85mm f1.4 vs 80-200mm f2.8
Buy_Sell
and wondered how many people would purchase this lens if they already
owned the 80-200mm f2.8 lens? I know that the 85mm would do much
better in low light but how often does f1.4 actually get used on this
lens? If it frequently gets stopped down, then it would make more
sense to just use the 80-200mm lens. Any thoughts or suggestions
would be appreciated. Anyone who owns the 85mm, I'd like to hear what
you think of this lens and how often do you get to use it?
David J Taylor
If you buy an f/1.4 lens and always use it at f/2.8, what's the point?
The 85 f/1.4 lens was great for portraits on a film camera because of its
very limited depth-of-field wide open. For similar usage with digital the
much cheaper 50mm f/1.8 lens would be almost as good. f/1.4 if you must.
Cheers,
David
Douglas
"Buy_Sell" <werk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddbe2dd-abb1-4840...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
It has been my experience that very wide aperture lenses generally have
higher quality elements in them but you really need to ask yourself if
having a DOF of a few millimetres at portrait distance is going to help you
in any way.
I currently use a 70~200 F2.8 for this sort of thing and find it can be
tricky getting the ear and nose in perspective at F5.6. It's a heavy lens
too. I think perhaps you need to consider some other aspect of your needs
than just the aperture.
Using a 50mm lens in place of an 80mm lens because of the crop factor with
small sensors ...has it's own problems. You still get the same functionality
and aspect of the picture of a 50mm lens but it's like cropping the picture
to get the subject in the right proportion. DOF becomes an issue if you are
used to a FF sensor or film. You'll find a seemingly greater DOF for the
same image area so perhaps if portraits are your speciality, the 85 should
be your choice.
Douglas
Floyd L. Davidson
What kind of photography do you do, and what cameras?
I use an 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom almost constantly.
I also have the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. I bought
all of those for use with a Nikon D1, which is
definitely best used at ISO 200, can manage 400 in a
pinch, but takes courage to work at ISO 800. Those
faster lenses were worth it (but note that the f/1.4
versions just didn't seem worth the money at the time).
Eventually I acquired a D2x, and since then have rarely
ever mounted the two fixed focal length lenses on it.
The 80-200mm f/2.8 is fast enough because the camera can
be used at ISO 400 and 800. I certainly have no need
for the f/1.4 versions.
In the next couple of days a new D3 will arrived. I'll
be able to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200, and maybe even
6400. The 80-200mm f/2.8 is really going to shine...
except it isn't as long on a full frame sensor, so
I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
giving that some thought.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> I'm looking at 70-300mm and the 80-400mm lenses and
> giving that some thought.
the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
weight.
Floyd L. Davidson
My current thinking is just about exactly the same as yours.
I do have some use for 400mm, and would find it useful with the
D2x also, but I haven't really looked into whether the 80-400mm
is good enough at 400mm to be worth it or not. I'm not much
concerned with the speed of AF, so that part doesn't enter into
it much. But what really really does count is that I'm fairly
often shooting people in areas without great lighting, and with
the 80-200mm I have no concerns about using the limits of the
focal range even at f/2.8. That is one Hell of a lense.
It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
don't need to be concerned about it.
David J Taylor
Thanks the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR lens, I take it, or a different
one?
David
Joseph Meehan
wrote in message news:y395j.57501$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I would suggest that for portraits you would certainly want f1.4. The
crop factor effectively gives greater DOF for the same aperture.
I wonder how many people know the advantages of limited DOF with
portraits?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia 's Muire duit
acl
> I would suggest that for portraits you would certainly want f1.4. The
> crop factor effectively gives greater DOF for the same aperture.
>
There is most certainly not too much depth of field with a 50mm f/1.8
on a d200 for portraits... Quite the opposite, usually.
Floyd L. Davidson
Everyone is saying the new 70-300mm with VR is much
improved over past versions without VR.
Apparently the going price is about $450 depending on the
phase of the moon.
The older Nikkor 70-300mm, without VR, seems to sell on
eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.
I saw a Nikkor 70-300mm yesterday that sold for $70. I
don't know if that is so cheap that you can't lose if you
try it, or if that means its so horrible it isn't worth
anything no matter how little it cost... :-)
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> > the 70-300mm vr is a very good lens and well worth the price. the
> > 80-400mm vr isn't exactly the fastest focusing lens, and for the extra
> > 100mm, i don't think it is worth three times the cost and additional
> > weight.
