will a 180 cron breathe any life into my d3's images?

[j_lir]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

charlie,

 

that's what i'm talking about.

those images look grand.

 

i wish i just went for a DMR + R9, but I need the D3 for ISO 6400 mostly.

 

I love my 75 'lux, I need to grab the 80 to match on the d3 as well as the 180 cron.

 

Thanks!

 

Now can someone help me learn how to see the light?

[topoxforddoc]

charlie,

 

that's what i'm talking about.

those images look grand.

 

i wish i just went for a DMR + R9, but I need the D3 for ISO 6400 mostly.

 

I love my 75 'lux, I need to grab the 80 to match on the d3 as well as the 180 cron.

 

Thanks!

 

Now can someone help me learn how to see the light?

 

I don't have 6400 ISO on my DMR! It's hard work shooting in low light with the 180 cron handheld, but you get used to it. To be honest at F2, most of my concert shots are 1/90th - 1/125th at ISO400, which is manageable. However I do like longer exposures - it helps capture a sense of movement and dynamism. For drummers, I usually take the shutter speed down to 1/30th to get the drum stick blur.

 

Focussing is a separate issue. With the ground glass screen on my DMR, the images just pop in the VF when it's focussed. How the D3 VF handles this may be very different in manual focus.

[tobey bilek]

Nikon lenses are way differnt than Leica.

 

I have used 280 2.8, 90 2.8 second version, 90 AA on Nikons and the images definately improve. I have no idea if they could be improved further if the AA filter was removed. Extrapolating, I would say a Leica lens get you 75% of the way.

 

A 280 is a thing to behold on a Nikon. Puts my 300 4.0 AFS to shame and that is considered a good lens .

 

I have not been similarly impressed with the viso glass but I do use my 65/90 135 200 /280 400 560 when appropiate. The 90 and 135 on a bellows are beautiful for flowers. The color really pops. Again but the APO glass is even more outstanding

[adan]

Updating my original post - I've since had a chance to try an APO Leica tele (the original 180 f/3.4) on my Canon 5D. The APO lens really does do a better job at cutting an image into the sensor (even CMOS), compared to the decent but pre-APO Leica R tele lenses I'd been trying.

 

Slightly tighter resolution, but more importantly, rounder tonal definition of 3-D forms, which seems to speak to your original question.

[wildlightphoto]

I find the 70-200 to be fantastic, I have had many published images from it including magazine covers and I do not find it flat.

Are you sure you are working the light as well as you can?

 

Many people's photos are flat because they don't have the raw talent to see nuance in light...

 

Also many people don't see nuance in light no matter how obvious. Having evaluated over thirty long lenses from at least five different makers for my wildlife photos in the highly variable conditions I typically work in, the ones that have expressed the nuances most eloquently and consistently have been the Leica APO lenses.

 

What I've noticed as general trends (there are always exceptions) are that given any particular optical generation, the lenses with with more air/glass surfaces tend to be more flare-prone and produce less vibrant color, and that Leica's designs typically use fewer air/glass surfaces than comparable Nikon or Canon lenses. Back in the film era I didn't understand the popularity of Velvia until I tried a multi-multi-element Canon L lens. Sharp, but flat, dull, & lifeless. "Fix" the saturation problem with Photoshop or Velvia and subtle gradation goes out. No nuance whatsoever.