Mini Review - Nikkor K 300mm f4.5 AI'd

 
NEX-7, Nikkor K 300mm f4.5 AI'd


I've owned 2 of these, the first a really beatup one with a cracked foot that I used back in my pre-digital and early digital days and the second a cheap one I picked up as a telephoto for mirrorless bodies back in 2012 or so. I still own the latter.

These are extremely cheap on the used market. There's a reason. Frankly, it sucks. Most every semi-modern 70-300 is as good or better at 300mm.

What's wrong with it?

Low resolution. You can see detail smearing on the cattails even at web resolution
CA and purple fringing at wide apertures. It's bloody useless at f4.5 and merely poor at f5.6. It's usable at f8
Poor MFD. Yeah, it doesn't focus close at all. Unlike most every 70-300.

What's good about it?

Very well built
Includes tripod foot
Easy to focus

If you still shoot film, and have a body that takes AI lenses but not G lenses, it's not bad for what it costs if you aren't a regular long-lens shooter. If you can use G lenses, even the cheapest 70-300G is as good, and probably better stopped down.

Skip this one. Only reason I still own it is that it's the one 300mm option I own that works on every body I own, which is occasionally useful. And it's worthless on the used market.

If you really must have a slower 300 with an aperture ring, look for the ED or ED-IF versions. They're FAR better. Or just get the original AF-S version, it's a D lens with an aperture ring and also FAR better. I'd skip the regular AF version, it's not enough cheaper than the AF-S to justify not getting the AF-S version instead of the screwdriver version, and the AI-S ED-IF is the same glass with better manual focusing.

Mini Review - Zeiss ZF.2 T* 1,4/85 Planar

 
D800,  Zeiss ZF.2 T* 1,4/85 Planar

The ZF.2 85 is a complex lens to review, and one that's driven most of my gear decisions of late.

In short, it's a brilliant but flawed lens that requires care and thought to get the most from it, but the end results are well worth it.

Fundamentally the design is an evolution of the 85/1.4 Planar from the Contax SLR system, with about 25 years of experience injected.

Wide open it's a little soft, especially at close focus distances, and subject to very noticeable CA. Stopped down it's sharp, with excellent contrast & resolution. It's in between the two where things get awkward.

Fundamentally it does have the classic Zeiss signature. Lovely colour, lots of microcontrast in the in-focus areas, a drop in microcontrast as you transition to the out of focus areas and the resulting 'Zeiss 3D' look.

But between f1.6 and f4, it suffers horrendously from focus shift. This is where the act of stopping down the lens to shooting aperture from wide open shifts the plane of focus away from its position wide open (which is focusing aperture on a DSLR). There's a couple ways to compensate for this, mostly in using DoF preview (awkward), using Live View (if your DSLR supports LV at shooting aperture) or simply adapting it to a Mirrorless camera and using the EVF & focus aids to get around focus shift (since you are always focusing at shooting aperture, most mirrorless systems don't suffer from focus shift).

That said, I do love the results when I hit focus. It's just brilliant. But I can't recommend it to folks shooting high-MP DSLR's due to focus shift. You simply have to stop it down to smaller than f4 so DoF covers the shift, and there's better options for slow lenses in this range.

Mini Review - Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR G

 
D300,  Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR G


Introduced in 2006, the 70-300VR G was Nikon's first real consumer VR telezoom (the earlier 80-400 was out of reach of most consumers). It was also a brilliant value, sharp to 250mm, acceptable at 300mm, fast AF, great stabilization.

It isn't anymore.

The short answer is this is quite a good lens on bodies up to 14MP or so, and increasingly mediocre on newer bodies. It's a little soft at 300mm, but at 250mm or below it's very good on low and mid megapixel bodies (or film for that matter, if you have one of the few film bodies that support VR, AF-S & G lenses)

Over the last couple years Nikon released 2 new AF-P 70-300's, a cheap f4.5-6.3 DX version (in VR and non-VR form) and a more expensive f4.5-5.6 FX version. In short, both are better than the VR G, and noticeably so on any body with AF-P support. Given the low cost of refurbs on the DX VR version, that's the way to go today unless you have an old body. Get the FX version if you have any FX body other than the D3/S/X or D700 (none of which support AF-P). Skip the VR G unless you shoot FX and need a telezoom on a serious budget.

That said, if you own one, I wouldn't toss it. Just don't expect it to hold up to 24MP DX or 24+MP FX.

Mini Review - Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI

 
D800, Micro-Nikkor 55mm f3.5 AI

For a couple decades the 55/3.5 Micro was the answer for Nikon shooters to the question 'I need a really sharp normal lens'. Not fast, but extremely sharp, reasonably priced and a great focal length for many uses on 35mm and DX crop bodies.

I've had at least 2 of these over the years, maybe three (I don't recall exactly). The current one was a gift from my Aunt, who had bought it new with an FE body around 1980 or so (I also have that FE body, it's my last film body).  

In short, it's a brilliant little lens. It can be a bit finicky to get accurate infinity focus via an optical viewfinder, but at any other shooting distance it's quite easy to focus accurately. It is a daylight lens, at f3.5 it's just not bright enough for real low-light work off a tripod, unless you have an EVF and world-beating high ISO (think A7SII and maybe an A9 or A7III). The issue is focusing more than anything else. Surprisingly, it's also a pretty good portrait lens on DX, if you can live with manual focus. You don't really need f1.8 or faster for portraits and the 55 is a nicer length for portraiture than the 50's (it's 82.5mm-e vs 75mm-e, closer to the classic 85 FL).

