2010 February | Jim Gamblin

February 25, 2010

“Old School” A Normal Perspective On Life / with Nikon’s AF-D 50mm f/1.4 lens

The title refers to what some of my students have called me. One could easily assume that it is because of the abundance of gray hair and wrinkles that I find myself in possession of. Not in this case however. The references are for the most part my “old fashion” manners and attitudes. This is especially true to my beliefs and thoughts on photography.

In each class some of my students will come to me for advice about what equipment they should get. Usually I say to them that what they already have (a zoom “kit” lens in most cases) is adequate, and what they really need is inspiration. I mean this, inspiration is absolutely essential. However since we are dependent upon our “gear” to make photos, then to one degree or another we can all be called “gear heads”. So with that, what they really want to know is what blipping piece of equipment they should get next. This is the part that has surprised me. Because I advise them to get a “normal” perspective prime lens, meaning either a 35mm or 50mm (depending on an APS or Full Frame sized sensors).

NORMAL?

The reason this has surprised me (at least at first) is because I rarely used one during most of my career. Like many others I was drawn to the “distorted” perspectives of wide angle and telephoto lenses (the more extreme at either end the better). Normal was, well normal. Then why a “normal” prime lens? Why do I advise one now? It is not because I don’t like that “distorted” perspective anymore. No it is because I have through teaching, rediscovered all of the advantages of the “normal” perspective lens.

TODAY’S ZOOMS

Before I go into what I feel are the advantages of the normal primes, let’s take a look at today’s popular zoom lenses. Today’s consumer or “kit” lens come is a variety of configurations. They are affordable, light weight and have that all-in-one advantage, which makes them great for holiday lenses. One need only stand in one place and move closer or further away by just a “twist of the wrist” (This is especially useful, when in in places where movement is restricted or when changing lenses is not advisable). This may be a simplified description, but still true. There are different categories of zooms. Aside from the “consumer” or “kit” models there are the “upgrade” models, usually with better optics and build quality. Another is the really wonderful “pro” series zoom lenses. I am referring to the very expensive f/2.8 zooms. They are sharp and relatively fast at f/2.8, have great optics and build quality. Presently Nikon makes a 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm all with a maximum apertures of f/2.8 and a 200-400mm f/4. With just these four lenses, one has all of those focal lengths at their disposal. The downside is besides costing the big bucks are that they are big hefty things and not all that fun to haul around. The pros of course can afford them and have assistants to do the “hauling”. Still most pros will still have in their kit several fast primes (f/2.0 and faster) and this is not just a hold over from the old days.

Okay we can see that the pro line of zooms are expensive, heavy and a lot to haul around. So what is wrong with the other zoom lenses then? First they are slow. By the time one zooms to the 50mm part of their zoom range you find your self with a maximum aperture of f/4.5 or f/5.6. Even 50mm primes that cost $100 usually have a maximum aperture of f/1.8. That’s up to 3 1/2 stops. Yes it is true that for the most part used wide open these primes will exhibit some softness, but they clean up quite nicely by f/2.8, which is still faster. Not only does this mean being able to shoot in lower light without an flash, but also the ability to isolate the subject better because of the lesser depth of field the wider apertures provide. And of course because of their speed, the viewfinder will be brighter, which helps with composing your shots.

PRIME LENSES

Prime lenses are generally smaller, usually faster, have higher resolving powers and cost less (“exotics” not included). Granted the the big pro zooms are far superior to the the “kit” zooms, and in some cases as sharp as the primes. But I have digressed so let get to the purpose and subject of these “musings” .

The 50mm was for a very long time the “kit” or first lens most people had with either Rangefinders or SLR’s. The design and construction has been around for sometime and thus proven itself time and again. The normal perspective part comes from the fact that it is close to the diagonal measurements on a 35mm or APS format cameras, thus giving an approximation of the field of view as seen by the human eye. Like I said “Normal is”!

Aside from the extra speed you get, the 50mm primes are smaller and subsequently weigh less (less to carry and takes up less space in the camera bag). And if that isn’t enough, they are a lot sharper then the consumer zooms. Auto focusing is usually much faster also as there is less glass to move.

