Hm, well I've owned many of these. The 60mm f/2.8 AF-D was soft at normal-infinity focusing distances that weren't Macro, especially on the right side for some reason. (Both copies I owned) It excels at Macro only and is very flat-field for copy-work (probably the best lens for this). Many lenses are sharper at medium distances. (Though it probably does beat the new 60mm f/2.8 G lens) At portrait distances the bokeh is nervous and atrocious, so no it's not a good portrait lens, though you have to appreciate the build quality. The 105mm f/2 DC lens had a ton of CA, so did the 300mm f/2.8 Ai-S. (Which is why I own the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II lens instead, better in every way) The 135mm f/2 DC has better bokeh than the 105mm DC (I've owned both), more creamy, CA is still present but not a complete deal breaker. (The Zeiss 135mm f/2 crushes it with it's completely apochromatic lens, though the bokeh is slightly less creamy as you'd expect from a much sharper lens) The 105mm DC lens is very sharp though. I own both the 35mm Zeiss f/2 and the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 currently and I've got to tell you, the Sigma is better in many ways. I know you hate Sigma, but it is. I do love the Zeiss, and it's lighter and more compact, but it doesn't have the resolving power of the Sigma, or the lack of CA and distortion. The Zeiss needs a fair bit of distortion, CA and vignette adjustment in lightroom, that the Sigma does not. I will do a more complete comparison to access "color rendition" and "microcontrast" as you always heavily favor, so the jury is out on that yet. I may get that Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 just to compare it to the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 lens for kicks. See what the differences really are. It's probably nice, but we'll see. The 180mm f/2.8's got a lot of CA wide open too, but it's a very nice fashion lens otherwise. The other's here are very nice options for their intended purposes. I do agree with you however about many of the college grads in America. We put way to much focus on bullshit over useful skills. Cheers.
If i want a wide-angle FX lens should i get the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 or Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G? I would just be shooting real estate, architecture, art/graffiti murals. No atro photography (yet)
I have the 60mm Macro based on your recommendation. Lately I've been reaching for my D90. Yes, the forgotten Nikon but my favorite DSLR of the bunch I've owned. Solid, just seems likes an extension of me...doesn't get in the way. I can do almost everything without ever needing to take my eye off the viewfinder. I've been shooting RAW and using primes which help with the lack of low light performance eclipsed by the newer bodies. 12 MP doesn't bother me. I like the colors and output even in JPEG. Small file sizes are nice. Everything is there, Commander mode, hard buttons for WB, ISO, bracketing, drive mode, DOF preview, metering, flash exp comp, dual dials, lighted top LCD, custom function button, easy menus....and accepts the old lenses in a small but tough body. Same sensor as the hallowed D300 I have some neuropathy in my hands so the smaller the better and it's easy on the neck. All that in mint condition for under $250. I could afford an expensive DSLR but would rather buy glass or lights....or steaks.
How would you compare the output of 100mm f2 Zeiss Macro Planar / Nikkor 180mm 2.8 / 300mm 2.8 ? I have the Nikkor 135mm 3.5 AIS, but I am not so much impressed compared to 35 f2 Distagon or 58 1.4 Voigt, and I want more ..
I very much enjoy my Nikon 85 1.4G, though you're probably right about the 85 1.4 that you mention here. On the other hand, the 50mm 1.4 AIS is completely vanilla to me; my long nose 50 f 1.8 has real character by comparison. I happily have the 20 f1.8g, and find it to be beautiful. I'll add that the AIS 35-70 f3.5 is awesome, though I don't have quite as many lenses as you to run comparisons. Cheers
Hi Ken.,I have an older nikkor 55mm micro 2.8 that is very hard to focus. I believe it is dried grease in threads. Is this an expensive fix. or is it something I could do myself?
Hi Ken, Im looking to buy a tele lens mainly for portraits, im having a hard time deciding between the Zeiss planar 85 1.4 and Nikon 105 f2 dc. I have a 24-70 which i love using, but i want more detail and better bokeh on portraits. which one would you recommend.
+Theoria Apophasis Sorry im a bit slow :(. i'm not 100% sure what you mean. Are you saying the 105 f2 dc has more superior detail+bokeh than the Zeiss 85 1.4? or did i use the wrong wording for my question and implied my 24-70 has more detail than the former.
