Nikon D3 And The Old 85/1.4 Nikkor!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 13, 2007.

  1. Totally wrong on all counts and not even worth an explanation.
    What about the Ford Pinto?






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 16, 2007
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. And the old 85 struts it stuff through the full range of numbers.
    Yep, an added bonus at no additional cost. Seems Nikkors are a bargain at
    any price. Now if Canon can add an extra blade and round the edges they
    might have something.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 16, 2007
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    You should never look at a Canon lens, lest your prejudice be
    hampered by facts.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 17, 2007
    #43
  4. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    He that sees only one use of a lens is blind on both eyes.
    Or used to so a mediocre lens that a macro, able to focus past
    one meter, is already an abomination.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 17, 2007
    #44
  5. Facts that you would have listed, if they had existed.

    Has Canon ever made a single lense with 9 blades? The
    best they can do at 85mm is their f/1.2L which is
    otherwise fine but has 8 blades and a diaphragm that is
    round only when wider than f/4.0. (Why does Canon
    insist on an _even_ number of diaphragm blades???)

    For Canon users, a better deal would be the Jupiter-9
    85mm f/2.0 in a Pentax M42 screw mount, with a 15 blade
    diaphragm. Less than $50, and the M42 screw mount
    adapter shouldn't be much.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Sep 17, 2007
    #45
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Why?
     
    Annika1980, Sep 17, 2007
    #46
  7. Same reason for gas peddle on a wheelbarrow, it doesn't work. But then
    again, Canon users swear IS works on that crappy 17-55, which we all know it
    doesn't






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 17, 2007
    #47
  8. The sad part is Canon rapes their customers out of $1,600 for that piece of
    crap. Wait till you hear all the bitching when all the glaring flaws of
    that lens will be shown on the 1Ds Mk III. The lens is almost unusable and
    Canon shouldn't sell it to their loyal customers.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 17, 2007
    #48
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Hey look everybody .... Rita's ass is talking again!

    Perhaps you could enlighten us about some of the "glaring flaws" of
    the 85 f/1.2L. This oughta be good.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 18, 2007
    #49
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    frederick Guest

    It weighs over 1kg.
    It vignettes at wide apertures even on crop sensor cameras.
    Only an 8 blade and non-rounded diaphragm.
    Doesn't focus closer than 0.95m
    Stupid 72mm filter thread instead of 77mm.
    It costs a fortune.
    Can't be used with the new leading sensor technology from Nikon.
     
    frederick, Sep 18, 2007
    #50
  11. The first clue is the 72mm filter threads. No pro lens from any
    manufacturer comes with anything less than 77mm threads. There's more and
    I'll let you figure it out.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 18, 2007
    #51
  12. LOL! You beat me too it.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 18, 2007
    #52
  13. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Doing double duty as a lens and a missile against robbers is
    bad, because?

    Oh, and please show me the 85mm f/1.2 from Nikon that is
    as sturdy as the Canon variant and is lighter.

    What, Nikon doesn't even offer a f/1.2? Not even a
    lightweight plastic one? Fancy that.
    Any lens vignettes, and Nikons, 85mm f/1.8 D vignettes worse
    at f/1.8 than Canon's 85 f/1.2.
    "super-smooth bokeh" (photozone.de)


    "The 85/1,2 can not be compared to any other lens. the bokeh
    at 1.2 is not from this world. Its like floating in a dream."
    "Legendary bokeh"
    "Bokeh is fantastic."
    "Best bokeh I ever seen at all apertures"
    "Out of this world bokeh"
    "heavenly bokeh"
    "incredible bokeh"
    "Fabulous bokeh"
    "Out of this world BOKEH - you won't believe it until you see it."
    "The bokeh is amazing. Smooth and creamy."
    "unmatched bokeh"
    "Wonderful bokeh"
    "Amazing Bokeh"
    "the bokeh is fantastic"
    "Bokeh that is nothing short of amazing"
    "The bokeh is excellent."
    "Bokeh.....come again....this 85'er invented the term Bokeh"
    "Bokeh that sets a standard that spoils you against other fast lenses."