Despite the speed and compactness of the 50mm prime, the real reason that I advise my students to get one is that they make you think and then compose better photos. Sure the zooms are handy, but in turn I feel they make us lazy. Once learned a 50mm can be composed in such ways to give a “slightly” wide angle appearance (or perspective) and also perform like a short telephoto lens. This is the “learned” part, and why I think they are more important to at least start off with. For that matter, putting any prime on a camera will make us compose our vision within the parameters of that focal length and thus help “see” and become better photographers

This is supposed to be a review in sorts so lets get to that. Presently I have two “normal” primes. A Nikon AF-D f/1.4 50mm and a very old 55mm f/3.5 micro, and that is what I will be writing about. These are both older lenses and though one of them is still selling as new, they have both been replaced by newer and better ones.

BUILD

The 50mm f/1.4 is not exactly going to win any awards for either beauty or construction quality. It is made out of some pretty crummy looking plastic to be quite honest. Though the mount and front are made from metal, which does I must say lend a small but welcome bit of quality. However the look is a bit deceiving, as it actually feels heavier and more solid in the hand. The 55mm on the other hand is old fashion Nikon at it’s best. The lens is more then 35 years old and still performing admirably.

PERFORMANCE

What can I say, the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D is like getting a “paperback” art book only to open it up and be surprised at the quality of the printing inside. The 50 AF-D lens focuses very fast and accurate for a “D” model lens. Though the focusing ring rotates during the AF procedure, which can be a little unnerving at first. Manual focus on the D3 and D2X works very quickly on account of the lens’s brightness (even with my tired old eyes). At the widest apertures setting it does show softness across the frame. By f/2.8 this pretty much gone and by f/4.0 the lens is about as sharp as you could ask for. In the examples below I have included a few shots taken at f/1.4 & f/2.0, so you can see for yourself, whether that “softness” is objectionable or not. Chromatic aberrations (CA’s) are also very visible at the wide apertures, but they also disappear after stopping down two stops or so. On my lens, it would seem that I got a good sample as I have not experienced any “focus shift” problems usually associated with wide aperture lenses.

The 55mm f/3.5 is despite it’s age is a very sharp piece of glass, There have been more then a few photos that I have taken with this lens over the years, that quite honestly surprised me in how sharp they were. Manual focusing despite the slowness (darker in the viewfinder) of the lens is quite quick. Mostly because when you hit the focus point, you “see” it right away. Due to it’s speed or rather lack of I have not encountered any problems with CA’s or “softness” wide open. This not the best micro / macro (Nikon refers to these lenses as micro and the rest of the world refer to them as macro) lens that Nikon has ever built, but it has never let me down, and have included it and some examples as another alternative.

SUMMARY

These are not the best 50mm primes out there or for that matter Nikon’s best. The 50mm AF-D f/1.4 goes for about $300- today and the 55mm micro can be found as a second hand for around $100. Definitely in the range of the most economical of the consumer zooms. However you get a much faster lens (in the case of the f/1.4 lens around four stops), sharper (higher resolution) and less weight. Many of the great 20th Century “street / photojournalists” (i.e. Kertesz, Bresson, Gibson) used only the 50mm or 35mm primes for their whole careers. In the last 15 years these “normal” primes, may have fallen out of favor, but to me they still stand out as the single most practical lens to have in your camera bag.

Here are some examples from both lenses. Most of these examples was shot on the D3 in the full 35mm frame format. However I have included a few shots on the D2X or in the DX mode on the D3. This to show the cropping for those using DX / APS sensors. When the 50mm is used on the DX format, you get a fast portrait lens the equal of 75mm. In addition there are a few shots taken with the 55mm f/3.5 micro lens, for comparison and as an alternative lens.

The first three are a still to show the differences between the 55mm micro, the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D in both FX &DX formats.

The next two are with the 55mm micro, being used as a normal perspective lens.

The last five are all shot at f/2.0 with the 50 f/1.4 AF-D lens at night in Amsterdam (handheld).

Link to Nikon: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f%252F1.4D.html

Link to B&H Photo: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-GREY/Nikon_1902_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

Links to other articles on the 50mm lens:

http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index6.htm

February 9, 2010

NIKKOR AF-S 300MM F/4.0 ED-IF

A GOOD ALTERNATIVE FOR MY LUST?

On any wish list for camera equipment that I could come up with, a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 lens would be on it. Ever since I saw the first manual focus models in the early 80’s I have lusted after one. With it’s ability to isolate the subject so well, the 300mm is one of those focal lengths that just works. And at f/2.8 it is fast enough to use with tele extenders. Now with the “silent wave” focusing and vibration reduction, the “lust” is if anything even greater.