Overall though, this is my go-to lens very everyday use. I've definitely used 2 other lenses more of late (My 85/1.4 and 70-300), but when I pick up a single lens to put on the camera for walkabout or any sort of general shooting, it's the 55/3.5 that gets the nod 9 out of 10 times.

If you shoot F mount, or shoot something that you can readily adapt F mount lenses to, this cheap & cheerful lens is well worth adding to your kit. Possibly more so than a 50/1.8.

A Little Update

D300, 16-85VR

Well, it's mid-May now and a little while since I last posted. What's been going on? Well, some shooting, I'm over 3200 shots for the year, and 2750 of them are on the D800. That's more shooting in 2.5 months on the D800 than I did in any of the last 3 years. I'm on track to shooting the typical 10,000 frames of digital that was my average before I started struggling with motivation back in 2013.

I'm rapidly coming to realize I generally prefer the D800 over the D300's for pretty much all shooting. The better frame coverage for AF and more optimized UI tend to outweigh the extra FPS and better viewfinder (in DX mode) of the D300. I still do like the D300's though and intend to keep shooting them alongside the D800, but I can definitely see the possibility of replacing them in the future, likely with a smaller, lighter body (D7x00 most likely).

The above shot hit Explore yesterday, which is why I've featured it. It's a pretty classic view of this building against a strong blue sky in late winter. A pretty clear example of just how good the D300/16-85VR combo can be.

Mini Review - Nikkor 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR

 
 D3200, Nikkor 16-85 VR

Above is the single most popular image I've ever posted to Flick, with almost 29,000 views. It was shot with a lowly D3200 and Nikon's 16-85 VR zoom.

This is the 5th most used lens for me in terms of images uploaded to Flickr, and in terms of zooms, only the two Zuiko normal zooms have been used more (the ZD 14-54 II and the m.Zuiko 12-50 MSC), largely because they were pretty much welded on front of their respective cameras (E-M5 for both, also E-30 for the 14-54). Of the three, I liked the ZD 14-54 the most and the 12-50 the least.

As to the 16-85, it's a very competent but largely average lens. It's got a great range, is unusually wide for a Nikkor DX zoom (where 18-everything is more common) and is reasonably sharp and has good colour. It does quite well up to the 16MP bodies, but it's stretching on the 24MP bodies, although it still can deliver. Close focus is a surprising strength, it's probably best at 85mm and under 3m. Not that it's a macro, but it'll handle flowers and larger insects just fine. Focus is again OK, although I've found my borrowed example can miss unpredictably at times. That said, I purchased that lens new in 2008, passed it on, and have borrowed it back periodically so it may just be a little long in the tooth now.

In general, I'd recommend this over most Nikkor DX normal zooms. The 18-70 is IMHO optically better, but is less wide, less long, lacks VR and is getting difficult to find good copies of (it's long out of production). The 16-80E beats it in everything except price (real high) and compatibility (as an E lens you need a D300 or newer body, not including the D90 or D3000). There are better 3rd party options, but all are less flexible. It really just is a good do-everything hiking lens. If you can't swing a 16-80, get the 16-85 instead.

Mini Review - Nikkor 50/1.8 Family

 
 NEX-7, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AI 'Longnose'

This will be a little different, as I'm basically covering all 3 lenses of this spec Nikon's made. I've owned a bunch of them over the years.

The family starts off with the 50mm f1.8 AI. This was introduced in the late 70's to replace the legendary but ancient 50mm f2. About the same size as the f2 version (and comparable to today's 50mm f1.8D in size), this was an excellent performer that would last to the beginning AF era as an AI-S lens in non-US markets. It's often referred to as the longnose 50/1.8.

Shortly after Nikon designed a small and simple 50mm f1.8 near-pancake for the Series E lens line for their new and simple EM SLR. This was a single-coated optic in a small package. It would get multicoating to become the standard AI-S 50/1.8 for the US and Canadian markets, then get re-used in the first three AF 50mm f1.8 variants (AF, AF-N and AF-D) and remains on sale today as the 50mm f1.8 AF-D. The only optical difference is coating, but there's about 8 different barrel variations from minor (the various AI-S versions differing mostly in MFD) to major (the original AF barrel, the AF-N barrel).

Finally Nikon brought out an all-new optical design as the first entry in their new line of f1.8 AF-S G primes. This one is comparatively huge and the most expensive of the lot, although it just might be the sharpest of the lot, rivaled only by the original Longnose design.

I've owned one of the longnose AI's, uncounted numbers of the Series E and derivatives including both original AF and AF-D and one AF-S. I prefer the former and latter, although even the least of these is a pretty darn good lens and you can't go wrong. Right now there's a borrowed 50/1.8D in my bag, as I sold off my last Series E on an FG. I find the small Series E and AI lenses don't handle well on larger AF bodies like my D300's or D800. The later AF-N and AF-D versions handle alright (avoid the original AF version, as the manual focus ring is almost useless).

The 50/1.8 is to FX as the 35/1.8 is to DX. You should own one. Given how useful 50mm is on DX, that really applies to DX shooters as well (although I do prefer a 55-60mm on DX to a 50mm, a pity Nikon doesn't do a 58/1.8 DX).