>
> Thanks the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR lens, I take it, or a different
> one?
yep, that's the one. here's nikon's page on it:
<http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom70-300
mmf_45-56g_if/index.htm>
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
> the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
> of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
> the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
> don't need to be concerned about it.
i think you might find that with the d3's high iso performance, fast
f/2.8 zoom lenses and even faster fixed focal length lenses are not as
important as they once were. suddenly, shooting indoors with an f/5.6
zoom is not a big deal.
now if nikon would only make a 70-200vr f/4 that was under $1000...
David J Taylor
Thanks - that's the one I've just bought. At the bck of my mind I
wondered if it might be some very expensive f/2.8 version under
discussion - way outside my league!
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
[]
> I saw a Nikkor 70-300mm yesterday that sold for $70. I
> don't know if that is so cheap that you can't lose if you
> try it, or if that means its so horrible it isn't worth
> anything no matter how little it cost... :-)
LOL!
David
nospam
Taylor <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
the only alternative is the 70-200vr f/2.8 which is about 3-4x the
price, or the 80-200 f/2.8 for a little less if you wish to forego
stabilization. they're not quite as long but they're a lot faster and
heavier. i'm hoping to land a good deal on an 80-200 on ebay, but more
than likely will end up getting the 70-300vr.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <8763zee...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> It will take some work with the D3 to determine just how much
>> the higher ISO values help, and how much I miss the high end
>> of the focal length range too. Could be I'll discover that
>> the 80-200mm will continue to be first pick, and that I really
>> don't need to be concerned about it.
>
>i think you might find that with the d3's high iso performance, fast
>f/2.8 zoom lenses and even faster fixed focal length lenses are not as
>important as they once were. suddenly, shooting indoors with an f/5.6
>zoom is not a big deal.
Well, that is certainly what I'm *hoping* to find!!!
I do a lot of stuff locally in school gyms that are very
poorly lit. It really annoys me too, because the grade
school has all of their Christmas programs and the like
in a gym that has the worst lighting of them all. Hot
spots, old yellow bulbs, no light in some places, etc
etc. The Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lense,
and I can shoot with it wide open, but it is still right
on the border line.
When I saw what the ISO 6400 images from the D3 looked
like, and put in an order.
But yes, the *big* deal is going to be shooting ambient
light in the grade school gym using the 28-105mm
f/3.5-4.5, and stopping it down to f/8.
>now if nikon would only make a 70-200vr f/4 that was under $1000...
I'm addicted to a tripod anyway, so I'm not overly
excited about VR just for the sake of VR, and wouldn't
even begin to consider that kind of money to replace the
80-200mm f/2.8 that I have. But if I dropped that one
in the ocean and lost it, I'd eat beans for 6 months to
replace it if that's what it took.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87k5nuc...@apaflo.com>,
> fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> The older Nikkor 70-300mm, without VR, seems to sell on
>> eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
>> lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.
>
>is the $100 one and was useless to me at 300mm unless it was on a tripod.
>
>You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
I own two extremely good tripods.
Scott W
>> eBay at about the same prices as Tamron and Sigma 70-300mm
>> lenses, below $200 and often even below $100.
>
>
>
> is the $100 one and was useless to me at 300mm unless it was on a tripod.
>
> You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
>
You must be really shaky.
I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
crop camera.
Here is the full size image.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/original
Scott
Pboud
> In article <4755977a$0$9622$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
>>>
>> You must be really shaky.
>> I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
>> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
>>
>> Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
>> crop camera.
>
>
> a bright summer day, though.
>
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6416489
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6658993
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6658990
All at max zoom (300), all hand-held, none above 1/400... I don't think
any broke 1/200.
P.
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >now if nikon would only make a 70-200vr f/4 that was under $1000...
>
> I'm addicted to a tripod anyway, so I'm not overly
> excited about VR just for the sake of VR,
tripods have their place, but sometimes they are impractical or
prohibited, and having stabilization in that range would be useful,
especially at a price a lot lower than $1500 for the f/2.8 version
along with a lot less weight. that's one area where canon has an
advantange - they have four 70-200 lenses, two f/2.8 and two f/4, each
of which have stabilization or not. then again, nikon's 70-300vr is
only one stop slower at the long end...