    .... and lots of repetitions of that ... and, here it comes:

    +---------------------------------------------------------+
    | >>> "Better than the Nikon AFD 85 f1.4 in bokeh." <<< |
    +---------------------------------------------------------+
    (fredmiranda.com)

    That tells me you are beating a dead dead dead horse.
    The difference between 0.95 and 0.85m is indeed world
    shaking, far larger than 50% (half a stop) more light.
    Right?
    Canon uses 72mm, so there:
    - 20mm f/2.8
    - 20-35mm f/2.8
    - 24mm f/3.5 TS
    - 28-80mm f/2.8-4
    - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
    - 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (non USM and USM)
    - 35mm f/1.4
    - 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6
    - 45mm f/2.8 TS
    - 50mm f/1.0
    - 50mm f/1.2
    - 80-200mm f/2.8
    - 85mm f/1.2 I and II
    - 135mm f/2
    - 180mm f/3.5 Macro
    - 200mm f/2.8 I and II

    Of course, calling a thing stupid does not make _you_ look
    intelligent --- not that it would matter any more.
    You get what you pay for, and it's worth two fortunes.
    I wonder where Nikon leads to, terminal stupidity?
    By your posts, it sure does.

    Anyway, it's just badly supressed penis envy, since Nikon
    only manages a f/1.4 lens.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2007
    #53
  14. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    The first clue is the name "Rita". No intelligent life form on
    any planet comes with anything less than 6 letter first names.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2007
    #54
  15. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    In other words, you don't have any arguments once one does
    not sheep-like follow your twisted paths of fallacy and blind
    hatred.
    Trying anecdotal proof again?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2007
    #55
  16. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Simple: Rita cannot for zir life imagine _anyone_ using a macro
    lens for _anything_ else than macros.[1] It would be an unspeakable
    abomination to Rita to use such a high quality lens for, say,
    portraits.

    Of course, this means that Rita only has heard of and uses the
    MP-E for macros, yet zie claims zie uses only Nikon glass. AFAIK,
    there is no dedicated macro-only lens in the whole Nikon line up.

    But that's our Rita, a mad hatter[2], raving and ranting at
    something zie doesn't half understand. The type to go for parrot
    shavings for zir salad. Freedom is also the freedom to show ones
    lunacy to all the world, and while I strenously disagree with
    Rita, I feel we must protect zir lunacy to the utmost degree ---
    lest someone mistake zir as an intelligent being.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] in "normal" photography, the major shake influences are
    yawing and pitching, with rotation around the optical axis a
    far 3rd (approx 1/10th, depending how you jerk the trigger).
    These two movements are countered by IS (or VR).

    During macrophotography translational movements become a
    major error source: shifting the camera 1/10mm already causes
    dozends of pixels as error. Yawing and pitching are quite
    unimportant compared to that.

    Hence IS does not help during macrophotography.

    [2] http://www.snopes.com/language/phrases/hatter.asp
    http://www.hgtech.com/HSE/1926.htm
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 18, 2007
    #56
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Sep 18, 2007
    #57
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    frederick Guest

    Probably weak canon fluorite glass - the lens would break
    before the robbers head.
    The Nikkor 85 f1.4 is very sturdy. I forgot to mention the
    CA and hunting for focus with the Canon lens - who needs
    f1.2 when it comes with so may problems.
    It vignettes a lot. I see the same reviewers who *love*
    (for some deluded reason?) trash inexpensive lenses because
    of vignetting, but because it's a $1300 lens, it's ok?
    Polygonal specular highlights when stopped down.
    Fredmiranda.com exists almost solely as an outlet for
    frustrated fanboys to express their deep love for gear that
    they think nobody else loves.
    An extra 100mm can really be very significant when you need
    it. Perhaps german girls are too polite to tell you what you
    lack.
    They do too - seems a lot of consumer variable aperture
    zooms in that list. Guess that sums it up nicely.
    Actually, I think all of the 85mm lenses are a waste of
    time. Nikon make good 70/80 - 200 f2.8 zooms that perform
    wonderfully at the short end, and have nice boket. Any of
    the 85s would be like a wasteful lump of lead in my camera bag.
     
    frederick, Sep 18, 2007
    #58
  19. Why should they when the f/1.4 Nikkor kills Canon's 1.2 in every conceivable
    category? Oh, you like numbers? I will take a highlighter pen and put "1.2"
    on Nikon's 85/1.8 and it still will kill Canon's 85.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 18, 2007
    #59
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 18, 8:43 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Well, Rita does have a badly suppressed penis.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 18, 2007
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.