+Ryan Daugherty ahh thats what i thought too :). I think the video you are referring to was about the 135 f2 dc. ran a search and couldnt find any videos about the 105 dc. I read in the comment below the 135 f2 video, where Ken says the 105 isnt quite as good as the 135. although i want to get the 135 f2 but the price is a bit steep for me. which brings me back to Zeiss 85 1.4 v 105 f2 dc hehe.
hey i've had the voig 58mm for some time now and couldn't be happier, especially that milky output. today i received the zeiss 35mm f2, with few shots taken i am impressed but to tell the truth i miss that richness the 58 delivers. thankful for your priceless giving 👍
After using it more and more started to like the output, the anticipation of it doing what the 58 does, and more, was not in place. it is sharp and resolving, i got a good deal on it, happy.
Hi Ken, Are you planning to try Hasselblad Zeiss Lenses adapted to Nikon ? Recently I tried Hasselblad Zeiss 50mm f4 C, 120mm f4 Makro CF, 150mm f4 CF, (250mm f5.6 C on the way). The results are amazing. Talk about micro contrast and color rendition. Awesome. Most these lenses can be found for less than $500. I think they can be you next secret best lenses series... lol
ohhh lord, the 105mm F2 DC is king, ….silk sex and sugar LORD of portraiture. tokina isnt shabby for portraiture of course, but its mercedes vs. rolls royce youre comparing
I have a used D800 and cash to buy either a brand new Nikkor 135mm f/2 D or Nikkor 105mm f/2 D. I shoot people for news (portraits of speech makers) and do street photography for fun. Which should I get?
After about a week with the Distagon it's like... what was I even doing before!? Comparing shots with that lens and my other lenses it's not even close. I thought my old lenses looked good, but I just didn't know what 'good' looked like.
I have the Tamron 15-30 and there seems to be issues with the zoom ring sticking. A screw becomes dislodged and jams the mechanics. I know of four that had this happen. I fixed mine after five hours of surgery.
hi there i currently just purchased the nikon d500 and with that i bought the sigma 150-600 c version the sigma 17-70 2.8 c version and the new sigma 50-100 1.8 art version . i see in most of your reviews you refer to sigma lens as JUNK . im now thinking about trading my 150-600 sigma for the nikon 200-500 and am also thinking of trading my other two sigma lens in for a nikon mid range lens . whats your opinion on this plz and what best mid range lens would you suggest for my d500 nikon 17-55 is out of my range at the moment .
200 500 at the very least has far superior VR. well i dont tell anyone to SELL their stuff,…..if you're happy……….. best midrange,…..well a used 17-55 is about $650+ :)
Check out the new 老蛙 105 f/2. It looks very promising. I have only the 135 f/2D DC, so I can't say for sure if this 老蛙 is comparable to the 105 f/2D DC.
Haha. German Electrical Engineer here! It's absolutely true, what you are saying. But more and more Germans visit crappy Colleges. No good Universities but crappy collages...
+Theoria Apophasis Got me a 60mm for $115 and Wheeewww you were not kidding good sir. Amazed at the color saturation. And cheap, yeppp cheappp, from our good friends at Roberts!
I TOTALLY agree with you, 100% about the college grads in fields with no functional value. I think that mess is starting to correct itself, but it had been like a pyramid scheme. College grads in management would only hir other college grads, who would only hire other college grads. Never mind the fact that the degrees were in French Impressionist Art, and the job was accounting. In photography, BTW, in the city where I used to live they would only hire people with a degree in photojournalism to work for the photo dept. at the newspaper. Those same photogs were calling me on a regular basis to solve their real world photography problems for them!!
