Opinions about Lenses, Perceptions-The Positive and Negative

[AlanKlein82 21]

A tripod will improve the performance of any lens. In fact, I'd say a tripod makes the worst lens better than the best lens hand held.

 

[mrca]

Alan, a tripod helps with camera shake but not other lens qualities like microcontrast, bokeh, color, 3D rendering. My cameras in studio live on a rolling stand with a quick release. At a decent shutter speed, it gives tack sharp images, ie, no motion blur that might not be noticed on a monitor but in a larger print, it will reveal motion blur you might not have seen otherwise.

 

[flyingPhoto]

proper technique it critical, however some things are not fact, only myths created by a persons experience.

Example, you have a person doing an article for a hunting magazine. cant sight a rifle in at 50 yards after using 80 rounds of ammunitionand call the rifle and the scope junk.
Then you have an actual shooter come along, install the scope properly, put the rifle on a rolled up blanket, use 10 rounds to sight in at 100, and then use standard military off hand sling positions and score hits on 10 inch gongs at 2-300 yards with it.
is the gun or scope junk

 

[mrca]

Flying, to extend your example, that works with most rifles at 100 or 200 yards, but when a sniper is trying for a center mass shot at 3/4 mile, that requires a weapon and ammunition with fine tolerances and someone behind the trigger with the skills to judge distance, wind, humidity and have breath and heartbeat control. It is the difference between being an ok shooter and one that produces the absolute best results. And thats shooting guns or cameras. There aren't any one mile kill shots with a rifle from Walmart or Costco or by someone with minimal skills. And like photography, if a less skilled shooter takes hundreds of shots, eventually he might hit the target.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I have long ago reached the opinion at above a certain price point; cameras, guitars and other musical instruments, golf clubs, fly rods and such, are pretty much selected because of the nuances of the the different models.

By the time a person is ready to buy a high level camera, they know what they like in the feel, heft, ease of menu selection, lens selection for their type of photography, and a host of other personal preferences. Hence, good or best is judged by person priority.

I am of course bypassing those that are looking for pride of ownership or status.

However, there is a degree of comfort in knowing the high dollar camera, probably can do whatever may wish it to do at some future time.

 

[Lonnie1212]

@photoflyer hit the nail on the head, compared to what? Anyway, if you like the glass, that's what's important. I would love to have a 28-70 2.8 L lens but I have a 28-80 usm version 1 lens that is fantastic and I literally bought it for $20 at a pawn shop because it was there and the focal length is useful. It doesn't get hardly any reviews other than it flares bad, etc and people can't figure out what hood to put on it or use their hand.

My favorite Nikkor lens is the 25-50 f4 AIS. It's not all that sharp and most of the reviews are not favorable if one where researching it to possibly buy it. I bought it because of a document I read about historical Nikkor lens design. Man, what a lens! At least my copy. It has a very unique render quality on film. It is stuck on my F2. I probably would not use it on a modern digital as I'm 90% certain the sensor would smash the look, would have to use it on a D2x.

I have a Canon 35-350L push pull design that has similar rendering qualities to that Nikkor. Again, I read about it in a lens research article on push pull designed lenses. Got it for cheap considering more modern, well reviewed lenses with similar focal length. Now I have one lens that I can use for outdoor events like steam tractor shows where the environment plays hell on a camera body with all the soot and smoke. I don't have to go back to my truck and change the lens and my mirror and prism stay clean.

It is really interesting to hear your opinion. Thank you for sharing.

 

[ac12]

I loved my 43-86, mine was great as well. Showed a lot of pics on here using that lens. Unfortunately, I did a purge of gear and it was one of the lenses. I only have 3 lenses for my Nikon F2... 25-50 AIS, 35 1.4 AIS, and a 58 f1.4 voigtlander. I hardly ever use the last 2, probably going to sell them. The 35 1.4 is the hardest lens to use, I only keep it because I want to get good with it, when you nail it, it's super but I rarely nail anything with it...frustrating.

Primes can be hard to shoot well. Because you only have that one focal length.
And if you are a zoomie, like me, it can be hard to shift the brain into thinking prime lens.
I think you have to JUST use the prime, long enough for your brain to shift gear.

I had thought about doing just that.
Do a weekend with just ONE prime lens on the camera.
Just like my early days, when the only lens that I had was a 50. When that was all I had, I MADE it work.

The other thing is some of us just have a hard time using certain focal length lenses.

