1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

35mm sharpness

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by chrisg, Sep 14, 2001.

  1. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Glenn, just out of interest which is your 300mm f/4 ? Is it the current AF-S Nikkor? I'll let you know why later.<img src="/img/wwwthreads/smile.gif">

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  2. Glenn Harper

    Glenn Harper Well-Known Member

    No, I'm a cheap Canon user, and an even cheaper Sigma user with reference to the 300mm f4 ! The AF is about as fast as a slug on salt (non HSM version), but optically it's great.
     
  3. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    I didn't know you could get HSM salt (or slugs)/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    The reason for asking is your comment about it being awful at slow speed. The 300AF-S is said to have a terrible tripod collar (shared with the 80-400VR) which transmits vibration at speeds between 1/125th and c1 second. This is one reason I'm considering at great length switching to Canon (much though I love my Nikons).

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  4. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    Chris - with due respect, I think you're never going to be happy using an £850 lens on a £150 camera body. As Brian suggests, doing a straightforward lens test and comparison will easily find the culprit - that's if there is one.
    I'd be more inclined to look at your overall strategy - why, for example, are you sticking with 100 ISO film ? The grain of 200 or even 400 is adequete for most things nowadays - particularly the much lauded 'T grain' technology in the the colour negative strains. And what made you go for the F60 ? It's perfectly OK for what it is - a cheap, entry level, lightweight SLR - but if, as you say, you've elbowed a perfectly good Nikkor Zoom - albeit a bit slow - in favour of an £850 prime 300/4 - surely you could afford a decent, substantial camera body - a used F90 or F90x, for example - to match the build quality of the lens at about a third of its price.

    Either would prove a much better companion for the 300/4 EDIF.



    perks
     
  5. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Don't know Marwell Zoo, but were you shooting through a mesh fence? They make great soft focus filters, particularly at smaller apertures!

    Nick CRIPN
     
  6. Glenn Harper

    Glenn Harper Well-Known Member

    In slide film there is still no 200 or 400 ISO film to my knowledge which is acceptable by comparison to the 100 ISO films on the market. Certainly no wildlife pro uses 200 or 400 ISO film, it being widely accepted that the likes of Sensia and Provia 100 films pushed one stop perform better than 200 speed films.

    Colour print film is fine, but most serious wildlife/landscape/travel photography is executed on slide film, and it's on slide film where the quality of a lens might be best judged.
     
  7. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Would tend to go with Glenn there re. the 100iso thing. I reckon it still can't be beat for colour saturation, contrast and sharpness. The 200 and 400 stuff is good, but not "AS" good as 100 in my humble opinion. If these factors are the ultimate criterion of your photo, then you just have to "work around" its relative slowness but I reckon it's worth the effort.
    BigWill
     
  8. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    Aye, m'lads - but wildlife 'pros' are using 300/f2.8's and 1.4 multipliers on their Canon EOS1n's and F5's........A faster film is a more realistic and viable alternative, I think, in Chris' case.

    Unless he IS a wildlife pro and has about 10 grand to spare.

    perks
     
  9. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Ah, but a lot of wildlife pros use 300mm f/4s laddy!<img src="/img/wwwthreads/smile.gif">

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  10. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    With 100 ISO on a Nikon F60 ? .....don't think so, Tim.

    perks
     
  11. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Not that combination, definitely not ! But with Velvia on an EOS 1 or F5, yes!!

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  12. SCT

    SCT Well-Known Member

    I think a bit of snobery is creeping in . "Oh no not on an F60".

    We have had many a discusion on the virtures of this make over that, together with "Oh it has to be this model".

    Lets face it, it does not mater a toss what the model or make of the body it is. It is the lens. How sharp, how fast and above all the quality.

    Of course the mark one eyeball has a lot to do with it. A LOT.

    The only reason a body is cheaper in a given manufacturers range is the amount of whistles and bells it's got. In previouse discussions we have come to the conclusion that half the junk put on the thing is very seldom used, by anyone.

    Steve C Thompson IRIPN
     
  13. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Agreed. The response was though tied to Perkeo's specific comment on wildlife pros, and was not intended as any comment on the F60. Not being a user of that moodel I have no opinion of it one or t'other

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Glenn, have you had a look at Provia 400F? It's very sharp, and is a real contender.