In your description it appears in that way and I asume you are talking about 2.0 DC. Similar mistake about Tokina 100mm 2.0 (I asume is 2.8). Great video, anyway
Thom Hogan writes about "Perceptual Megapixels" here on his site, calls it BS: www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-sharpness.html "DxO, meanwhile, has come up with “Sharpness” as meaning “megapixels.” Did you know that the reasonably well-regarded Nikkor 10-100mm CX lens is only 3 megapixels sharp, but a Nikkor 200mm f/2 FX lens is 34 megapixels sharp? Whoa, wait, what? Get ready for mumbo jumbo: "Sharpness is a subjective quality…[and our scores are] based on the Perceptual Megapixel concept that weights MTF…with human visual acuity.” Let’s see, that’s a subjective thing that is capable of generating an objective number? How’s that work? It’s worse than that. Every one of DxOMark’s numbers is based on a particular sensor coupled to the lens, which varies from brand to brand, format to format, and even sometimes over time within brand. Even worse, DxOMark makes blithe statements such as “confirms that…”a 12mp full format camera is sharper than an 18mp APS format camera.” Well, okay, the way they’ve calculated their numbers for one particular lens suggests that, but I’m not convinced of the statement they’re trying to confirm let alone their method of confirming it. Further, while they cite what they based their method on, they actually don’t publish the method itself so that we can test the assumptions within it. I couldn’t figure out why some of DxOMark’s numbers agreed with my personal assessments of various Nikkors, while others didn’t. Then it hit me: test charts. Remember that reference to MTF? Yep, the numbers DxOMark are generating probably devolve to flat field testing at closer distances. What happens with lenses that do better at long distances or that have field curvature? A good example of the former comes in their positioning of the 200-400mm f/4 above the 500mm f/4 in “sharpness.” The 200-400mm is a sharpness monster close in, but progressively worse as you move outwards towards infinity. This introduces another variable in our task: sharp at what? Close/Far, flat/natural, what? "
On graduation day, I decorated my cap with the words, "Fries with that?" :) Strangely though, I've worked steadily as a writer ever since. Of course, I know plenty of writers without English Lit degrees, which is more to your point.
That intro man. Truth. If you haven't heard of him check out Aaron Clarey here on UA-cam. Dude's the shit. Tells the truth like it is. Ironic you said certain degrees are worthless. That's what one of his books about college degrees is called.
Luved your rant. All my nephews and nieces brothers and sister have done degrees and have debt and while some have good well paid jobs they don’t like their jobs. Im a chef. Learnt my trade 20 years in kitchens. Now i travel the world cooking for the rich on there yachts, luv my job and get payed a fortune + loads of time off! My only nephew who doesn’t have a degree is training to build wooden boats. Doing what he luvs. Collage/uni. wAsTe of time and MONEY. Well educated idiots. Id rather be a happy well payed idiot.
I'm hesitating between the Nikon 20mm f1.8, Voigtlander 58 mm f1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm f2. Voigtlander is the most affordable of all. Zeiss is the most expensive. However, then 58mm is so close to the Micro 60mm I already own. If Ken loves the Zeiss so much, it's definitely not a bad choice to go with the Zeiss.
I would have my Zeiss 50mm 1,4 Distagon on that list, dump the Nikon 18-35mm F3.5-4G and add my Nikon 24-120 f/4 G which is mostly on one of my D700s 805 of the time. I had the 135 f 2.8 Ai-s but got rid of it because of the onion shape bokeh although I might of had a bad copy, however I am not a big fan of Nikon lens older than the D series, that just my personal preference. The only lens you got on your list I haven't got that I would like is the Voightlander 58 F1.4 Nokton.
So true, but hey Trump is set to change all that. Have you seen the Donald Trump Game of Thrones Winter is Trumping video on Yourtube, Hilarious, hahahaha. Here in Australia with some trades you can earn more than doctors and other professionals, easy. Nice line up of lenses. Pentax K1, Pentax K1, Pentax K1, will keep spamming this, resistance is futile, hehehehehe. You can use Voigtlander lenses on Pentax. Only $1,800 damn !!!! This is no Fony.
