August 23, 2014, 07:38:38 AM

Author Topic: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)  (Read 4631 times)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2014, 11:50:48 PM »
There are actually quite a few truly unique lenses designed for regular photography purposes. To name:
- Canon 65mm f0.75
- Repro Nikkor 85mm f1.0 Supersonic Macro Lens
- Canon 50mm f0.95
- Canon 5200mm f14.0
- Canon 2000mm f11.0
- Canon 800mm f3.8
- APO NIKKOR Nikon 1780mm f14.0 Ultra Large Format
- Samyang 650-1300 f8-16.0 Tele Zoom Manual Focus Lens
- ZEISS Apo Sonnar T* 1700mm f4.0 (for medium format, weighs 560 pounds)
- Zeiss 400mm f1.5
- Repro Nikkor 170mm f1.4

There are also many unique lenses used for medical/military/astronomy purposes, which you can't use in the regular SLR cameras. For example:
- Some old Soviet lenses Iskra 72mm f0.65 and 20 f0.5
- Zeiss Fernobiektiv 28000mm and ZEISS JENA IR-OBJEKTIV 720mm f/2.0.
- Leitz Canada M-Mount 90mm f1.0 Elcan from US Navy
- Balcar Elliptar 235mm f1.0

Those are interesting, thanks!  I'd already heard of and seen the Zeiss 1700mm f/4 (via a lensrentals.com blog post).  I'd never heard of the 400mm f/1.5 or the 720mm f/2.  These sound promising for wildlife in low light, I think I will order them now :P...

You forgot the Leica 50mm Noctilux, and also I believe Leica themselves made an M-Mount 90mm f/1.0, unless that is the same "Leitz" that you mention.  I could be wrong on that.

I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95.  I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0.  I think it went out of production in the early 1990's?  You can still rent it.

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1310
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2014, 12:34:50 AM »
Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades.  Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of.  It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've read somewhere that the Nikon lens mount is too 'tight' (rear element cannot be large enough) for a 50 or 85mm brighter than f/1.4. Although that may be based on double Gauss designs, I think with retrofocus it should be possible to go brighter.
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses.

Mr Bean

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2014, 04:49:17 PM »
I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95.  I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0.  I think it went out of production in the early 1990's?  You can still rent it.
A few years back, there was a camera shop, here in Melbourne (Australia) called the "Camera Exchange". In one of the displays, they had one of these 50mm f0.95 lenses and a large BW print (a portrait) made from this lens. Exceptional image, considering the speed of the lens.

In a second cabinet, they had the Nikor 6mm lens. A beautiful, fishbowl shaped lens :)

As another poster has mentioned, these lenses were made back in the film era. In the case of super fast apertures, I guess that was partly driven by the fact that changing ISO wasn't as easy as it is these days.
5D mk3 with grip, 300 f4 L, 100 IS Macro L, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8 pancake, 35 f2, 1.4x TC III, Zeiss 15mm f2.8, 24 f1.4 L
580EX II, MT-24EX Macro Flash
EF 12mm and 25mm II Extension tubes

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2014, 05:06:21 PM »
I've heard of the Canon 65mm f/.75, but not the 50mm f/.95.  I only know of the Canon 50mm f/1.0.  I think it went out of production in the early 1990's?  You can still rent it.
A few years back, there was a camera shop, here in Melbourne (Australia) called the "Camera Exchange". In one of the displays, they had one of these 50mm f0.95 lenses and a large BW print (a portrait) made from this lens. Exceptional image, considering the speed of the lens.

In a second cabinet, they had the Nikor 6mm lens. A beautiful, fishbowl shaped lens :)

As another poster has mentioned, these lenses were made back in the film era. In the case of super fast apertures, I guess that was partly driven by the fact that changing ISO wasn't as easy as it is these days.

No doubt, but has been stated...the digital era has made photography a big business, where everyone is now a photographer.  But it's also necessarily become less specialized...and apparently very fast prime lenses are not seen as necessary or cost effective, in a world where a new "rebel" has to be introduced every 6 months.  I guess I don't blame Canon.  But really Sigma is now the company that is more likely to produce a very specialized lens...it seems to me.  They just introduced a new DP series camera with a 39 MP 1.5x crop sensor...so they are innovating, and that's a good thing.

I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print!  Moments like that are what make impressions on us.  I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha.  It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there.  I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it. 

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy!  The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad.  They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 05:10:45 PM by CarlTN »

Mr Bean

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2014, 07:44:12 AM »
I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print!  Moments like that are what make impressions on us.  I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha.  It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.
Yeah, the Camera Exchange still exists as a camera shop, but its moved out from Melbourne (too expensive) and its just a shadow of itself, unfortunately. It was almost like a museum, with the range of second hand gear. A lot of Nikor gear from the late 60's and 70's. Alas, just not the market these days   :-\

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there.  I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it. 
Wollemi pine, I presume. That's out near the Blue Mountains (some hours drive west of Sydney). A stunning place to visit (the Blue Mountains).

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy!  The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad.  They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.
Eucalyptus (gum) leaves contain a small amount of flammable oil, which means they burn really well, even when green off the tree. The forests tend to be dry in the summer, rather than a rainforest, and very moist in winter. Spring creates a great deal of growth, leading into summer, when it starts to dry out. As a natural process, the trees drop a lot of leaves in this dry time, leading to a high volume (2-4 inches) of dry leaf matter on the ground. This acts as a mulch, to slow the drying out, and reduces the evaporation from the tree (less surface area). But, if a fire starts, then its an issue.