> and wouldn't
> even begin to consider that kind of money to replace the
> 80-200mm f/2.8 that I have. But if I dropped that one
> in the ocean and lost it, I'd eat beans for 6 months to
> replace it if that's what it took.
just be sure to recover it.
on ebay a few weeks ago, an 80-200mm that fell into a lake, and where
the seller estimated it would need roughly $250 in repairs based on
another lens he submerged, sold for $338. fully functional ones sell
for not much more than that ($400ish and up).
Scott W
> In article <4755977a$0$9622$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>> You must be really shaky.
>> I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
>> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
>>
>> Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
>> crop camera.
>
>
> a bright summer day, though.
>
But but but... you said you needed vr "Even on bright days"
Now you are complaining that my shot was taken on a bright day?
Tell you what, tell me when I can't use 200mm and I will see what shot I
can find.
Scott
Scott W
> In article <4755977a$0$9622$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Scott W <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>> You must be really shaky.
>> I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
>> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
>>
>> Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
>> crop camera.
>
>
> a bright summer day, though.
>
And BTW, that is no stinking lake, that is 1.5 miles out on the Pacific
Ocean.
Paul J Gans
Depends, I think, on what *you* would do with the lens.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Scott W
> In article <47560aee$0$2376$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > M-M wrote:
> > > In article <4755977a$0$9622$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > > Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
>
> > >> You must be really shaky.
> > >> I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
> > >>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
>
> > >> Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
> > >> crop camera.
>
> > > OK, 1/800 can get you there. It's not often we are shooting on a lake on
> > > a bright summer day, though.
>
> > But but but... you said you needed vr "Even on bright days"
>
> > Now you are complaining that my shot was taken on a bright day?
>
> > Tell you what, tell me when I can't use 200mm and I will see what shot I
> > can find.
>
> > Scott
>
>
I have a ton of photos at 300mm and f/5.6.
But then my 300mm lens has IS.
But with good light I don' t need the IS.
Scott
Matt Clara
> M-M wrote:
> > In article <4755977a$0$9622$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>
> >>> You *need* VR @ 300mm, or even 200mm. Even on bright days.
>
> >> You must be really shaky.
> >> I took this, from a small boat at 200mm and f/8
> >>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/89893031/large
>
> >> Shutter speed was 1/800, plenty fast enough for 200mm even with a 1.6
> >> crop camera.
>
> > OK, 1/800 can get you there. It's not often we are shooting on a lake on
> > a bright summer day, though.
>
> But but but... you said you needed vr "Even on bright days"
>
> Now you are complaining that my shot was taken on a bright day?
>
> Tell you what, tell me when I can't use 200mm and I will see what shot I
> can find.
>
> Scott
In a dim church on a rainy day--ok, you'll get a couple good ones, but
that's against a dozen bad (disappointing/non-moneymaking) ones. I
need the 70-200 vr, a monopod just isn't versatile enough.
Scott W
See, I can accept a dim church as a case where you would need IS.
It was the bright day that I took issue with and wanted M-M to tell me
where you really needed a IS lens.
We have a number of IS lenses and they are very nice, but this stuff
about needing them at 200mm in good light is going too far.
Scott
Douglas
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47577562$0$2382$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> See, I can accept a dim church as a case where you would need IS.
>
> It was the bright day that I took issue with and wanted M-M to tell me
> where you really needed a IS lens.
>
> We have a number of IS lenses and they are very nice, but this stuff about
> needing them at 200mm in good light is going too far.
>
> Scott
Wrong thinking Scott.
After about 2 hours of holding a 70 - 200 F/2.8 on a camera with a battery
booster grip and speedlite on it, I defy you to hold it steady enough to get
a set of 6 blur free shots at 1/125th without an image stabilizer.
If you're at a sporting event and using F8.0 or smaller to ensure an object
about a foot in diameter is all in focus, you can't get much over 1/125th @
100 ISO unless it's in blazing sunlight. A gyro makes the difference between
a sellable shot and just another nearly good enough one.
I have dozens of flying pelican shots, taken in daylight when the sun was
still behind a mountain using a 70 - 200 without IS that are nearly good
enough. A total waste of time and money.
Since I began using IS lenes, those types of shots are highly practical at
100 ISO which is needed for monster enlargement. Maybe the D3 "might" be
able to deliver detailed images at higher ISO and not have such a reliance
on VR at low shutter speeds but that is yet to be discovered.
Douglas
RichA
> I've been contemplating the purchase of the Nikon 85mm f1.4 prime lens
That Nikon is idolized by users and you will not get the same ability
to do portraiture and other shallow DOF images with the zoom.
