"Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3F177E9C.8DBBD916@attglobal.net...

> David Ruether wrote:

> > "Gordon Moat" <moat@attglobal.net> wrote in message . . . .

> > > 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...;-).

> I would likely only use that under low light conditions. The larger aperture in wide angle lenses

> is mostly just a functionally better viewfinder brightness benefit, since I prefer stopped down

> wide angle images.

I do to - and they are easy to hand-hold at slow speeds. 1/15th is fairly

reliable with a 24mm, so the f5.6 "first good aperture to the corners"

is not much of a limitation much of the time. I would like to use a 24-28

that is first rate around f2 or so, though, for that occasional unusual

limited-DOF-with-a-WA look, but the closest for this that I've seen is the

Canon 24mm f1.4 AF at f2.8 (it's not bad at all over most of the frame

at f2, though...).

> > The center is good at all stops, and performance is [24mm f2.8 Nikkor]

> > 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.

> Nice evaluation, and about the information I was hoping to see. Thanks.

More at: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.

> > 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 do not like the command dial interfaces of the newer Canon bodies, though I should also mention

> I ma not crazy about the F5 nor F100 interfaces. I could almost live with an F100, rather than

> renting, but a new purchase . . . I would rather get an FM3A, or a used FE2. Autofocus provides

> no benefit for my photographic needs, plus I ma a control freak anyway. ;-)

I prefer Nikon bodies for the way they operate, and especially for the

(generally...) better viewfinders. The F100 is an excellent body with an

excellent VF, grip/feel, and excellent manual and auto controls. The 8008

(which I still like, but I needed the better AF of the F100) got me over the

interface resistence (what is easier than pushing a well-marked button and

having all else go away from the LCD screen while you adjust only the one

displayed item using only the one control wheel?), and the F100 offers

more control yet over functions... (BTW, I have a mint, tested one FS

[and a mint FA, if you prefer small...;-]).

[...about the late 35mm f2.8 Nikkor PC lens...]

> > Yes - the illumination and resolution are very good and even to the corners,

> > and the contrast is also very good wide open...

> I am guessing, but it might be the greater coverage of the shift lens that accounts for some of

> the good edge performance when not shifted. Whatever it is, I am glad I own one.

That does explain it - since it must cover about a 65mm diamerter circle,

the middle 44mm circle (unshifted) is covered quite well 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...

> I have liked the view from 28 mm, and it suits some of my compositions. I would like to go just a

> little wider. I have rented a 20 mm, and borrowed a few 17 to 35 mm zooms, though it seems that I

> either crop to nearly the 24 mm area of coverage, or zoom to around 24 mm. Maybe 24 mm just

> matches some of my ideas at the moment.

Lens FLs (especially WA ones) do have "feels", and I have been attached to various specific

ones at times - though I learned with the brief use of a WA zoom that I was less attached to

specific FLs than I thought...;-)

> > > 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).

> Yeah, I tend to stop at f16, though it is sometimes nice to have that extra stop or two. It is

> rare for me to do so, but f22, and f32 can be useful.

I use f32 (and smaller) with macro only. F32 for most distant work looks "gooey"

to me...;-)

> > > 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...!