Anyone Using AI Lenses And Manual Focus On A Nikon D200?

I find the Nikon AI primes like the 24mm 2.8 to be excellent but am
having a little trouble with the manual focus. Do you always trust
the little green dot on the info screen in the viewfinder for focusing
accuracy ? Unfortunately I do wear glasses so the focusing thing has
been a little hit or miss for me. Other than getting the Katz Eye
Focusing Screen does anyone have a fool proof method for manually
focusing on the D200? I'm looking forward to finding a used 20mm 2.8
AI for this particular camera. And does anyone have an opinion of the
20-35mm 2.8 Nikon lens and shooting architecture and landscapes?
Thanks

wrote:
I find the Nikon AI primes like the 24mm 2.8 to be excellent but am
having a little trouble with the manual focus. Do you always trust
the little green dot on the info screen in the viewfinder for focusing
accuracy ? Unfortunately I do wear glasses so the focusing thing has
been a little hit or miss for me. Other than getting the Katz Eye
Focusing Screen does anyone have a fool proof method for manually
focusing on the D200? I'm looking forward to finding a used 20mm 2.8
AI for this particular camera. And does anyone have an opinion of the
20-35mm 2.8 Nikon lens and shooting architecture and landscapes?
Thanks

I went with the Katz Eye. Those wide fast lenses are difficult to focus.
Even with the Katz Eye, it's sometimes easier to just look at what I
want in focus but often the split prism aid is very useful and when it
is, it's exactly perfect. The green light is better than nothing but
often has a pretty broad range that it'll approve as 'in-focus'.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Disputes about the accuracy of various focusing screens kind of disappeared
since auto-focus took over and most SLRs, film and digital, adapted to
screens that visually minimize/disguise focusing errors but make critical
manual focusing difficult.
I have concerns that secondary conversions would position the focusing
screen with enough critical tolerance that it could be relied on for
absolute accuracy. In the final analysis you may end up with nothing better
than the almost focus of auto focus and a voided warranty. The reason I
think this is that I do not think that the way consumer autofocus cameras
are made that placement of the viewing screen at the time of manufacture is
as accurate as it was with manual focus film SLRs--it doesn't have to be.
Fortunately you are considering wide angle lenses so depth of field may
cover focus errors anyway--just as true in digital as in film capture. I
wonder if users who have had the Katz screens installed are happy with
focusing long lenses and with exposure accuracy.
When I need critical focus with Nikon dSLRs I use a tripod and bracket the
focus and exposure as necessary. This seems to be the only way to get the
best image when photographing semi-flat artwork like quilts. Perhaps it is a
waste of time and depth of field covers all minor focus errors?
Many years now into Photoshop and inkjet printing it seems to me that
moderate differences in lens qualities have less of an impact on the
appearance of sharpness in a final image than the digital processing of that
image. Excessive chromatic aberration and flare seem the worst sins a lens
can have in the digital age, the rest not so hard to manipulate. The vision
of the photographer is more important than the lens anyway.

David Ruether wrote:
"flaming-o" wrote in message ...

Disputes about the accuracy of various focusing screens kind of disappeared since auto-focus took over and most SLRs, film and
digital, adapted to screens that visually minimize/disguise focusing errors but make critical manual focusing difficult.
I have concerns that secondary conversions would position the focusing screen with enough critical tolerance that it could be
relied on for absolute accuracy. In the final analysis you may end up with nothing better than the almost focus of auto focus and
a voided warranty. The reason I think this is that I do not think that the way consumer autofocus cameras are made that placement
of the viewing screen at the time of manufacture is as accurate as it was with manual focus film SLRs--it doesn't have to be.
Fortunately you are considering wide angle lenses so depth of field may cover focus errors anyway--just as true in digital as in
film capture. I wonder if users who have had the Katz screens installed are happy with focusing long lenses and with exposure
accuracy.
When I need critical focus with Nikon dSLRs I use a tripod and bracket the focus and exposure as necessary. This seems to be the
only way to get the best image when photographing semi-flat artwork like quilts. Perhaps it is a waste of time and depth of field
covers all minor focus errors?
Many years now into Photoshop and inkjet printing it seems to me that moderate differences in lens qualities have less of an
impact on the appearance of sharpness in a final image than the digital processing of that image. Excessive chromatic aberration
and flare seem the worst sins a lens can have in the digital age, the rest not so hard to manipulate. The vision of the
photographer is more important than the lens anyway.

