Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

well the kit lens sucks donkey balls and i will exchange it, i didnt mean to buy a replacement for it but that tamron is part of sigma macro deal + monopod comes too. Its old as hell but still wanted to see if someone has used it and the thoughts of it.
 
If it comes for free, sure, why not, but just keep in mind that we are talking about what seems like a cheap, third party wide angle zoom from the days of film..

:)
 
Since I use the tack-sharp Sigma 150mm macro, I must say I'm disappointed to an extent by my Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 D. The latter does make good pictures, but it never delivered the extreme sharpness the Sigma gives me. I know that these lenses are not comparable in any way, but I think that the 35mm technically should be able to deliver images just as sharp as the 150mm does.

The 35mm always did great colours and delivered nice pictures overall, but the sharpness I get out of it under ideal conditions does not really hold up to the sharpness of the 150mm. Am I expecting too much of the Nikkor, or is it possible that it is not assembled correctly (it doesn't fail-focus though)? Or maybe it's the getting close to the very details that tricks me into thinking that the 150mm macro is sharper?

This 50% resize is the sharpest shot I ever got with the Nikkor, and I'd say that would be on par with a 100% crop of the Sigma in terms of sharpness.
 
Last edited:
Well, the 35/1.8 might be an idea, it seems like it's a sharper lens than the old 35. That, or you could look into an AI-S 50/2.0, if you're no stranger of MF, it's been said that the AI-S 50/2.0 and 50/1.2 are the sharpest lenses Nikon has ever made.
 
Okay, so now I am confused. I didn't want to just put this to a rest, so I made a (somewhat amateurish) comparison of both lenses. Here are the downsized versions of the comparison shots I made. Both are brought down to 1000px width and were resharpened bicubically during the resize:

35mm Nikkor (f/8.0):


150mm Sigma (f/5.6):


The f-stops are different because I chose the sharpest possible aperture opening available for both lenses. The exposure time was adapted accordingly to maintain proper exposure. Both lenses were focused manually to the hair on the right side of the eye. The elephant was repisositioned to appear about the same size on both photos.

100% crop comparison of the sharpest areas (Sigma left, Nikkor right):


From the resized full shots, I'd say the Nikkor is sharper. On the 100% crop, I'd say the Sigma is a nuance sharper. But overall, they're on par, at least on this somewhat limited CRT monitor. I apologise for the huge file sizes, but I didn't want to spoil the results by JPEG compression.

Thoughts? :|
 
Last edited:
That you're putting way too much effort in determining a barely perceptible difference in sharpness. :?
Thing is that I thought the difference in sharpness is much bigger before I did this test. And I'm a pixel-peeper.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure you're seeing the difference between perceived sharpness and sharpness. As far as I understand it, with higher contrast you get a lot more perceived sharpness, just like when you use unsharp mask or any other sharpening, if done correctly it will give your photograph more "bite". Looking at the crops it's clear that although the Nikkor is perceptually sharp it doesn't resolve the detail nearly so well. For web sizes like this it may appear that the Nikkor has the edge but if you print the Sigma should give you a much better result, particularly if you want to print big.

At least I think that's approximately right :p.
 
Always funny playing with new lenses. :)
 
Soooo.....a friend wants a manual camera so she can learn how to take proper photos, but her budget is very limited.
A friend has two Pentaxes for sale: a MZ50 with the original 28-80 lens and a P30. Are they good cameras for learning about aperture, shutter speed, etc? Any other in that price range I should check? Heck, I am tempted to buy one for myself to play around with film :lol:
 
Get yourself an Olympus OM-2. They're not very expensive (range from 15 USD to 200 USD on eBay) and are generally sold with the decent 50/1.8. It's a superb manual film camera, you avoid the battery issue of the OM-1, and it's a wee bit underapreciated compared to various Nikon bodies of the same era. Viewfinder is excellent, better than most, better than a 5Dmk2 or a D700, I belive.

Not to mention they're old school, and it'll make you look interesting, not just poor.

:)
 
Thanks for the tip!
I will check prices and availability here. :)

EDIT:Wow. It DOES look cool.
 
Last edited:
Nikon FE, Olympus OM-2, Pentax K1000, lots of good choices out there.
 
Seems like they're getting expensive. I also notice that there's high demand for the OM Zuiko 28/2.0, which I have. 600 bucks, that's good money.

Not selling it though. It's just a gem.

However, it's strange if you can't find one locally on local camera sites, heck, the last months there've been at least four different OM-2s for sale at a Norwegian site.
 
At the time those cameras were manufactured, it was forbidden to import ANYTHING to this hellhole of a country, so maybe that made them rare. :dunno:
 
This just in: Nomix recommends Olympus. More at eleven.
 
Got myself a 105mm sigma f2.8 macro and tamron 20-40 2.8-3.5 to replace my kit lens.. feels solid and sharp.. both do. And got myself a monopod too..

hmm i should upgrade my gear status on the gear thread.

And still im looking for 70-200 4L
 
Top