    Nick CRIPN
     
  15. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    Not the amount of 'bells and whistles' SCT - it's the build quality and reliability you pay for - and a bit of street cred. Chris, apparently, is off to take pictures of Siberian tigers. My comments about going for a faster film and a used but more substantial camera body with his 300/f4 are, IMHO , a simple common sense alternative to the expense of re-equipimg up to 300/2.8 or more.
    I don't think Siberian tigers sit still and pose to order. Nick's quite right about the faster 200 & 400 modern slide emulsions - correctly exposed and processed they can challenge ISO 100 Sensia for sharpness (let's not argue about sharpness v. resolution, here !)- and also are more versatile in unpredictable light.

    And to say that 'no wildlife pro uses 200 or 400 ' is a very sweeping statement, Glenn, and open to argument - unless they limit themselves to a sunny Sunday at a Zoo Zoo or Kew Gardens..../img/wwwthreads/wink.gif

    perks
     
  16. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    > to say that 'no wildlife pro uses 200 or 400 ' is a very sweeping statement, Glenn, and open to argument - unless they limit themselves to a sunny Sunday at a Zoo Zoo or Kew Gardens....

    True, but they like (just like all of us) to use the slowest film they can.

    Get out and get shooting!!
     
  17. SCT

    SCT Well-Known Member

    You say "Not the amount of 'bells and whistles' SCT - it's the build quality and reliability you pay for - and a bit of street cred."

    I agree about Build Quality and reliablity. And Nikons are built to very good Quality level IMHO, however a "bit of street cred". Come on, who gives a toss about what one looks like or what ones got around thier neck.

    I am not going to insult you as one of those poor souls who could not be seen walking out without the latest label, but you are begining to sound like it.

    Steve C Thompson IRIPN
     
  18. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    You're talking crap, Steve. I share your general opinion, in fact - but don't try and tell me that the type of camera one uses doesn't matter to the average amateur. A percentage of the price of a Nikon - no matter which model - is in the 'name'.
    Otherwise the shelves of Jessop's and everywhere else would be full of unsold Leicas, EOS1n's, F5's - and we'd all be walking round with Skodas round our necks.

    And btw, I use an old F90, battered F3 and an Olympus XA compact.

    perks
     
  19. Glenn Harper

    Glenn Harper Well-Known Member

    Dear Perks,

    Obviously I can't account for every wildlife photographer in the world, but having been quite steeply involved in wildlife photography for a while and absorbed information from many British wildlife pro's either directly or via the written word - without exception they pushed either Sensia or Provia 100 to 200 rather than use 200 film because grain and sharpness was superior. No pro photographer will shoot pictures which have to compete with everyone elses on an emulsion grainier or less sharp than his competitors. That's the purpose of owning fast lenses.

    I remember several years back Heather Angel saying she'd pushed Kodachrome 200 a couple of stops rather than miss a picture in low light, but having experimented with that at the time the results would have needed a picture of a dodo chasing a pterodactyl to make it worthwhile.

    With the existence of image stabilising lenses it's now even less likely that a wildlife pro will use 400 ISO film - any minor compromise in image quality hands the edge on a plate to fellow photographers.

    However, all of this is once again 'pro waffle'. Those that shoot pictures purely to satisfy themselves must choose the best films they can based on their gear and likely conditions. If Provia 400F is close to 100 ISO quality I'm certainly interested in trying it out, but Velvia remains without doubt the best film I've ever seen, if sometimes difficult to use.

    Glenn
     
  20. perkeo

    perkeo Well-Known Member

    You said it, Glenn -'pro waffle'. Would be interesting to hear, though, how Heather Angel got Kodak to push-process her Kodachrome.....
    As amateurs we cannot hope to compete equipmentwise with the real wildlife pros. I read (in AP, I think) a while back that a National Geographic staffer went photographing, coincidentally, Siberian tigers with more than $500,000 (half a million USD) worth of equipment - with an army of 'bearers' to carry it. My advice to Chris - for what its worth - was simply a suggestion on how to get the most from his equipment...a faster film to make up for the handicaps posed by having a relatively 'slow' lens and to consider a more robust body than the F60 for the job he intended.


    Nothing snobbish about that, Steve.

    perks
     

Share This Page