I think you have "hit various nails on the heads"! The old N70 and N90
Nikons were big let-downs in terms of Nikon's departure from making
bodies with VERY sharp viewfinders. It was so easy to manually focus
lenses as short as 16mm or even 8mm with all the "F" series bodies, the
F100, and the FE/FM/FAs (so long as one's sight was well corrected
for a viewing distance of about one meter - and with using the B or E
screens, getting rid of the useless A screen with the focus "aids" which
just cluttered up the VF central area, a screen similar to the "Katz Eye").

Yes the aids can make a mess of things at times but also can be real
helpful for some situations. Didn't they make a more opaque matte screen
at one time? Something like that would make the viewfinder darker but
give a better look at the actual DOF.

BTW, my focus eye has developed an uncorrectable irregular central
softness that made me jump to the F100 (with its [finally!] effective AF)
when it came out, useful for fast focusing, but when I have more time,
the relatively high VF magnification of the FE/FM/FA still permits me to
MF accurately. Added to what you have pointed out, I think beginning
with late MF Nikons, changes were also made in the VFs to brighten
them with slow zooms, making them appear less sharp with faster
lenses. Also BTW, AI Nikkors had more "range" in their focusing
scales than AIS and AF lenses, useful for "guess focusing", which is
often more accurate with short FL lenses than trying to use the screens
of newer bodies or the useless "focus indicator" (it does have too much
slop to be accurate enough). And, while I'm a "lens quality nut" (see my
"SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors", at --
www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html), I can't disagree with your
final comments...;-)


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

In article ,
David Ruether wrote:
"flaming-o" wrote in message ...
Many years now into Photoshop and inkjet printing it seems to me that moderate differences in lens qualities have less of an
impact on the appearance of sharpness in a final image than the digital processing of that image. Excessive chromatic aberration
and flare seem the worst sins a lens can have in the digital age, the rest not so hard to manipulate. The vision of the
photographer is more important than the lens anyway.

And, while I'm a "lens quality nut" (see my
"SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors", at --
www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html), I can't disagree with your
final comments...;-)

I don't know if the above is true for digital capture, but I disagree for
film (and older lenses).

Last year, on a high risk trip, I brought my 200/4 instead of the 180/2.8 I
normally use (that was a good decision, because I did destroy two lenses and
one motordrive).

Well, good for keeping my 180/2.8, not for the (technical) quality of the
images. The results of the 200/4 reminded me of how happy I was when I got
the 180/2.8. I also decided that I had to have the 80-200/2.8, because
now I knew that I would not use the 80-200/4.5 if I needed a zoom.

Maybe modern lenses are all much closer in terms of performance than older
lenses. But there is something in the 200/4 and the 80-200/4.5 that I really
don't like. And it's not excessive chromatic aberration or flare.



--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article ,
David Ruether wrote:
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message .phicoh.net...
Maybe modern lenses are all much closer in terms of performance than older
lenses. But there is something in the 200/4 and the 80-200/4.5 that I really
don't like. And it's not excessive chromatic aberration or flare.

There are various versions for these, with performance increases
for each (two for the 200, three for the slower zoom, I think) - but
even so, the 180mm f2.8 AF is one of the best Nikkors of a
generally excellent group, as are the 80-200mm f2.8s, so comparing
these with an early 200mm f4 (which was variable, ranging from
poor to decent - and the later compact version in a good sample
was much better) or an early version of the 80-200mm f4.5 (the first
"good" zoom by anyone, and quite good toward its short end, but
less so toward its long end - and the later versions were better), but
even the f4 version was never as good as any of the 80-200mm
f2.8 versions.

The serial number of my 200/4 is 784833, which Roland Vink just calls 'Ai',
and the serial number of my 80-200/4.5 is 228961, which he calls 'N'. Odd,
I don't think it was Ai'd.

except that the early Nikkors were corrected
to look sharp and contrasty at wide stops (with overcorrected
spherical abberation, rather than the currently fashionable
undercorrected, for "good bokeh" - which I think is silly...;-) and
had few, straight-sided diaphragm blades (which also contributed
to a hard, sharp-edged, "busy" OOF image). Images that point up
these design differences will, of course, look different - and you
may have preferences...;-)

That may have soemthing to do with it. Maybe I just don't like the way those
lenses render the background.

Another pair is the 300/4.5 ED-IF compared to the 300/2.8 ED-IF. I like the
300/4.5, but I really enjoy the 300/2.8.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

David Ruether wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message ...
David Ruether wrote:

.....The old N70 and N90
Nikons were big let-downs in terms of Nikon's departure from making
bodies with VERY sharp viewfinders. It was so easy to manually focus
lenses as short as 16mm or even 8mm with all the "F" series bodies, the
F100, and the FE/FM/FAs (so long as one's sight was well corrected
for a viewing distance of about one meter - and with using the B or E
screens, getting rid of the useless A screen with the focus "aids" which
just cluttered up the VF central area, a screen similar to the "Katz Eye").