There are however several “buts” involved with this lens. First of course is the price. Something like a good used car’s worth. They have always been expensive and for most of the time simply out of my reach, even the used versions. Secondly and maybe even more important (to me at least) is the heavy weight. At almost 3 kilos /6 lbs. it is a lot of weight to carry around, and especially now that I have gotten older. . . Both of these little problems bring up the question of how much would I use one, is it enough to justify the cost? Since I don’t shoot sports or wildlife for a living, there isn’t much there. On some wedding assignments, I would use it for some of my shots, but mostly it would sit in the camera bag. Still . . .

In the early 90’s I bought the 300mm f/4.0 AF-D lens for my scouting assignments, and was satisfied enough with it’s performance. Auto focus was rather slow, but back then I rarely used AF, so it was not an issue. Then in 2004, one of my friends was interested in getting a telephoto lens and asked my advice on several makes and models. I convinced him to get the 300mm with a 2X converter (not knowing that Nikon in the mean time had replaced my version with the AF-S 300mm f/4.0 in 2000, yeah I know a little behind the times) . When his new lens came with the the TC-20E II, I tried it out. Later that day and without even waiting to sell my older 300mm (or for that matter even think if I could afford to do so), I ordered the same combo.

You may have assumed that I was impressed. I was! Later on I did have my doubts, which I will come to a little later on. First however let me explain why I have chosen to write this blog entry now, nearly five years after purchasing the lens. In my last blog entry about DOF comparisons in the different sensor sizes, I used the 300mm on several of the test series. Once again I was notably impressed with it’s performance. Not only in sharpness, even wide open, but also how it was rendering the out of focus areas. Also the introduction to an even newer 300mm f/2.8 recently, further spurred me into writing this review. So here now are my impressions of this lens, after having used it off and on for the past five years. This review may be a little late in coming, but at least I have had the time to fully assess this lens.

THE DRAWBACKS

THE TRIPOD COLLAR

First and foremost of the problems with this lens was the tripod collar. Yes you read that right, “was”. The original was replaced a short time after I received the lens, with an improved model designed and made by the nature photographer Rainer Burzynski. There are several other “third party” manufacturers that make them and I feel pretty confident in saying that they all work better. In the past there have been quite a bit of internet discussions about the short comings of some of Nikon’s tripod collars. So I won’t go into it too deep here (Bjorn Rorslett’s article was one of the better ones: www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html & www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tripod_collars.html#top_page). Suffice to say that I had a hard time getting any tripod mounted shot that I did really sharp, I don’t even want to go on about using it with the TC-20E II. This was at almost any speed. Having bought the lens in 2004, meant that I even had the supposedly improved model. Fortunately it was very easy to replace and once I did, “problem solved”.

IS IT REALLY AN F/4 LENS?

At it’s maximum aperture, I find this lens to be about 1/3 of a stop slow, compared to the rest of the aperture range. Though I don’t really find it that much of a problem.

THE GOOD STUFF

With the tripod mount issue rectified and the other problems not enough to worry me, then all I can say is that this is one hell of a lens.

BUILD

It is very solidly built and yet at the same time a fairly compact telephoto lens. Nothing to complain about there. The finish is real top line Nikon pro, with that slight stippling metal body with the gold engraving. The large focusing ring has a ribbed rubber surface and has just enough resistance. There is a “convenient” built in hood, that locks into place and seems deep enough. The one surprise is the absence of a limiting switch. When it first arrived I was a little disappointed as was my friend over the case. It isn’t one of those classic round hard leather ones. It is made from ballistic nylon, but in the end seems far more practical to me.

HANDLING

The AF works much better on this version then the old AF-D. Not nearly as much hunting and for the most part very very accurate. The exception being with the TC-20E II, where the AF has a really hard time of it. Thus far I have not tried it out with the TC-14E II, but hear that it works far better (with hardly any loss in resolution). It balances quite well on a pro body. In fact even though it out weighs the 80-200 by 140 grams (5 ounces) and is 35 mm longer (1.4 inches) it feels lighter somehow and easier to hold.

PERFORMANCE

For the most part I shoot this lens wide open and have not found it to be a problem from a resolution standpoint (maybe I am less critical about those sort of things, if it is sharp enough to show the individual eyelashes for example, then I am happy). It may not compare well to the f/2.8 300, but it is certainly superior to the 80-200 f/2.8. Another feature added to the AFS version is the ability to focus at less then 1 1/2 meters (5 feet), giving a reproduction ratio of 1:3.7. This is accomplished by the shortening of the focal length, which when at it’s minimum focusing, the lens is at 240mm. Maybe not macro, but still it can make for some interesting close-up shots, thus adding substantially to it’s versatility. This is one feature that I have used a lot. When you add a tele converter to it, then you really do get macro performance with the added benefit of that “telephoto compression” look.