LENSES, TIMES
Hope this was helpful... it took a bit of time to make :)
#1... Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD (3:50)---
#2... Nikkor 18-35mm F3.5-4.5G AF-S ED IF (4:22)---
----
#3... Nikkor 300 F2.8 AIS (4:57) (MF)
#4... Nikkor 20mm F1.8G AF-S ED (5:45) (AF)
#5... Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8D AF-D (6:25) (AF)
#6... Tokina 100mm F2.8 Macro (7:26) (AF)
#7... Nikkor 300mm F4G AF-S 4 ED IF (7:42) (AF)
#8... Zeiss 85mm F1.4 ZE/ZE2 Planar T* (8:12) MF
#9... Nikkor 50mm F1.4 Ai/Ai-s (8:42) (MF)
#10...Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton (9:05) (MF)
#11...Zeiss 35mm F2 ZE/ZE2 Distagon T* (9:57) (MF)
#12... Nikkor 10.5mm F1.8G AF-S DX (10:45) (AF)
#13...Nikkor 135mm F2.8/F3.5 Ai/Ai-s (11:54) (MF)
#14... Nikkor 180mm F2.8D AF-D ED IF (12:20) (AF)
#15... Nikkor 105mm F2.8D AF-D DC (13:00) ----$750 USED
Last lens is actually the 105 f2.0
Thx!
*Angry Photographer's Favorite 15 Lenses List:*
*AF Zooms:*
Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD
Nikkor 18-35mm F3.5-4.5G AF-S ED IF
*AF Primes:*
Nikkor 10.5mm F2.8G AF-S DX Fisheye (with hood removed)
Nikkor 20mm F1.8G AF-S ED
Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8D AF-D
Tokina 100mm F2D AF-D
Nikkor 105mm F2D AF-D DC
Nikkor 180mm F2.8D AF-D ED IF
Nikkor 300mm F4G AF-S 4 ED IF
*MF Primes:*
Zeiss 35mm F2 ZE/ZE2 Distagon T*
Nikkor 50mm F1.4 Ai/Ai-s
Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton
Zeiss 85mm F1.4 ZE/ZE2 Planar T*
Nikkor 135mm F2.8/F3.5 Ai/Ai-s
Nikkor 300mm F2.8 Ai-s
+Ben M you haz not lazy, i haz lazy :)
+Ben M
i finally solved a 140 year mystery as to how the Crookes radiometer works. Video uploading
Nikkor 10.5 f/1.8G DX?
Aaron Yang
What about it?
fisheye :P
Hm, well I've owned many of these. The 60mm f/2.8 AF-D was soft at normal-infinity focusing distances that weren't Macro, especially on the right side for some reason. (Both copies I owned) It excels at Macro only and is very flat-field for copy-work (probably the best lens for this). Many lenses are sharper at medium distances. (Though it probably does beat the new 60mm f/2.8 G lens) At portrait distances the bokeh is nervous and atrocious, so no it's not a good portrait lens, though you have to appreciate the build quality. The 105mm f/2 DC lens had a ton of CA, so did the 300mm f/2.8 Ai-S. (Which is why I own the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II lens instead, better in every way) The 135mm f/2 DC has better bokeh than the 105mm DC (I've owned both), more creamy, CA is still present but not a complete deal breaker. (The Zeiss 135mm f/2 crushes it with it's completely apochromatic lens, though the bokeh is slightly less creamy as you'd expect from a much sharper lens) The 105mm DC lens is very sharp though. I own both the 35mm Zeiss f/2 and the Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 currently and I've got to tell you, the Sigma is better in many ways. I know you hate Sigma, but it is. I do love the Zeiss, and it's lighter and more compact, but it doesn't have the resolving power of the Sigma, or the lack of CA and distortion. The Zeiss needs a fair bit of distortion, CA and vignette adjustment in lightroom, that the Sigma does not. I will do a more complete comparison to access "color rendition" and "microcontrast" as you always heavily favor, so the jury is out on that yet. I may get that Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 just to compare it to the Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 lens for kicks. See what the differences really are. It's probably nice, but we'll see. The 180mm f/2.8's got a lot of CA wide open too, but it's a very nice fashion lens otherwise. The other's here are very nice options for their intended purposes. I do agree with you however about many of the college grads in America. We put way to much focus on bullshit over useful skills. Cheers.
Also, what is the best value 28mm lens?
If i want a wide-angle FX lens should i get the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 or Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G? I would just be shooting real estate, architecture, art/graffiti murals. No atro photography (yet)
I have the 60mm Macro based on your recommendation. Lately I've been reaching for my D90. Yes, the forgotten Nikon but my favorite DSLR of the bunch I've owned. Solid, just seems likes an extension of me...doesn't get in the way. I can do almost everything without ever needing to take my eye off the viewfinder. I've been shooting RAW and using primes which help with the lack of low light performance eclipsed by the newer bodies. 12 MP doesn't bother me. I like the colors and output even in JPEG. Small file sizes are nice. Everything is there, Commander mode, hard buttons for WB, ISO, bracketing, drive mode, DOF preview, metering, flash exp comp, dual dials, lighted top LCD, custom function button, easy menus....and accepts the old lenses in a small but tough body. Same sensor as the hallowed D300 I have some neuropathy in my hands so the smaller the better and it's easy on the neck. All that in mint condition for under $250. I could afford an expensive DSLR but would rather buy glass or lights....or steaks.