Plus, I can guarantee you, you won't want to lug that zoom around all
the time if a 50mm f1.4 is called for.
Scott W
> Wrong thinking Scott.
> After about 2 hours of holding a 70 - 200 F/2.8 on a camera with a battery
> booster grip and speedlite on it, I defy you to hold it steady enough to get
> a set of 6 blur free shots at 1/125th without an image stabilizer.
>
> If you're at a sporting event and using F8.0 or smaller to ensure an object
> about a foot in diameter is all in focus, you can't get much over 1/125th @
> 100 ISO unless it's in blazing sunlight. A gyro makes the difference between
> a sellable shot and just another nearly good enough one.
>
> I have dozens of flying pelican shots, taken in daylight when the sun was
> still behind a mountain using a 70 - 200 without IS that are nearly good
> enough. A total waste of time and money.
>
> Since I began using IS lenes, those types of shots are highly practical at
> 100 ISO which is needed for monster enlargement. Maybe the D3 "might" be
> able to deliver detailed images at higher ISO and not have such a reliance
> on VR at low shutter speeds but that is yet to be discovered.
>
> Douglas
>
I have no issue with the fact that IS is great in many conditions, what
I take issue with is needing it at 200mm even in bright sunlight.
Let's see, sunny 16 says that if I am shooting at ISO 200 @f/8 and it is
a bright day I should be shooting at 1/800 second, which is in fact what
I was shooting at in my example. The extra noise from shooting at ISO
200 is not enough to be a problem and I like the faster shutter speed no
just to better freeze the action.
I do own 3 IS lenses and thing they are great, but I don't believe IS is
needed all the time for ever lens that is 200mm or longer. Which is what
M-M was saying a few posts back.
Scott
Scott W
> Scott W wrote:
>
>> We have a number of IS lenses and they are very nice, but this stuff
>> about needing them at 200mm in good light is going too far.
>
> lenses.
IS works at 50mm and even a bit shorter, but it is sure a lot less
useful. But the cost of adding IS in a short lens is low so what not
have it?
Scott
Buy_Sell
already had the 80-200mm f2.8? I also use the 50mm f1.8 and 35-70mm
f2.8. As for the type of photography that I like to do, it varies...
I like to capture images that impress the heck out of me. Photography
is like capturing a piece time...
Scott W
> In article <47577562$0$2382$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> the VR or IS but there are definitely times you do.
>
> So if you have a lens that is 200mm or more, I would still say IS is
> necessary.
>
> I fit gets you just one shot that is better, then it's necessary, IMO.
>
> I also have tons of photos @300mm that are excellent, but I threw away
> many of them because they were not up to par.
> --
> m-m
I would mostly agree with all of that.
I do have a 28-200mm zoom that does not have IS and mostly don't miss
it.
But then between my wife and I we have a 70-300 IS lens a 300 is lens
and a 18-55 iIS lens.
Much below 70mm and IS losses a lot of its value so really the 70-300
and 300 pretty much have use covered.
Scott
lvallecillo
After using a 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.8, an 80-2mm f2.8, my results are
the followings: 50mm is an exellent choice for for low-light and sharper
images, impressively enough the photos I produce with this lens are way
sharper than the others in close range. The 80mm-200mm produces sharper
results throughout the range than the 85mm.
The 85mm f1.8 continues collecting dust in my bag, my suggestion is if
you do not want to use the zoom lens, 135mm f2 DC is a much better
choice yielding higher quality work. visit my flickr site to see some
of my work. 'Flickr: LuisVallecillo's Photostream'
(http://www.flickr.com/Luisvallecillo).
I wish someone would have told me this before I purchased the 85mm f1.8
lens.
Good luck,
Luis
--
lvallecillo
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com
Paul Furman
> lvallecillo wrote:
>
>> The 85mm f1.8 continues collecting dust in my bag,...
>> I wish someone would have told me this before I purchased the 85mm f1.8
>> lens.
>
>
> the 1.4's *extreme* chromatic aberration through all apertures.
>
> Admittedly I was testing it in the camera store under fluorescent light
> but the white "Nikon" lettering against the black lens cap was
> surrounded by purple.
Yes it does do that, <checking> and you're right it remains at least up
to f/2.8. That's not the type of CA you can fix in post-processing
either, it's like the purple fringing on P&S <grin>. And it's a green
fringe in the other direction. I don't consider that a deal killer
though. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html
I've considered trading mine for the 135/2 DC that lvallecillo mentions,
or the 105.
