From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
["Followup-To:" header set to]
Annika1980 <annika1980(a)> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 6:56 pm, Rita � Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04> wrote:

>> I don't know what Nikon was thinking, VR on a macro lens is totally wrong.

> Why?

Simple: Rita cannot for zir life imagine _anyone_ using a macro
lens for _anything_ else than macros.[1] It would be an unspeakable
abomination to Rita to use such a high quality lens for, say,

Of course, this means that Rita only has heard of and uses the
MP-E for macros, yet zie claims zie uses only Nikon glass. AFAIK,
there is no dedicated macro-only lens in the whole Nikon line up.

But that's our Rita, a mad hatter[2], raving and ranting at
something zie doesn't half understand. The type to go for parrot
shavings for zir salad. Freedom is also the freedom to show ones
lunacy to all the world, and while I strenously disagree with
Rita, I feel we must protect zir lunacy to the utmost degree ---
lest someone mistake zir as an intelligent being.


[1] in "normal" photography, the major shake influences are
yawing and pitching, with rotation around the optical axis a
far 3rd (approx 1/10th, depending how you jerk the trigger).
These two movements are countered by IS (or VR).

During macrophotography translational movements become a
major error source: shifting the camera 1/10mm already causes
dozends of pixels as error. Yawing and pitching are quite
unimportant compared to that.

Hence IS does not help during macrophotography.

From: Paul Furman on
Paul Furman wrote:

> I do have this lens on order as of a few days ago.

Here's a few first tests:
Sweet round bokeh even at f/9... nice!
Click for enlargements, very very sharp even in the corners.

Paul Furman Photography
Bay Natives Nursery
From: frederick on
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to]
> frederick <lost(a)> wrote:
>> Annika1980 wrote:
>>> Perhaps you could enlighten us about some of the "glaring flaws" of
>>> the 85 f/1.2L. This oughta be good.
>> It weighs over 1kg.
> Doing double duty as a lens and a missile against robbers is
> bad, because?

Probably weak canon fluorite glass - the lens would break
before the robbers head.
> Oh, and please show me the 85mm f/1.2 from Nikon that is
> as sturdy as the Canon variant and is lighter.
The Nikkor 85 f1.4 is very sturdy. I forgot to mention the
CA and hunting for focus with the Canon lens - who needs
f1.2 when it comes with so may problems.

> What, Nikon doesn't even offer a f/1.2? Not even a
> lightweight plastic one? Fancy that.
>> It vignettes at wide apertures even on crop sensor cameras.
> Any lens vignettes, and Nikons, 85mm f/1.8 D vignettes worse
> at f/1.8 than Canon's 85 f/1.2.
It vignettes a lot. I see the same reviewers who *love*
(for some deluded reason?) trash inexpensive lenses because
of vignetting, but because it's a $1300 lens, it's ok?

>> Only an 8 blade and non-rounded diaphragm.
> "super-smooth bokeh" (
Polygonal specular highlights when stopped down.
> "The 85/1,2 can not be compared to any other lens. the bokeh
> at 1.2 is not from this world. Its like floating in a dream."
> "Legendary bokeh"
> "Bokeh is fantastic."
> "Best bokeh I ever seen at all apertures"
> "Out of this world bokeh"
> "heavenly bokeh"
> "incredible bokeh"
> "Fabulous bokeh"
> "Out of this world BOKEH - you won't believe it until you see it."
> "The bokeh is amazing. Smooth and creamy."
> "unmatched bokeh"
> "Wonderful bokeh"
> "Amazing Bokeh"
> "the bokeh is fantastic"
> "Bokeh that is nothing short of amazing"
> "The bokeh is excellent."
> "Bokeh.....come again....this 85'er invented the term Bokeh"
> "Bokeh that sets a standard that spoils you against other fast lenses."
> ... and lots of repetitions of that ... and, here it comes:
> +---------------------------------------------------------+
> | >>> "Better than the Nikon AFD 85 f1.4 in bokeh." <<< |
> +---------------------------------------------------------+
> ( exists almost solely as an outlet for
frustrated fanboys to express their deep love for gear that
they think nobody else loves.
> That tells me you are beating a dead dead dead horse.
>> Doesn't focus closer than 0.95m
> The difference between 0.95 and 0.85m is indeed world
> shaking, far larger than 50% (half a stop) more light.
> Right?
An extra 100mm can really be very significant when you need
it. Perhaps german girls are too polite to tell you what you
>> Stupid 72mm filter thread instead of 77mm.
> Canon uses 72mm, so there:
> - 20mm f/2.8
> - 20-35mm f/2.8
> - 24mm f/3.5 TS
> - 28-80mm f/2.8-4
> - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
> - 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (non USM and USM)
> - 35mm f/1.4
> - 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6
> - 45mm f/2.8 TS
> - 50mm f/1.0
> - 50mm f/1.2
> - 80-200mm f/2.8
> - 85mm f/1.2 I and II
> - 135mm f/2
> - 180mm f/3.5 Macro
> - 200mm f/2.8 I and II

They do too - seems a lot of consumer variable aperture
zooms in that list. Guess that sums it up nicely.
> Of course, calling a thing stupid does not make _you_ look
> intelligent --- not that it would matter any more.
>> It costs a fortune.
> You get what you pay for, and it's worth two fortunes.
You're a marketer's dream.
>> Can't be used with the new leading sensor technology from Nikon.
> I wonder where Nikon leads to, terminal stupidity?
> By your posts, it sure does.
> Anyway, it's just badly supressed penis envy, since Nikon
> only manages a f/1.4 lens.

Actually, I think all of the 85mm lenses are a waste of
time. Nikon make good 70/80 - 200 f2.8 zooms that perform
wonderfully at the short end, and have nice boket. Any of
the 85s would be like a wasteful lump of lead in my camera bag.
From: Annika1980 on
On Sep 18, 8:43 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Anyway, it's just badly supressed penis envy, since Nikon
> only manages a f/1.4 lens.
> -Wolfgang

Well, Rita does have a badly suppressed penis.

From: Annika1980 on
On Sep 18, 5:57 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> > What, Nikon doesn't even offer a f/1.2? Not even a
> > lightweight plastic one? Fancy that.
> Why should they when the f/1.4 Nikkor kills Canon's 1.2 in every conceivable
> category?

Only in your delusional wet dreams.