Was just out today testing the 180 2.8 on a d700 in b&w as I have a film f6 at nikon for repairs.
Thanks for putting the list down below, I always forget your recommendations. Now I can write it down. Thanks
Just recently got the Nikon AF-S 18-35mm G. Also have the 105mm DC and AF 180mm 2.8.
How would you compare the output of 100mm f2 Zeiss Macro Planar / Nikkor 180mm 2.8 / 300mm 2.8 ?
I have the Nikkor 135mm 3.5 AIS, but I am not so much impressed compared to 35 f2 Distagon or 58 1.4 Voigt, and I want more ..
I very much enjoy my Nikon 85 1.4G, though you're probably right about the 85 1.4 that you mention here. On the other hand, the 50mm 1.4 AIS is completely vanilla to me; my long nose 50 f 1.8 has real character by comparison. I happily have the 20 f1.8g, and find it to be beautiful. I'll add that the AIS 35-70 f3.5 is awesome, though I don't have quite as many lenses as you to run comparisons.
Cheers
Ken, why do you like 300mm 2.8 more than 400 2.8? Size, weight and better overall practicality?
the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 ais that you love because its cheap ? How color rendition and micro contrast of it ?
Hi Ken.,I have an older nikkor 55mm micro 2.8 that is very hard to focus. I believe it is dried grease in threads. Is this an expensive fix. or is it something I could do myself?
Why in the world would I think about touching the nikkor 50mm 1.4 ai if I could use my voigtlander 58mm f1.4 (the greatest lens I own) instead
Hi Ken,
Im looking to buy a tele lens mainly for portraits, im having a hard time deciding between the Zeiss planar 85 1.4 and Nikon 105 f2 dc. I have a 24-70 which i love using, but i want more detail and better bokeh on portraits. which one would you recommend.
+bennoxue more detail and better bokeh than the 105 F2 DC? ERROR hehehhehe
+Theoria Apophasis Sorry im a bit slow :(. i'm not 100% sure what you mean. Are you saying the 105 f2 dc has more superior detail+bokeh than the Zeiss 85 1.4? or did i use the wrong wording for my question and implied my 24-70 has more detail than the former.
+bennoxue I think he misread your question. He made a video saying the 105 DC has the best bokeh out of ANY lens if that helps.
+Ryan Daugherty ahh thats what i thought too :). I think the video you are referring to was about the 135 f2 dc. ran a search and couldnt find any videos about the 105 dc. I read in the comment below the 135 f2 video, where Ken says the 105 isnt quite as good as the 135. although i want to get the 135 f2 but the price is a bit steep for me. which brings me back to Zeiss 85 1.4 v 105 f2 dc hehe.
+Ryan Daugherty ahhh thank you thank you thank you!
what about Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8? can you tell us somethin?
Optically, which do recommend between the 300mm F4 and the 300mm F2.8?
Is the Voigtlander 50mm f/3.5 Heliar on this list now?
Can you make a video of all your favorite zoom lenses? From cheap to expensive, from ultra-wide to telephoto?
hey
i've had the voig 58mm for some time now and couldn't be happier, especially that milky output. today i received the zeiss 35mm f2, with few shots taken i am impressed but to tell the truth i miss that richness the 58 delivers. thankful for your priceless giving 👍
After using it more and more started to like the output, the anticipation of it doing what the 58 does, and more, was not in place. it is sharp and resolving, i got a good deal on it, happy.
haha~
I've got a degree in English Lit too.
I buy lenses with that.
i got my nikon 300mm f/4.5 ed-if ai-s.... awesome sauce of lens
Thanks for the recommendation
what is better nikkor 105 2.5 or nikkor 135 2.8?
