance has been a bigger issue for me with the wide angle lenses
than wide
>
open performance in most situations. With that in mind, do any of the manual
focus 24 mm
>
Nikon lenses work well at f16 or f22? Thanks.
I find
that almost all *good* *well-aligned* lenses for 35mm perform about the same
from
around f8 through the smaller stops, with f16 showing a touch of acceptable
resolution
loss, and f22 at the edge of what I like (usable if necessary for DOF,
but
otherwise to be avoided). All the good Nikkor wides are good to the corners
from
f5.6 to f16 (though they may be a bit better in the center toward the wide end
of that
range, and a bit better towards the corners toward the middle of that range).
>
Ciao!
>
Gordon Moat
>
Alliance Graphique Studio
>
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
Hey, take a gander at www.visitithaca.com,
too...!