Oh neat, a Nikon 300f2 (1981)

[CarlTN]

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]

The 300 f/2:

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

 

[P_R]

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

 

[CarlTN]

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]

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]

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