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR VOIGHTLANDER Nokton 58mm |1.4 SL II s
Hi Ken,
Are you planning to try Hasselblad Zeiss Lenses adapted to Nikon ?
Recently I tried Hasselblad Zeiss 50mm f4 C, 120mm f4 Makro CF, 150mm f4 CF, (250mm f5.6 C on the way). The results are amazing. Talk about micro contrast and color rendition. Awesome.
Most these lenses can be found for less than $500. I think they can be you next secret best lenses series... lol
Got 3 of those 15 in the lineup. All through the recommendation of TAP. All spot on.
Hello. great videos! I have access to a 105 f2 dC for $750. For portrait/headshots, do you recommend that over a Tokina 100mm macro or with???
ohhh lord, the 105mm F2 DC is king, ….silk sex and sugar LORD of portraiture.
tokina isnt shabby for portraiture of course, but its mercedes vs. rolls royce youre comparing
Thanks!!
I have a used D800 and cash to buy either a brand new Nikkor 135mm f/2 D or Nikkor 105mm f/2 D. I shoot people for news (portraits of speech makers) and do street photography for fun. Which should I get?
Correct, some one has to do manual stuff, your SPOT on!
Ken . you are the guru ;o) you speak total sense and love your advice :o)
Why the 50mm 1.4 over the pancake one?
which affordable wide angle lens you recommend for nikon D800?
+angel Co prime or zoom? 20mm 1.8G nikkor
Zoom?
what about the Tamron 45mm VC ??? why is it missing?
+Jeff Chen It doesnt make the cut , thats why, its not absolute top lenses, its great, its not tops
Ok I thought it was your must buy lens recommendation on your other video.
+Jeff Chen it is an incredible lens, theres no contradiction there
After about a week with the Distagon it's like... what was I even doing before!? Comparing shots with that lens and my other lenses it's not even close. I thought my old lenses looked good, but I just didn't know what 'good' looked like.
+King Game Review U FUCKING NAILED IT
I have the Tamron 15-30 and there seems to be issues with the zoom ring sticking. A screw becomes dislodged and jams the mechanics. I know of four that had this happen. I fixed mine after five hours of surgery.
I've had mine for years and if anything the ring keeps getting smoother.
Dude... Going to university is a huge part of contemporary Japanese culture. HUGE!!!
hi there i currently just purchased the nikon d500 and with that i bought the sigma 150-600 c version the sigma 17-70 2.8 c version and the new sigma 50-100 1.8 art version . i see in most of your reviews you refer to sigma lens as JUNK . im now thinking about trading my 150-600 sigma for the nikon 200-500 and am also thinking of trading my other two sigma lens in for a nikon mid range lens . whats your opinion on this plz and what best mid range lens would you suggest for my d500 nikon 17-55 is out of my range at the moment .
200 500 at the very least has far superior VR. well i dont tell anyone to SELL their stuff,…..if you're happy………..
best midrange,…..well a used 17-55 is about $650+ :)
im trading back the lens so ill be getting new ones so wont be buying second hand . is th3 nikon 24-85vr anygood?
would you consider the nikon 200-500 to be a better lens than the sigma 150-600 ?
Actually, we don't have an expression for shithead. We would use something like "Klugscheisser"--smartshitter.
All the best from Berlin
Noob here ... if i have Metabones adaptor G mount to X mount for my fuji XT1 , can i use all of these lenses? Thanks
+Raymond Sigarlaki yes yes, yup.
+Theoria Apophasis Wow, awesome! Thanks :)
Check out the new 老蛙 105 f/2. It looks very promising. I have only the 135 f/2D DC, so I can't say for sure if this 老蛙 is comparable to the 105 f/2D DC.
+Aaron Yang theyre brother and sister lenses, very close and nearly perfect, ive got both :)
My favs:
Super-dynarex 135/4
Elmarit-r 90/2.8
Heliar 75/2.5
Summicron-r 50/2
SMC-A 50/1.7
Nokton 40/1.4
Ultron 40/2
Skopar 35/2.5
Skopar 25/4
Nokton 25/0.95
Heliar 15/4.5
Nikkor 43-86/3.5 v2
Ditch DSLRs !!
Haha. German Electrical Engineer here! It's absolutely true, what you are saying. But more and more Germans visit crappy Colleges. No good Universities but crappy collages...