> It also tended to overexpose especially the
> background bokeh and I had to set the compensation to -0.7
>
> The 85mm 1.8 showed none of this and I'm quite happy with it so far.
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
David Ruether
"lvallecillo" <lvallecil...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message news:lvallecil...@no-mx.forums.travel.com...
Which is it? The 85mm f1.4 (AF?) of the title, or the 85mm f1.8 (I assume
AF, rather than the also-excellent old 85mm f1.8 MF...)? Since the 85mm
f1.8 AF is one of Nikon's very best lenses (see my Nikkor evaluation list,
at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html), if that is the one you
have, I must assume that it is defective. ALL lenses should be tested immediately
after purchase, and returned/exchanged if not up to *reasonable* expectations.
--DR
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> It also tended to overexpose especially the
> background bokeh and I had to set the compensation to -0.7
Blaming the lens instead of the body on exposure compensation
problems is a new one. On the other hand, it matches the
real name and email address of the poster.
-Wolfgang
Paul Furman
I just saw the same thing on my 85/1.4 compared to another 85mm lens.
Not a big deal for me, I never trust the meter anyways. It's hard to
believe they put the wrong numbers in the cpu chip on the lens. The
reason given why entry level bodies don't work with cpu-less lenses is
along these lines though; so the vignetting can be figured from the
actual focal length & max aperture (and supposedly it's a cost saver not
to include the capability of entering the data manually). That seems a
pretty weak excuse but oh well.
Jeremy Nixon
> The reason given why entry level bodies don't work with cpu-less lenses
> is along these lines though; so the vignetting can be figured from the
> actual focal length & max aperture (and supposedly it's a cost saver not
> to include the capability of entering the data manually). That seems a
> pretty weak excuse but oh well.
The reason entry-level bodies don't work with non-CPU lenses is that they
lack the mechanical coupling to tell how far the lens is stopped down.
The mechanical coupling is what adds cost.
The thing to set the focal length and max aperture on the camera is just
to make the other electronic stuff work properly, like EXIF data. Metering
and shooting works fine if you set that wrong, or don't set it at all.
--
Jeremy Nixon | address in header is valid
(formerly jer...@exit109.com)
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> The reason given why entry level bodies don't work with cpu-less lenses
>> is along these lines though; so the vignetting can be figured from the
>> actual focal length & max aperture (and supposedly it's a cost saver not
>> to include the capability of entering the data manually). That seems a
>> pretty weak excuse but oh well.
>
> The reason entry-level bodies don't work with non-CPU lenses is that they
> lack the mechanical coupling to tell how far the lens is stopped down.
> The mechanical coupling is what adds cost.
Hmm, I thought that was part of the same tab that stops it down during
taking. I think you may be thinking of even older pre-AI lenses which
had (various?) mechanisms for registering the aperture range by turning
through the full range after mounting, I'm fuzzy on that.
> The thing to set the focal length and max aperture on the camera is just
> to make the other electronic stuff work properly, like EXIF data.
I recall reading that was the reason. Perhaps I misunderstood. It sort
of makes sense that a fast lens would be a bit wonky wide open compared
to what you'd get stopped down.
> Metering
> and shooting works fine if you set that wrong, or don't set it at all.
I agree it's not a big deal, like if the 85/1.4 is a tad off. I do like
my exif correct though and the D200 works a whole lot better for this
than the D700. On the D200 I can dial in any aperture & FL on the fly
with the extra button on the front (if it's set that way), the D700
makes me menu dive & change one of the 9 presets :-( I don't know how
the D300 & D3 work.
Chris Malcolm
> In article <a66q36-...@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> Blaming the lens instead of the body on exposure compensation
>> problems is a new one
> you may have a point there.
What if there were something wrong with the iris control machinery in
the lens so it wasn't doing exactly what the camera was telling it to
do?
--
Chris Malcolm
Jeremy Nixon
> Hmm, I thought that was part of the same tab that stops it down during
> taking.
No, it's a separate function.
> I think you may be thinking of even older pre-AI lenses which
> had (various?) mechanisms for registering the aperture range by turning
> through the full range after mounting, I'm fuzzy on that.
There is no mechanical mechanism for the camera to know the absolute
aperture; that is only accomplished electronically. The camera only knows
how far the lens is stopped down from its maximum aperture, not what that
aperture actually is. That's why you have to set the max aperture manually
on the modern cameras: so they can display the aperture, set the EXIF data,
and do whatever modern electronic hand-waving they do for program modes so
they can add more items to feature lists.
