On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 03:00:57 GMT, roy@veridata.com.tw (roy) wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 17:37:06 +0100, Lars
(I agree with what Stefan Kahlert said, also...)
BTW, I have a Nikkor evaluation list on my web page, under
"I babble", that you may find useful...
>>I used both MF and AF lenses. The MF lenses are very much better
>>mechanically, but not necessarily optically. There are some very good MF
>>lenses that you can't get (105/2.5, 135/2.8, 1.4/35, 4.0/80-200) as AF
>>versions. The alternatives (AF 28/1.4, 2.0/135, 2.0/105) are
>
> hi Lars, I know the MF 35/1.4 is a very good lens, but how about the
> Nikkor MF 35/2 and AF 35/2?
The multi-coated version of the MF 35mm f2 is first-rate - I
prefer it slightly to the f1.4 for its better "snap" at wide
stops. I did not find the AF version quite so good...
> Secondary, If I want to buy a Nikkor 80-200mm lens, what's is your
> suggestion? f2.8 AF or f4 MF, (including the price issue, and I am
> using Nikon FM2 body)
The 80-200 f2.8 is hard to beat for sharpness, but the 80-200
f4 (and E-series 70-210mm f4...) are good lenses - buy used,
since the E is not made new, and the 80-200 f4 is WAY overpriced
new. The f2.8 is large and heavy - the 180 AF is a really
excellent f2.8 alternative that is lighter/smaller.
>>ridiculously expensive. The AF 1.8/85 is optically better and cheaper
>>than the MF 2.0/85.
> I will buy a 85mm lens recently, are you sure the AF 85/1.8 is
> better than MF 85/2.0? if yes, how about MF 85/1.4 and AF 85/1.4
No - in good samples, they are close (at infinity, the corners
of the f2 are slightly better at f2 - near minimum-focus, the
f1.8 AF performs better at wide stops [most of the time, you
won't see differences]). All the Nikkor 85's have been excellent.
>>Good mechanical quality is expensive. Combined with slowing demand for
>>MF lenses this causes the very significant difference in price.
>>I found using AF lenses in MF mode on Nikon terrible. AF is extremely
>>loud, too. The aperture of MF lenses is not shown in the viewfinder of a
>>Nikon AF camera (except F4/F5), and several nice features also only work
>>with AF.
>>For me this was a reason to switch to Contax. Many Zeiss lenses are not
>>much more expensive than their Nikon counterparts (some - the 2.8/28,
>>2.8/35, 1.4/50, 1.4/85, 2.8/135 are even cheaper), but better optically
>>and at least on par mechanically.
I wonder why the above writer didn't switch to Nikkor MF - nicely made
lenses that are very pleasant to use, as are the bodies, and with
performance at least as good as the Contax lenses (especially since
there are so many versions of the Nikkors to select the best from...
[the Contax line is much less broad]).
Hey, those in US - VOTE TUESDAY November 3rd! (Today!)
(Maybe we can quiet that Re-Bublican yapping and nipping
at the heels of Clinton, and maybe get a "do-something"
Congress in the bargain! ;-)