+Theoria Apophasis Got me a 60mm for $115 and Wheeewww you were not kidding good sir. Amazed at the color saturation. And cheap, yeppp cheappp, from our good friends at Roberts!
+carr elliott dammmn, $115??? :P Sweeeet .. Hell yeah its great
Guten Morgen! Never heard "Scheißkopf" before but I need to start using it. :D
Literature is art which is what you are looking to create. True it doesn't build anything but it gives you insight
I TOTALLY agree with you, 100% about the college grads in fields with no functional value. I think that mess is starting to correct itself, but it had been like a pyramid scheme. College grads in management would only hir other college grads, who would only hire other college grads. Never mind the fact that the degrees were in French Impressionist Art, and the job was accounting. In photography, BTW, in the city where I used to live they would only hire people with a degree in photojournalism to work for the photo dept. at the newspaper. Those same photogs were calling me on a regular basis to solve their real world photography problems for them!!
The Nikon 20mm 1.8 G is just.... has Ken would put it. A "god lens" in the 20mm world.
Its a New Tokina 100mm 2.0?
+Mario Aguila f/2.8
First 2:30 of this video is the best 2:30 of video on UA-cam. Not even an Angry Photog fan.
Bought the Tokina, great!
Mass communications major know the feeling way too much!! Lol so true keep jumping off those cliffs!!! Three thumbs up
Degree definitions:BS = Bull ShitMS = More of the SamePHD = Piled Higher & Deeper
105mm 2.8?
+Mario Aguila 105mm 2.8, what about it?
In your description it appears in that way and I asume you are talking about 2.0 DC. Similar mistake about Tokina 100mm 2.0 (I asume is 2.8). Great video, anyway
thanks Ken
enjoyed this list
i love ya brother , your the man!
(intro) Isn't that the truth! ... Great video Ken... I have a few of those already and I have to completely agree with you. 👍👍
Thom Hogan writes about "Perceptual Megapixels" here on his site, calls it BS: www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-sharpness.html
"DxO, meanwhile, has come up with “Sharpness” as meaning “megapixels.” Did you know that the reasonably well-regarded Nikkor 10-100mm CX lens is only 3 megapixels sharp, but a Nikkor 200mm f/2 FX lens is 34 megapixels sharp? Whoa, wait, what? Get ready for mumbo jumbo:
"Sharpness is a subjective quality…[and our scores are] based on the Perceptual Megapixel concept that weights MTF…with human visual acuity.” Let’s see, that’s a subjective thing that is capable of generating an objective number? How’s that work?
It’s worse than that. Every one of DxOMark’s numbers is based on a particular sensor coupled to the lens, which varies from brand to brand, format to format, and even sometimes over time within brand. Even worse, DxOMark makes blithe statements such as “confirms that…”a 12mp full format camera is sharper than an 18mp APS format camera.” Well, okay, the way they’ve calculated their numbers for one particular lens suggests that, but I’m not convinced of the statement they’re trying to confirm let alone their method of confirming it. Further, while they cite what they based their method on, they actually don’t publish the method itself so that we can test the assumptions within it.
I couldn’t figure out why some of DxOMark’s numbers agreed with my personal assessments of various Nikkors, while others didn’t. Then it hit me: test charts. Remember that reference to MTF? Yep, the numbers DxOMark are generating probably devolve to flat field testing at closer distances. What happens with lenses that do better at long distances or that have field curvature?
A good example of the former comes in their positioning of the 200-400mm f/4 above the 500mm f/4 in “sharpness.” The 200-400mm is a sharpness monster close in, but progressively worse as you move outwards towards infinity. This introduces another variable in our task: sharp at what? Close/Far, flat/natural, what? "
+Lysander Spooner THom is smoking crack pipes
Theoria Apophasis Whut?
whut whut
Theoria Apophasis whut whut whut, dat is cwack?
werd , fashizzle
@ken That table looks terribly shaky.......I fear for your gear.
Even though I have a degree in English Lit, I can attest to the awesomeness of that 60mm 2.8d. :) Someday, the Voigtlander 58mm....