The manual setting of the lens aperture and focal length, however, has no
bearing on the accuracy of the metering. The camera doesn't need to know
what aperture the lens is set for in order to meter correctly. You can
set the max aperture to something completely wrong and exposure will still
be correct.
> I do like my exif correct though and the D200 works a whole lot better
> for this than the D700. On the D200 I can dial in any aperture & FL on
> the fly with the extra button on the front (if it's set that way), the
> D700 makes me menu dive & change one of the 9 presets :-(
Eww. You're kidding? A menu dive for that?
I was thinking a D700 would make a fine next camera. I hate menus.
No photographic function should ever require a menu, only the digital
computer stuff.
I do wish Nikon would make me a DSLR that is a camera first, and a computer
only incidentally. Digital FM3A, is my dream, only I'll concede that it
would have to require batteries. :)
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I thought that was part of the same tab that stops it down during
>> taking.
>
> No, it's a separate function.
>
>> I think you may be thinking of even older pre-AI lenses which
>> had (various?) mechanisms for registering the aperture range by turning
>> through the full range after mounting, I'm fuzzy on that.
>
> There is no mechanical mechanism for the camera to know the absolute
> aperture; that is only accomplished electronically. The camera only knows
> how far the lens is stopped down from its maximum aperture, not what that
> aperture actually is. That's why you have to set the max aperture manually
> on the modern cameras: so they can display the aperture, set the EXIF data,
> and do whatever modern electronic hand-waving they do for program modes so
> they can add more items to feature lists.
>
> The manual setting of the lens aperture and focal length, however, has no
> bearing on the accuracy of the metering. The camera doesn't need to know
> what aperture the lens is set for in order to meter correctly. You can
> set the max aperture to something completely wrong and exposure will still
> be correct.
I just tested a 50/1.2 on the D200 at f/8 at a white ceiling:
f/1.2 1/2.5 sec
f/3.5 1/2 sec
35mm f/1.4 with same settings:
f/1.4 1/25 sec
f/3.5 1/15 sec
This is not a huge problem but appears to be a factor. My test might be
flawed somehow (I think shifting clouds made the two lenses different),
but the idea is; vignetting wide open on a very fast (or wide?) lens
will throw off the metering because the corners are dark and slower
lenses change less. I guess you could assume that's responsible of them
for a film camera but on digital it's so easy to chimp & correct or fix
in post-processing.
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/ne/nikon4.htm
[Auto Indexing Takes Over
AI type
Introduced in 1977, representing Nikon's first major change to the F
mount since it was introduced. It has a new method of coupling with the
meter called Aperture Indexing (AI). Previously when a lens was mounted,
the camera had to be indexed by manually setting lens's maximum
aperture, or by turning the aperture ring to the the smallest aperture,
then the largest aperture. The new system automatically indexes the
camera, enabling much easier and quicker lens changes.
AI-S.. 1981...
With the introduction of AF lenses a few years later, maximum aperture
and focal length information were transmitted electronically (more
reliably and accurately) so the mechanical linkages of AI and AI-S types
are something of a dead end.]
So Ai lenses did this mechanically and automatically without a CPU
during the act of mounting a new tab indicates max aperture. Pre-AI
apparently you had to work the aperture ring both ways to tell the
camera. Before that you had to just stop-down meter. That's what AI
means: Aperture Indexing.
Hmm, here's a theory for why the 85/1.4 overexposes: the camera uses a
canned formula for correcting assuming all fast lenses vignette but the
85 doesn't vignette much at all so it has out-performed the camera's
expectations. I think that's it because it doesn't appear to overexpose
wide open. Anyways it's not a big problem.
>> I do like my exif correct though and the D200 works a whole lot better
>> for this than the D700. On the D200 I can dial in any aperture & FL on
>> the fly with the extra button on the front (if it's set that way), the
>> D700 makes me menu dive & change one of the 9 presets :-(
>
> Eww. You're kidding? A menu dive for that?
If you are happy with only 9 presets, you only have to menu dive once to
set them up. If you need 10 it's pretty awful. The extra button can
still be used to select the presets (if you set it that way). With the
D200 you use the front button plus front & rear dials for f/l & max
aperture, on the D700 only the rear dial with front button to choose a
preset. That's about my only complaint with the D700 but it does irk me.