Here is a variety of shots that I have made, which I believe shows it’s optical qualities and versatility. Only the photo of the shovel has been cropped (a very little to correct perspective). On most of the D3 examples, what you are seeing is the 5:4 crop option.

These next three series with the TC-20E II employed. Are not typical of the results I normally get, unfortunately. In fact I would say that my success rate is usually 20-30% when I do utilize the TC-20E II. Possibly the new version (TC-20E III) will perform better. Also I understand that the TC-14E II works far better in combination with Nikon’s telephoto lenses. All three series were shot with the D3 in “live mode”. I could not get the AF to work on the shots with the TC-20E II. Thus I do not think it would have been possible to get such good results with the D2X.

CONCLUSION

The question does this lens solve my lust. Yes and no. With it’s optical quality, compactness, that special ability to focus close up and at a quarter of the price, it is hard to find any fault. In fact it is a little hard to believe that the 300mm f/2.8 is so much sharper as it has been reported. Then again there is always that underlying desire for any lens that carries with it the mystical reputation that the 300mm f/2.8 does, regardless of it’s impracticality for me.

At the end of the day, I have to say that yes it is a worthy alternative.

Nikon Link: http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1909/AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F4D-IF-ED.html

Link for the where I got the Burzynski tripod mount: https://www.isarfoto.com/cms.php/_p:1,st:burzynski/de/0/search.html

B&H Photo link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207356-GREY/Nikon_1909_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_300mm.html

*Note: For those of you that have not read my blog previously. These reviews are not “technical”, they are merely my personal experiences and emotional responses to the equipment that I am reviewing. They are done with the intent to help those of you who may be interested in purchasing a particular piece of equipment and to provide an alternative review form.

For those of you interested in more technical reports, try visiting one of these sites:

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

http://slrlensreview.com/

http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreviewnikonlenses01.htm

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/body_lenses.html

**Note: Please excuse the varying changes in font size and photo frame. I am still trying to figure out which looks good and get adjusted to this whole blog thing.

A month or so ago I stumbled onto a internet thread over the introduction of the then new Nikon D2X. Yeah I know, the article was a bit out of date, but . . . How I got to this thread is a bit of a mystery to me (riding an internet wave too far I guess). In the thread one of the main contributors (a very self convinced person) and what he had to say is the reason that I chose to write this blog entry. So here I go, let’s just hope this doesn’t turn into my rant.

Throughout the thread there were the usual pros and cons being discussed about the D2X and it’s merits or lack of. As I said above, one of the lines in the thread, really got my interest. This line involved the thoughts of a person who worked for a company (undisclosed) doing some kind of photographic work for them (again undisclosed). The company had recently (most likely within the previous two years) invested twenty three thousand dollars in photographic equipment (Nikon and digital). The person to whom I am referring to, convinced the company to sell off this fairly new equipment at a loss of sixteen thousand dollars and buy the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II and associated lenses and accessories. This new investment (and the substantial loss) was predicated on the fact that the “full 35mm frame” of the Canon would yield better control over the DOF (depth of field) from the APS size sensor in the NIkon. This person really came across as being very self convinced and had put up some pretty good sounding arguments when questioned by the others. The main argument that he was trying to get across, was that sensor size of the D2X (and all other APS size sensors or smaller) dictate that there is too much DOF and consequently, nearly uncontrollable.

Since I teach my basic photography class that the two most important things to remember about controlling the DOF is in the aperture opening and more importantly in subject magnification, I had to look into this. Also I happen to be someone who mostly shoots at wide apertures and had by this time shot with the D2X for enough time to know the camera and assess this problem. The same D2X (DX/APS) is still in my possession as is a D3 (FX or full 35mm frame), thus I could put the two cameras to the test and find out for myself. Despite having a pretty good idea what the results would be, I still tried to enter into the test with an open mind. Again I feel that it is subject magnification that limited DOF most comes into play. Whether it be by being close to the subject or using longer focal lengths to achieve “closeness” to the subject. And of course the aperture opening.

Before I go any further, let me I say that I am not trying to champion the cause for Nikon here. Quite the contrary I love the idea of competition between manufactures, regardless of what they make. In the case of Canon vs. Nikon (and now Sony) they keep improving upon their products and we as end users and consumers benefit form it. What I am trying to do, is to say that the question of the DOF difference between sensors sizes is not that black and white.