Oops, I'm getting onto one of my pet subjects and way off topic....sorry to the OP.... ;)
5D mk3 with grip, 300 f4 L, 100 IS Macro L, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.8, 40 f2.8 pancake, 35 f2, 1.4x TC III, Zeiss 15mm f2.8, 24 f1.4 L
580EX II, MT-24EX Macro Flash
EF 12mm and 25mm II Extension tubes

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2014, 04:05:35 AM »
I like hearing your story about seeing the lens on display, and seeing the print!  Moments like that are what make impressions on us.  I've had several moments like that, but they usually have something to do with exotic sports cars or women, haha.  It's a shame the specialty camera shops are going away, or at least they are here.
Yeah, the Camera Exchange still exists as a camera shop, but its moved out from Melbourne (too expensive) and its just a shadow of itself, unfortunately. It was almost like a museum, with the range of second hand gear. A lot of Nikor gear from the late 60's and 70's. Alas, just not the market these days   :-\

I would love to visit Australia someday, especially that valley with the dinosaur-era trees still growing there.  I know it's restricted but somehow I want to go and take pictures of it. 
Wollemi pine, I presume. That's out near the Blue Mountains (some hours drive west of Sydney). A stunning place to visit (the Blue Mountains).

I'm also amazed at the wildfires you have in your rainforests down there...where the tree sap is about as flammable as gasoline...so it doesn't matter if it's a wet season, you can still have forest fires...that's crazy!  The cedar trees and pine trees we have here in Tennessee, have highly flammable sap...but it's nowhere near that bad.  They would not burn easily after days of rain...and most of the hardwoods would not burn at all in the wet.
Eucalyptus (gum) leaves contain a small amount of flammable oil, which means they burn really well, even when green off the tree. The forests tend to be dry in the summer, rather than a rainforest, and very moist in winter. Spring creates a great deal of growth, leading into summer, when it starts to dry out. As a natural process, the trees drop a lot of leaves in this dry time, leading to a high volume (2-4 inches) of dry leaf matter on the ground. This acts as a mulch, to slow the drying out, and reduces the evaporation from the tree (less surface area). But, if a fire starts, then its an issue.

Oops, I'm getting onto one of my pet subjects and way off topic....sorry to the OP.... ;)

Thanks for replying anyway.  I don't think we are hampering the OP, this thread is not very active.

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1310
  • M.R.S. = my initials! www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses.

P_R

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2014, 09:27:20 AM »
A few more interesting lenses (well, to me!):
canon 600mm f/8.0 mirror

and a few still in production:
8-15 f/4 zoom fisheye
135 f/2.8 softfocus
sigma 200-500 f/2.8
Schneider 50mm f/2.8 tilt shift (unlike canon t&s, with no knobs!)
Any tilt and shift for that matter
leica noctilux 50mm f/0.95

It doesn't matter where you start, it's where you finish.  All that counts is the photograph.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2014, 06:25:45 PM »
A few more interesting lenses (well, to me!):
canon 600mm f/8.0 mirror

and a few still in production:
8-15 f/4 zoom fisheye
135 f/2.8 softfocus
sigma 200-500 f/2.8
Schneider 50mm f/2.8 tilt shift (unlike canon t&s, with no knobs!)
Any tilt and shift for that matter
leica noctilux 50mm f/0.95

I mentioned the noctilux.  I didn't mention the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8, because it is so large, pricey, and has no IS (yet).  Have you used or looked through one?  (I realize several of the others mentioned in previous posts in this thread, are even more expensive, larger, etc...)

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2014, 06:27:33 PM »
The 300 f/2:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/telephotos/300mmedif20/

The white part of the lens looks awesome...I bet no self respecting Nikon fanboi would ever use one with white paint on it!

chromophore

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2014, 11:52:40 PM »
Nikon hasn't designed anything faster than f/1.4 in decades.  Even the much-hyped 58/1.4G was not the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 that Nikon fans were dreaming of.  It's rather ironic, considering how some of these old designs (Canon FL/FD 55/1.2, Yashica ML 55/1.2, Canon EF 50/1.0L, the Noct-Nikkor, and Minolta Rokkor PG 58/1.2) still perform admirably well and are coveted by today's photographers for their "look."

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I've read somewhere that the Nikon lens mount is too 'tight' (rear element cannot be large enough) for a 50 or 85mm brighter than f/1.4. Although that may be based on double Gauss designs, I think with retrofocus it should be possible to go brighter.

The flange and mirror box geometry for the Nikon F-mount is large enough to permit an f-number as fast as f/1.2, but no faster.  The Canon EF mount has a limit of f/1.0.  (Both rounded to the nearest 1/3 stop increment.)

Designs such as the Noct-Nikkor 58/1.2 and Nikkor 50/1.2 exist, but these are manual focus lenses.  I suspect that from a practical standpoint, an AF lens of this speed is not possible for the F-mount, which is why none exist.

A few years ago there were some crackpots out there who argued (vehemently and endlessly) that this geometric limitation did not in fact exist, and babbled nonsensically about telecentric designs that could permit faster f-numbers.  This is complete and total bull**** mentioned by people who do not understand basic principles of geometric optics.  Others have argued that you could put a condensing group behind the lens to make the lens faster.  Yes, you could do this, but it would (1) reduce the image circle, and (2) enter the mirror box.  We've heard the news about the 4/3rds adapters that essentially perform this function:  of course, it is possible only because the original lens was designed for a certain back focal distance, and on a smaller format mirrorless camera, there is sufficient space (and no mirror) to fit additional lens elements and no concerns about the reduced image circle.

For your reading pleasure, I refer you to this very educational resource:  http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_shortpres.html#shortpres04
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 11:55:14 PM by chromophore »