I emailed Nikon suggesting a firmware update & got no response so I
assume it's intentional and the D3 doesn't have this limitation. Maybe
calling would be more effective.
> I was thinking a D700 would make a fine next camera. I hate menus.
> No photographic function should ever require a menu, only the digital
> computer stuff.
>
> I do wish Nikon would make me a DSLR that is a camera first, and a computer
> only incidentally. Digital FM3A, is my dream, only I'll concede that it
> would have to require batteries. :)
--
Jeremy Nixon
> I just tested a 50/1.2 on the D200 at f/8 at a white ceiling:
> f/1.2 1/2.5 sec
> f/3.5 1/2 sec
> 35mm f/1.4 with same settings:
> f/1.4 1/25 sec
> f/3.5 1/15 sec
There's just no way those readings match up, and there is no way that
corner falloff / vignetting is responsible. The lighting has to be
different there. The corner falloff on the 50/1.2 is not great enough
to matter here; I don't have a 35/1.4 myself, but it's next on my list. :)
> So Ai lenses did this mechanically and automatically without a CPU
> during the act of mounting a new tab indicates max aperture. Pre-AI
> apparently you had to work the aperture ring both ways to tell the
> camera. Before that you had to just stop-down meter. That's what AI
> means: Aperture Indexing.
I honestly know almost nothing about pre-AI; I've never used it or
really seen it.
But when you put an AI or AI-S lens on a modern camera, the only way
it knows the maximum aperture of the lens is because you tell it.
If you tell it the lens is f/4, it will believe you. It will still
expose correctly, but the camera will display f/4 instead of f/1.2
(or whatever) and so will the EXIF.
> Hmm, here's a theory for why the 85/1.4 overexposes: the camera uses a
> canned formula for correcting assuming all fast lenses vignette but the
> 85 doesn't vignette much at all so it has out-performed the camera's
> expectations. I think that's it because it doesn't appear to overexpose
> wide open. Anyways it's not a big problem.
I don't have an 85/1.4, either, but if the camera's meter is trying to
compensate for corner falloff, which would be bizarre, you could factor
that out by switching the meter to the old-fashioned center-weighted
mode.
("3D Color Matrix Metering"... feh. Kids these days, and all that.
You're choosing a shutter speed, not sending a probe to Mars.)
Using the matrix meter, you can remove any influence of the lens aperture
(which may well be part of the program) by lying to the camera about the
max aperture of the lens. Put the 50/1.2 on the camera and say it's f/5.6.
> If you are happy with only 9 presets, you only have to menu dive once to
> set them up.
Oh! I get it; you set up the presets in the menu, but don't need the
menu to switch among them. That's not nearly as bad as I thought you
meant. I feel much better now. :)
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> I just tested a 50/1.2 on the D200 at f/8 at a white ceiling:
>> f/1.2 1/2.5 sec
>> f/3.5 1/2 sec
>> 35mm f/1.4 with same settings:
>> f/1.4 1/25 sec
>> f/3.5 1/15 sec
>
> There's just no way those readings match up, and there is no way that
> corner falloff / vignetting is responsible. The lighting has to be
> different there. The corner falloff on the 50/1.2 is not great enough
> to matter here
I just checked the 50/1.2 on a D700 (a lot more vignetting than DX
crop). It gives a full stop brighter exposure if I tell it I'm using a
500mm f/4.5 lens, whether I shoot wide open or f/16. OK I went into the
darn menu & set it to 50mm f/4.5 & the meter gave almost 2 stops
slower/brighter. Center weighted versus 3D color matrix doesn't make
much difference. I don't really know if vignetting is the core reason or
what assumptions they make but something happens where specifying too
slow of a max aperture makes it overexpose.
Then I checked the 85/1.4 against the 35/1.4 (with correct lens data)
wide open and at f/8, the 85 overexposed 1/2 stop in both cases, none of
the comparable exposures matched. Stopping down really changes things
for both, the histogram looks all different for these 4 test shots and
this is a white ceiling with hardly any little wispy clouds to change
the light. I'm not much of a scientist but there is something going on
here. Active d-lighting (highlight recovery/fill light effect) could
interfere some too... don't make me menu dive to change that <g>. It
shouldn't matter with a white wall. I didn't have shades on any of these
and they all have big exposed glass on front so flare could be interfering.