Admittedly my testing has it’s flaws from a technical testing standpoint. You will not see MTF charts or focusing charts, etc. That sort of testing I leave to others who are better qualified. However I feel that a few flaws and an absence of charts in the testing is more like “real life” and gives us a better idea how different equipment functions in the “field”. One evident fault in my testing that could be pointed out, is that the focusing was done fairly close up to the subjects. This was due on account of the limitations of this blog and to make viewing easier. Also for the most part (with the exception of the 300mm test) the cropping would be similar to a tight head shot. Though being this close, shortens the DOF considerably, it still shows the comparative depths of field of both sensor sizes.

With the exception of the last series of tests, the cameras were both mounted on a tripod and left in the exact same position. Mirror lock-up and a cable release were utilized for accuracy. Both cameras were shot at their native ISO’s (100 iso on the D2X and 200 iso on the D3). Some cropping was done in post (where noted) for better viewing, again as my blog site is not set-up for larger images to be shown. Anyway have a look at these tests with an open mind and see for yourself.

For the first part of the test, I chose a 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 Nikkor lens. With the aspect ratio difference of 1.5 between the D2X and the D3, I decided to make life easier for myself, by using an easy number to start the test. First thing was to shoot both cameras at 150mm and then change the lens to 100mm and shoot the test scene again with only the D2X. This was done so as to give the same angle of view for both cameras (sensor sizes). To me the angle of view is not the same as subject magnification. The APS size sensor will be referred to as DX in the test shots and FX will be used to denote the “full 35mm frame” test shots.

In the second round of tests I employed the use of the 80-200mm, set at 200mm, on the D2X and on the D3, a 300mm f/4.0 AF-S (simple arithmetic again). Just another attempt at getting the same angle of view. The second round also includes both cameras with the 300mm lens from the same camera position. With a cropped FX version for easier viewing and an uncropped FX version.

For the last test I decided to go with two different lenses that both have a maximum aperture of f/1.4. The 85mm and 50mm Nikkor lenses. On this test I did move the D2X with the 50mm on it to within a distance to replicate the same angle of view as the 85mm on the full frame D3. With this set-up I went form f/4, to f/1.4 in increments of one stop. The last shot on this series is the 85mm now mounted on the D2x (DX camera). Which was moved to attain the same angle of view as it appears on the D3 (FX camera).

CONCLUSION

Does the larger sensor size offer less DOF / more back ground blur? What we have found here, is that the issue is not really all that clear cut. Using a shorter lens on the APS / DX size sensor (giving the same angle of view), will indeed produce “more in focus” or deeper DOF (around 1 to 1 1/2 stops worth). This is of course attributable to the shorter focal length required to overcome the aspect ratio difference and achieve the same angle of view. The same could be said, if a shorter focal length lens is used on the same camera (whatever the sensor or image plane size is). Of course this applies equally to the reverse situation, needing a longer focal length. Using the exact same focal length on both sensor formats, results in either the same DOF or possibly a little less or more, but certainly not enough to warrant selling off a camera system.

The quality of the lens and how it renders the out-of-focus areas also plays a big part in the perceived DOF. I think this can be seen and compared best, in the case of the 300mm vs. the 200mm and again with the 85mm vs. the 50mm. Some lenses render the out-of-focus area with an edge around high contrast areas, making it appear that they are less out-of -focus. The better lenses will provide good contrast in the “focused area” and lowering of contrast in the “out-of-focus areas” making for a smoother transition and a “creamy” look, which creates good “bokeh”. Stronger contrast always appears “sharper” then lower contrast.

So either using a longer focal length or moving closer to the subject or employing wider apertures can be used with a great deal of effectiveness in both formats. Even in regards to the very small sensor formats found in the point and shoot cameras (though the problem of overcoming the aspect ratio differences there is somewhat harder). On the other hand and something the “thread contributor” did not mention, was when there is a need for more depth of field. Knowing how to achieve both limited and deeper DOF are both important disciplines to learn in photography, as different situations require.

The last thing that can be learned is simply to know your equipment and how to use it for the effect you want. Though I guess that can be said about most things in life.

Coming up next: After performing the above test, I was once again impressed with the Nikkor 300mm f/4.0. So I will be writing up my impressions with a number of examples, from both formats.

February 25, 2010

“Old School” A Normal Perspective On Life / with Nikon’s AF-D 50mm f/1.4 lens

February 9, 2010

NIKKOR AF-S 300MM F/4.0 ED-IF

February 1, 2010

Depth of Field Comparisons Between Full 35mm Frame (FX) vs. APS-C / (DX)