Re: Nikon D40 with 300mm lens AND teleconverter (Nikkor AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.


    Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure with
    this lens?





    Rita
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    >> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.

    >
    > Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure
    > with this lens?


    Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could only be
    used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.

    Neil
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Harrington wrote:

    >>> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.

    >>
    >> Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure
    >> with this lens?

    >
    > Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could
    > only be used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.


    Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens. The 50/1 Wolfie is referring to
    was an overpriced piece of crap that met with many complaints, especially
    for the ridiculous price/performance ratio. It just sucked at any price.





    Rita
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 25, 2008
    #3
  4. Rita Berkowitz

    Guest

    Re: Nikon D40 with 300mm lens AND teleconverter (Nikkor AF-S TeleconverterTC-20E II)

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >>>> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.
    >>>
    >>> Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure
    >>> with this lens?

    >>
    >> Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they?


    Yep. I have one. It remains in faithful service
    today, minus it's lens mount, in a scientific apparatus.

    This lens is basically only f/0.95 at the exact center of the
    field. It vignettes like crazy. It is soft as a marshmallow,
    even at f/4.

    Doug McDonald
    , Jan 25, 2008
    #4
  5. Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >>>> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.
    >>>
    >>> Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's
    >>> failure with this lens?

    >>
    >> Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could
    >> only be used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.

    >
    > Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens.


    I think you're right. It wasn't the Pellix after all. I guess I'm thinking
    of some other lens for the Pellix.

    Neil


    > The 50/1 Wolfie is
    > referring to was an overpriced piece of crap that met with many
    > complaints, especially for the ridiculous price/performance ratio. It just
    > sucked at any price.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
    #5
  6. lid wrote:
    > Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    >> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's
    >>>> failure with this lens?
    >>>
    >>> Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they?

    >
    > Yep. I have one. It remains in faithful service
    > today, minus it's lens mount, in a scientific apparatus.
    >
    > This lens is basically only f/0.95 at the exact center of the
    > field. It vignettes like crazy. It is soft as a marshmallow,
    > even at f/4.


    <chuckle>

    That sure is an impressive aperture, though.

    I'm not familiar with the f/1.0 the others are talking about. I recall that
    Zunow made an f/1.1 lens and I think that was in the Canon mount. No idea
    whether it was any good, though.

    The fastest lens I ever owned was a Minolta f/1.2 back in the MD mount days.
    That was impressive just because it was f/1.2, but it had little if any
    real-world benefit over the f/1.4 -- not even the half stop advantage it was
    supposed to have, because of the fall-off.

    Neil
    Neil Harrington, Jan 25, 2008
    #6
  7. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >> Show me the Nikon 50mm f/1.0, if you please. I want to see one.


    > Why, for Christ's sake, would Nikon want to duplicate Canon's failure with
    > this lens?


    Canon can, Nikon cannot?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    #7
  8. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:



    >> Canon even made an f/0.95 lens once, didn't they? I think it could
    >> only be used on the Pellix because it intruded so far into the body.


    > Yes, I think that was a rangefinder lens.


    It was.

    > The 50/1 Wolfie is referring to
    > was an overpriced piece of crap that met with many complaints, especially
    > for the ridiculous price/performance ratio. It just sucked at any price.


    Poor Rita, your penis envy is a bit to obvious. Sour grapes and
    all that. Are you sure the 50mm was never meant as an ultra wide
    angle and is thus a failure?

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Clyde Torres
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    564
    GadgetChap
    Apr 15, 2005
  2. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    372
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 24, 2008
  3. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    418
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 28, 2008
  4. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,029
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 25, 2008
  5. Rita Berkowitz
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    380
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 25, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page