>> So Ai lenses did this mechanically and automatically without a CPU
>> during the act of mounting a new tab indicates max aperture. Pre-AI
>> apparently you had to work the aperture ring both ways to tell the
>> camera. Before that you had to just stop-down meter. That's what AI
>> means: Aperture Indexing.
>
> I honestly know almost nothing about pre-AI; I've never used it or
> really seen it.
Me either... just reading that Nikon history page... & something else I
recall reading which said this.
> But when you put an AI or AI-S lens on a modern camera, the only way
> it knows the maximum aperture of the lens is because you tell it.
Modern cameras are missing the AI linkage apparently. They use the cpu
instead so you have to enter it manually.
> If you tell it the lens is f/4, it will believe you. It will still
> expose correctly, but the camera will display f/4 instead of f/1.2
> (or whatever) and so will the EXIF.
I agree it's not a big deal. Matrix metering is just nutty anyways,
there's no way to guess what it'll come up with but it's usually good.
In practice it's unlikely you'd have AI lenses vastly different like my
1.4 to 4.5 example.
>> Hmm, here's a theory for why the 85/1.4 overexposes: the camera uses a
>> canned formula for correcting assuming all fast lenses vignette but the
>> 85 doesn't vignette much at all so it has out-performed the camera's
>> expectations. I think that's it because it doesn't appear to overexpose
>> wide open. Anyways it's not a big problem.
Here's one more theory why the OP could be getting blown highlights with
the 85/1.4: more contrast from a better lens could make highlights a bit
brighter. Flare could effect things too.
> I don't have an 85/1.4, either, but if the camera's meter is trying to
> compensate for corner falloff, which would be bizarre, you could factor
> that out by switching the meter to the old-fashioned center-weighted
> mode.
>
> ("3D Color Matrix Metering"... feh. Kids these days, and all that.
> You're choosing a shutter speed, not sending a probe to Mars.)
>
> Using the matrix meter, you can remove any influence of the lens aperture
> (which may well be part of the program) by lying to the camera about the
> max aperture of the lens. Put the 50/1.2 on the camera and say it's f/5.6.
>
>> If you are happy with only 9 presets, you only have to menu dive once to
>> set them up.
>
> Oh! I get it; you set up the presets in the menu, but don't need the
> menu to switch among them. That's not nearly as bad as I thought you
> meant. I feel much better now. :)
>
--
Jeremy Nixon
> I just checked the 50/1.2 on a D700 (a lot more vignetting than DX
> crop). It gives a full stop brighter exposure if I tell it I'm using a
> 500mm f/4.5 lens, whether I shoot wide open or f/16. OK I went into the
> darn menu & set it to 50mm f/4.5 & the meter gave almost 2 stops
> slower/brighter. Center weighted versus 3D color matrix doesn't make
> much difference. I don't really know if vignetting is the core reason or
> what assumptions they make but something happens where specifying too
> slow of a max aperture makes it overexpose.
Well, there you go. That deserves further investigation. I don't have
a full-frame digital, but I'll try some things with the D2x when I get
a chance. You might be onto something.
If it's trying to outsmart a center-weighted meter reading, though, I
would be pretty annoyed. Not that I've actually noticed any kind of
pattern of error in actual use, but I use center-weighted specifically
because it's predictable and I can figure out what it's going to do
just by looking at the scene.
David Kilpatrick
The metering is read through the focusing screen. The screen does not
accurately transmit any aperture wider than f4.5, as you can confirm by
making manual exposure readings and closing the aperture between f4.5
and f1.2 (even better, rig up a meter to read through the eyepiece, and
you will see how seriously 'adjusted' by the focusing screen the faster
apertures are).
The aperture you need to set manually (in absence of proper couplings)
will be specific to any one lens, and it will apply to any lens over a
certain aperture - f2.8 or faster I'd guess.
If you want to reduce the problem, fit a matt screen intended for wide
aperture or long lenses (for more accurate focusing). I don't know what
type this would be with Nikon but they should have one. It would need to
be a screen which needed either a user-entered or factory adjustment for
exposure once fitted.
David
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> Blaming the lens instead of the body on exposure compensation
>>> problems is a new one
>> you may have a point there.
> What if there were something wrong with the iris control machinery in
> the lens so it wasn't doing exactly what the camera was telling it to
> do?
In this case you'd have a broken lens[1], and it probably wouldn't
show wide open.
-Wolfgang
[1] comparing with broken lenses isn't a good idea, unless you
are prepared to claim all lenses of that make are broken.