+Kate Miller-Wilson ROFL
+Kate Miller-Wilson whooops
On graduation day, I decorated my cap with the words, "Fries with that?" :) Strangely though, I've worked steadily as a writer ever since. Of course, I know plenty of writers without English Lit degrees, which is more to your point.
fries ROFL
That intro man. Truth. If you haven't heard of him check out Aaron Clarey here on UA-cam. Dude's the shit. Tells the truth like it is. Ironic you said certain degrees are worthless. That's what one of his books about college degrees is called.
great german, viele Grüße aus Deutschland✌
Hehe that funny woman's voice is a good one.
"Another great mind ruined by higher education"
24mm f2. 8 Afd, 50mm f1.4 ai S-C and 105mm f 2.5 ai.
Nikon's basic holy trinity of non zoom lenses.
I own the 60mm macro. So I guess I'm not an idiot. Yay!
+Ronnie Harris heheheeh!
Tell it how it is matey same same here Oz !
what's the best zoom lens which includes at least 17-35mm for d7100 under $300 used that's good for low light?
Luved your rant. All my nephews and nieces brothers and sister have done degrees and have debt and while some have good well paid jobs they don’t like their jobs. Im a chef. Learnt my trade 20 years in kitchens. Now i travel the world cooking for the rich on there yachts, luv my job and get payed a fortune + loads of time off! My only nephew who doesn’t have a degree is training to build wooden boats. Doing what he luvs. Collage/uni. wAsTe of time and MONEY. Well educated idiots. Id rather be a happy well payed idiot.
To be fair we need a few well educated idiots. But not every freekin body
reminds me of david spade
hahaaa!!! OMG i spilled my coffee all over the place !
-a german dude
+Lemon Squeezy CHECK OUT THE VIDEO I JUST UPLOADED, i nearly died laughing!!!
nein, du bist ein kahlkopf.
der mann ohne haare.
btw, i'm from oberhausen-germoney.
great talking
jaja ein assloch
I'm hesitating between the Nikon 20mm f1.8, Voigtlander 58 mm f1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm f2.
Voigtlander is the most affordable of all. Zeiss is the most expensive. However, then 58mm is so close to the Micro 60mm I already own.
If Ken loves the Zeiss so much, it's definitely not a bad choice to go with the Zeiss.
+Tri Le both are awesome lenses :) 20mm 1.8
135 2.8 is the tits. I love it to death
+Domenic Quarato the tits ROFL
More than 10.000$ value lenses sitting on an old crappy table..
I watched for the lenses. I gave thumbs up for you making fun of kids not learning anything useful.
I trust you. Suprise me
every lens was the best xD
all Americans should own a bell
+Ali Beklik bell whut?
You mean you don't understand
I'm sorry all Americans do own them but they don't all using them
whut
Ok cows own Bell,s
That table is not that solid for the dollar's that it is holding up!!!!
I would have my Zeiss 50mm 1,4 Distagon on that list, dump the Nikon 18-35mm F3.5-4G and add my Nikon 24-120 f/4 G which is mostly on one of my D700s 805 of the time. I had the 135 f 2.8 Ai-s but got rid of it because of the onion shape bokeh although I might of had a bad copy, however I am not a big fan of Nikon lens older than the D series, that just my personal preference. The only lens you got on your list I haven't got that I would like is the Voightlander 58 F1.4 Nokton.
American,s they can wear it better
No Fuji love at all.. meh.
+Galeidan you missed it, the Fuji video comes tonight, this was a NIKON glass video.
So true, but hey Trump is set to change all that.
Have you seen the Donald Trump Game of Thrones Winter is Trumping video on Yourtube, Hilarious, hahahaha.
Here in Australia with some trades you can earn more than doctors and other professionals, easy.
Nice line up of lenses.
Pentax K1, Pentax K1, Pentax K1, will keep spamming this, resistance is futile, hehehehehe.
You can use Voigtlander lenses on Pentax.
Only $1,800 damn !!!! This is no Fony.
+John Valatos but but but, its a damn pentax :)
Aaaaack
You use to own a Pentax ? They are built like a tank. All magnesium chassis. Have you seen the new K1 with the battery grip it is so sexy hehe.
i know theyre built very well :)
Its not scheißekopf its dummkopf or idiot ;)
+Maximilian Froitzheim why not both
yeah right
or kanalratte