Yes the aids can make a mess of things at times but also can be real helpful for some situations. Didn't they make a more opaque
matte screen at one time? Something like that would make the viewfinder darker but give a better look at the actual DOF.
--
Paul Furman

There was a D screen, made for the "F" series (but not the F100) that was
an integrated ground *glass* on the bottom + glass condenser lens on the
top (without the additional Fresnel for brightening the edges/corners) that
was very sharp all over - though it was rather hard to use in dim light with

Thanks for your thoughts!

I think my Katz Eye does not have the fresnel surface. It's hard to
compare before/after unless you had 2 cameras side by side. I don't mind
the junk in the middle but I can see how some might, it's really
cluttered with the split prism, ring of microprisms, AF sensor spots,
grid, etc. I even got the extra etched crop lines for 8x10 aspect ratio.

I think I wouldn't mind dimmer if it represented the focus more truly
but that doesn't seem to be an option. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have got
the optional brightening treatment... this discussion suggests that
diminishes the ability to see the focus clearly:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00J5z9

slow lenses and with wide angles toward the edges (and it had a central
"hot spot" with almost all lenses). Sometime during the run of the F3 a
*slightly* brighter set of A, B, and E screens was introduced, which I
liked. I could never use Nikon's microprisms (unlike Pentax's), and I
disliked the central split (too awkward to use, and inaccurate inless the
split subject was centered and at the right angle - way too slow!) so any
screen with the "focus aids" got taken out and replaced with one with a
matte center (with good eyesight, corrected for 1 meter, I found this the
fastest and most accurate to use). Nikon made two sets of four screens
for the "F" series bodies to match particular ranges of lens FLs (gee, how
handy...;-), one with all microprisms, the other mostly clear (talk about
slow or impossible focusing! ;-). But, for those of us who grew up with
the equivalent of the D screen, there was nothing better for judging focus
and DOF, though the B or E screens in the screens Fs, F100 and the
FE/FM/FAs came close enough (as did those screens in the N8008...).


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Mon, 05 May 2008 22:44:27 GMT, wrote:

I find the Nikon AI primes like the 24mm 2.8 to be excellent but am
having a little trouble with the manual focus. Do you always trust
the little green dot on the info screen in the viewfinder for focusing
accuracy ? Unfortunately I do wear glasses so the focusing thing has
been a little hit or miss for me. Other than getting the Katz Eye
Focusing Screen does anyone have a fool proof method for manually
focusing on the D200? I'm looking forward to finding a used 20mm 2.8
AI for this particular camera. And does anyone have an opinion of the
20-35mm 2.8 Nikon lens and shooting architecture and landscapes?
Thanks

I don't have a D200 but I have my D40 set up as an exclusively
manual-focus camera. I prefer the 45mm f/2.8P lens, which allows use
of all the exposure modes. (It's a CPU lens.) The Katz Eye screen is
almost indispensible for this use.

The secret to getting sharp focus, I found, is to use Aperture
Priority (or Manual mode) to set a smaller aperture and thereby
maximize depth of field. The fully-automatic exposure mode seems to
want to default to the largest available aperture, which gives a
shallower depth of field and makes the manual focusing very critical.
An f/4 or f/5.6 setting is much more forgiving as regards focus.

wrote:

And does anyone have an opinion of the
20-35mm 2.8 Nikon lens and shooting architecture and landscapes?


The AF Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8D is a fine lens ... but only if you get a
good sample. The aspherical element was hand polished and there was a
significant variation between samples.

If you find a good one, it will be one of your best lenses. If you
find a bad one, the chromatic aberration (CA) will be strong, even on
film. Even the best samples show slight CA on digital, especially
when used wide open.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:55:02 +0100, Bruce wrote:

wrote:

And does anyone have an opinion of the
20-35mm 2.8 Nikon lens and shooting architecture and landscapes?


The AF Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8D is a fine lens ... but only if you get a
good sample. The aspherical element was hand polished and there was a
significant variation between samples.

If you find a good one, it will be one of your best lenses. If you
find a bad one, the chromatic aberration (CA) will be strong, even on
film. Even the best samples show slight CA on digital, especially
when used wide open.


Thanks to all for the great advice. I went through a period of lens
frenzy, when I felt I really needed to buy a new lens, but I think I'm
going to stick with the 24mm 2.8 AI for a while. It's really a good
lens with probably less distortion than the 20mm 2.8 AI. Thanks
again...