 

[mrca]

AC, exactly, if you use one prime for a while, you get to know it. Mine are manual focus and the focus ring on each has a different travel. I suggest a 35 to start with, and with one with an aperture ring, you get a dof scale. If you pre set that, there is minimal twisting of the focus ring. Also do the turn slightly past focus, turn back slightly before then about half way in between, it goes as as fast as 1, 2, 3 click. When an auto focus lens hunts, it can take way longer and those of us who shot for decades before digital, it worked just fine. The image quality of a low element count prime is stunning. If you shoot b&w, the micro contrast, think having the 64 box of crayons instead of the 16 to draw the tonal transitions. Yes, with a lens with lots of glass like a 22 element zoom, you will see a tonal transition, but a 6-9 element prime will have much more shades of gray in it. It is a matter of physics, glass soaks up light and the front surface reflects some. Run it through 22 pieces and low energy shadow light has been filtered out. Coating only helps with reflections. Canon and nikon stopped using leaded glass for environmental rules, zeiss and leica have not and leaded glass transmits more light.

 

[tinytmp]

There is a YouTube photographer that I listen to frequently. He gives straight to the point advice about lenses. Most of the time I really listen to advice, because I am a hobbyist photographer and not a professional. But this evening I found myself disagreeing with his opinion. He said the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and the older 80-400 AF D lenses were both absolute crap. I have been using the 24-120 f/4 on a Nikon D610 for family reunions and pictures of my grandchildren. Have found the lens to be a perfect and dependable lens. I even use it for cityscapes at night photography. The lens is like magic.
The older 80-400 AF D lens I've used for wildlife and small bird photography. It is probably the lens that I use the most. Have found it to be moderately sharp and as long as I don't overstep the distance capabilities of the lens. It is perfectly fine for small bird pictures. It even shows the feather details with no problem.

If I were a professional portrait photographer, maybe I would see things in a different light. Some people even spend time searching for shadow fight 2 mod apk max level 52 while pursuing hobbies. But since I'm a hobbyist, maybe I can get by with things that a professional cannot. But again, I find no fault with these two lenses.

We have to keep the industry going. Hobbyists and professionals are needed to make things happen.

Thank you for listening.

Lonnie

Your experience shows that both the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and 80-400 AF D lenses work perfectly for hobbyist photography. While professionals might have higher standards, for family, cityscape, and wildlife shots, these lenses are dependable, sharp, and versatile. Personal use and context often matter more than general opinions, and your satisfaction with them is completely valid.

 

[greybeard35 7]

Pixel peepers don't give the af-s 24-120 f/4 much love but, mine has served me well.

 

[snowbear117 48]

I'm going to let the zombie continue as it is a valid open discussion. Argumentative posts deleted. Let's play nice and go out and shoot some photos.

 

[Fusion07]

Opinions are just that, opinions. Everybody has one; they are not always right or agree with your opinion. Use what you have if it does what you want it to do. I find the 24-120 pretty darned good and use it a lot.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

There is a YouTube photographer that I listen to frequently. He gives straight to the point advice about lenses. Most of the time I really listen to advice, because I am a hobbyist photographer and not a professional. But this evening I found myself disagreeing with his opinion. He said the Nikon 24-120 f/4 and the older 80-400 AF D lenses were both absolute crap. I have been using the 24-120 f/4 on a Nikon D610 for family reunions and pictures of my grandchildren. Have found the lens to be a perfect and dependable lens. I even use it for cityscapes at night photography. The lens is like magic.
The older 80-400 AF D lens I've used for wildlife and small bird photography. It is probably the lens that I use the most. Have found it to be moderately sharp and as long as I don't overstep the distance capabilities of the lens. It is perfectly fine for small bird pictures. It even shows the feather details with no problem.

If I were a professional portrait photographer, maybe I would see things in a different light. But since I'm a hobbyist, maybe I can get by with things that a professional cannot. But again, I find no fault with these two lenses.

We have to keep the industry going. Hobbyists and professionals are needed to make things happen.

Thank you for listening.

Lonnie

This is a common problem with many hobbies, once you get above entry level pricing. High dollar equipment usually has similar performance specs, but they often have a different feel. In the music world an instrument my sound great but the "feel" of the neck, the body shape, the tactile feel under your fingers may make it difficult for one player. while the next player has found their perfect instrument. I find this very true with cameras. Because I have a small collection of film and digital cameras, I will focus on the picture, press the shutter button, only to find it is not there. So to, the focusing, film advance. or aperture setting etc. There are tactile features that very camera designer thinks is perfect, but the user, perhaps not. Even the lens quality can be subjective. sharpness, contrast, and a host of other subtle issue make a lens "perfect" or "garbage" or in most cases Okay. It depends on the task at hand and the expectations of the user.

 

[PhotoHobbyist117 143]

Most reviewers on youtube are very subjective so not of much help.
Christopher Frost youtube reviewer is very objective with standardized lens tests.
I rely on his recommendations a lot. His focus is for lenses fitting Canon cameras.

 

[TJMcG116 3]

I took this picture with a D2X and the AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. This is a JPEG of the unedited .nef file, just resized for display here. I took many hundreds of bird pics with this lens, some of which I thought were pretty good. Ignore the YouTube guy.