On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:55:06 GMT, derek@thedkgallery.com (Derek Zeanah) wrote:
>This will probably start a flame-war but what the hell...
>
>I'm looking to rent-then-buy a new 35mm camera system to use
>in low-light situations. I happen to be a big fan of the
>Leica rangefinders so this wasn't going to be an issue, then
>the local rental shop double-booked the M6 and I used an R8
>for a wedding last weekend.
>
>The 16mm lens was _incredible_. I'm now at the point where
>I'm considering using a Leica SLR instead _just_ to use the
>fisheye; of course I don't need to give up the 35mm
>summicron or the 80 summilux either.
>
>Now, in sort of a last-ditch effort at making a rational
>choice, I'm giving Nikon another chance. The Nikon AF isn't
>slower than I can focus manually (as the Canon is with the
>85 f1.2 -- watch _that_ comment draw some flames), I could
>learn to trust the fill-flash with D series lenses, and the
>layout is good enough (though not as intuitive as the R8,
>which IMHO is about as intuitive as an SLR can get). Now my
>primary concern is with the lenses.
>
>What I _like_ in a lens is "good" Bokeh -- I like lenses
>that have such a pleasing rendition of out-of-focus areas
>that I seek out objects to place between me and the subject
>(birdesmaids heads on Saturday when I caught myself doing
>this). I like soft, fuzzy, pleasing out of focus areas.
>And I know some of the Nikon lenses do a good job here --
>the 180mm f2.8 seems to be a good one, though I've never use
>it myself.
>
>So, my question: what other Nikon lenses would qualify as
>"good bokeh" lenses? Anyone who shoots Leica and Nikon care
>to comment? Ideally, I'd like to use the 80mm f1.4, a
>fastish 35mm, and the 16mm fisheye. The 180 would be handy
>too, I guess.
>significantly better than their prime counterparts.
>
>And no, I don't care about any auto features. I'm only
>considering the Nikon because the system as a whole is
>significantly cheaper than the Leicas I've been using, and
>the AF doesn't seem like it would be a hinderance (as it
>does on the other AF cameras I've tried). Basically, if the
>automation isn't as good as I am, then I won't use it. To
>be honest though -- I'd love it if I found that the
>automation in the F5 was good enough to trust in the tricky
>lighting situations I tend to shoot in (tuxes and bridal
>gowns in extremely low light, mostly using available-light);
>I just don't expect that it would meter as well as I do...
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............;-)
Many issues....
(If you check out my web page, especially under "I babble",
you will find that I really like Nikon and Nikkors, but with
reservations...)
OK, if you want auto features that really work, but want to
be able to turn them off and still have a good manual camera,
I would recommend the F5 - the ONLY camera with auto features
that I would trust enough to actually use them. If you want a
good manual Nikon body, I like the F5 for this also, and the F3,
and the 8008 (older, with slower [useless] auto features, but
with a sharp finder [unlike the N90] and excellent TTL flash
with manually selectable fill-ratio [I recommend defeating the
autofill, and selecting your own ratio] - and the synch. is a
useful 1/250th [this is my favorite wedding camera other than
the F5, and it is relatively compact]). The F4 is rather large
and heavy, with auto features at about the same level as the
8008, but it offers manual film rewind (quiet!) and a very
smooth shutter release (the mass and lack of vibration help
with slow shutter speeds - the ones needed to shoot the
"available darkness" of too many receptions and ceremonies).
About the lenses, we may differ...
I prefer sharp, contrasty, hard-edged images, especially
at the wide stops required for wedding/event work, since I
prefer the natural available-light look to the "light-bulb
in a cave" look of most flash-only work. For this reason I
prefer the best Nikkors to most others. But a consequence
is that the "Bokeh" of most Nikkors would be considered bad
by those into this (exceptions may be the AF 85mm f1.4, 35mm
f1.4 MF, and the "Defocus" 105 and 135mm f2 AF Nikkors).
Nikkors tend to be rather snappy, even at wide stops. (If you
do go with Nikon, you may want to check out my Nikkor lens
evaluation list, under "I babble".) BTW, one aspect of the
Leicaflex that has amused me is that many of those very
expensive fast lenses are rather soft at wide stops, and many
of those very expensive lenses are actually Minolta (the 16),
Sigma, Tokina, etc. lenses that would otherwise sell at far
lower prices, were it not for the Leitz name on them. Which
is not to say that Leitz does not make some really first-rate
lenses! (Um, talk about starting flame wars....! ;-)
As to specific lenses I use for weddings...
The older MF 16mm *f3.5* Nikkor is a truly amazing lens,
sharp to the corners and snappy by f4-5.6, and easy to
hand-hold at VERY slow shutter speeds (due to the short
FL and uniform magnification everywhere in the frame as the
lens is turned), and it has great DOF, and it is kind to
rounded objects (like people...;-). It is also excellent on
the TC14A converter at f5.6 as a compromise between the
width of the fisheye and the lack of curvature of the
standard super-wide. (Some clients hate fisheyes, though...;-)
The 20mm f2.8 Nikkor always goes with me, and may serve
instead of the fisheye when the client is skittish about
that wonderful lens. The Nikkor 20mm *f2.8* is a really
first-rate compact lens (and it does not need a shade...)
and it is snappy-sharp everywhere in the frame by f5.6 (I
will not generally use it wider). THE wedding lens is
the 35mm, and Nikon makes several of interest. I am not
enthusiastic about the 35mm f2 AF (you may like it for the
reasons I don't...), and I switch between prefering the
*AIS* 35mm f2 MF and the 35mm f1.4 (currently I prefer
the f2 - though the f1.4 is good enough to use at f1.4
at mid focus distances, and you may prefer its lower contrast
at wide stops (and more even illumination, and greater
"speed" at the same widest stops). I switch back and forth
between the compact and excellent (heck, Nikon never made a
bad 85...;-) 85mm f2 MF, and the 85mm f1.4 MF, depending on
expected light level. For a longer lens, the amazingly
good 80-200mm f2.8 AF Nikkor is usually the choice, unless
light levels require the excellent-wide-open 135mm f2 MF
Nikkor. The AF Nikkor 180mm f2.8 is also really outstanding,
but as I loaded the bag for a wedding, I always left it out
in favor of the virtually-as-good zoom, so I sold it (twice!).
The Leica rfdr. does have some attractions for wedding work
(it is quiet!), and some of the lenses are really excellent
(35mm f1.4 double-aspheric comes to mind...), but it is too
limited at the long-lens end (and the short, with those terrible
add-on viewfinders...;-), and I just never got along with
the viewfinder color, framing, or rangefinder - I prefer a good
SLR finder, even in low light (accurate framing and focusing are
easier for me, and I find it easier to "see" the look of the
final image, using the DOF preview, on a screen with no inherent
color cast, and with a precise black framing edge).
The Nikon flashes are first-rate, and provide some interesting
features. In addition to the selectable TTL fill-ratio
(SB24/5/6/7/8) on bodies that allow this, the SB-24 I use (the
others may also have this characteristic...) also has a soft
illumination roll-off at the edge of coverage. This allows me
(with tilt, turn, "FL" selection) to evenly light deep rooms
without a hot forground and black background, to shade off
the illumination of nearby subjects (like the bride in white
at one side), or even to illuminate distant subjects between
close ones at the photo sides without overlighting the nearer
people. I have not missed the "D" feature, but it could be
useful with the black and white costumes prefered by many
wedding clients...;-)
So, I trust the flames don't get too hot with all this....;-)