Good representation ! I'm impressed the way you explained how this Nikon 35- 70mm f2.8 worked ..Have some more video to show ..I have this Lens I probably have to use it more often bye for now ..Thanks for this video👏
Great channel ! I’m a Nikon Camera nut like you. Had em all ! Now in my 30+ yr of my addiction 😁 I find myself gravitating back to my Nikon 300s 700 and D3s. Love the vintage stuff !! It’s supposed to be a professional secret though! 🤫
Thank you... I just tested this lens on a Nikon D3 this time on a tripod to remove handshakes and focusing incorrectly into light by accident. This is an absolute beautiful lens. It seems all lenses tend to ghost in light some more than others but once I pulled in the curtains from the side... WoW!!! this lens just popped... Images sharp, beautiful contrast creamy bokeh. Glad I still have it as it almost sold.
How about us real photographers, meaning those of us who shoot film? After 52 years of shooting mostly weddings, landscapes and portraits I was asked to shoot a band under stage lighting and the only lens I had that could do the job was my D 50mm/1.8 lens using Kodak Portra 800 color film. Great results but 50mm limits what you can do. No close ups of the drummer, and limited ability to shoot across the stage. I'm generally shooting with a Nikon N90s, or my N80 when I need something lighter to hold. The Nikon N90 came out in 1992 and the N90s with spot metering came out in 1994. The 35-70 f/2.8 D lens came out in 1992 with the intent of it being paired with the N90/N90s (and I use the SB-26 when I'm NOT doing concerts). I'm always going to be shooting at ISO 800 when doing color prints, and I use aperture priority at f/2 or slightly higher because I want my shutter speed to be 1/60th to show motion. I'm still waiting for my "new" lens, and I shouldn't have to touch the eV when shooting in spot metering at 800 ISO. By the way one should NEVER be scanning negatives. It is a terrible practice that costs you resolution, and you risk some moron doing post production you didn't ask for, and don't do yourself. The only "post production an honest, real, photographer does is cropping. The only place I've been able to find that does optical prints is Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland Oregon. A good 35mm camera using 100 ISO film can give you a higher resolution than a $6000 36 MP DSLR. Learning to be a real photographer (as opposed to a computerized picture taking machine any monkey could do will save you a huge pile of money, but you must have skills that most picture takers don't have. The only situation where a DSLR might be superior to a film camera is sporting events shot at night under stadium lights where you might need 6400 ISO to get the shutter speeds you need, and you can't push any of the two 3200 ISO films because their nominal ISO's are only really 800 or 1000 ISO, and they are only available in Black and White. I know that there are very few real photographers today, but when reviewing a lens that has been around in some form or another since the late 1980's it would be nice if you could provide some information for real photographers. If you are shooting concerts with a DSLR your pictures are ugly pictures of frozen statues. It is the grain and slower shutter speeds that make the photographs shot in the 70's and 80's vastly superior to what they are shooting today. First computers ruined music, and now they are ruining concert photography. Now you can go see a talentless individual using autotune, pitch correction, and backing tracks having ugly pictures taken of them my talentless picture takers. We used to have musicians and photographers. Talent has been replaced with computers.
That was an interesting read Edward. When it comes to Sports, the DSLR camera in my opinion is the clear winner. However, Film photography is a "True Art" when you can show your work. Why do I say this, because it requires more than just an understanding of the technology. It requires the photographer to exam his/hers skills and limitations. The photographer must focus on creating the imagination not just an image. That smokey, blurred but focused, lively action of the day... You can feel the day, not just see the day. I don't see artist today, I see satisfaction... This is what the masses want. So... Yes, you are right. I don't do enough video's for the dedicated professional film photographers... I'm too busy having fun. I mostly focused on getting the next generation into picking up the skill and taking it to the next level. I hope you understand. best, Nes.
i confirm the problem with ghosting. i personally call it haze. Instead of using - e.v. i use a big polariser wich eliminates the issue which in my opinion might be due to poor cotating. Regarding the flash, i confirm as well though i never use TTL. Keep in mind that cost is 130EUR/USD in mint condition. The lens is excellent.
Yes, I can confirm that statement. Polarising filter as well as using a Nikon HB-1 lens hood was a big help in reducing the haze. Been wanting to do another video on this lens... But been doing a lot of running around. :)
I think that particular lens has a known issue with the cement between elements degrading and becoming a little cloudy. It's something to look out for. I bought one which had that issue and I had to return it. Shame because it would have been a real bargain otherwise.
Although this lens does not have that issue, it would be correct in saying that there are many vintage lenses with these types of issues. I always face the lens towards the light (front & rear) to look down the barrel to examine. Back in the day before social media it was common to leave lenses in the Back of the car on a summer day... This is what I think happened to these lenses... I have lenses older than my kids (30+) that still look new cause I kept them out of the sun or heat. :) Thanks for sharing.
ND neutral density filter depending on the intensity could be very interesting depending on what you want from your picture. I associate UV filters with reducing haze, CPL filters for blocking reflective light but being creative and having a variety of filters can make the difference. Nothing wrong with having more when it comes to you creativity.
I think many will want to jump on this question. In layman terms whatever the 'D' is... It communicates better with the camera and the Flash. If you are an experienced photographer you will adjust the settings as need be but if you are newish you will find the 'D' a bit more accurate with exposure and therefore easier to use. Still a great lens either one. Just my opinion.
I've recently pickup one of these lens on ebay at a bargain price. It's paired with my Nikon D610 and works fine. I was presently surprised with the awesome picture quality. One thing to note, it a heavy beast, but the trade off is the image quality and color rendition . Very versatile and handy.
