No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Jay Maisel takes some great photos and manages okay with his Nikon 28-300mm. Before digital he shot Kodachrome. When you look at some of his older photos it is obvious that he liked Kodachrome and the article below confirms it.
Up until a few weeks ago I had never seen any of his photos and his name was one I wasn't sure I had heard before. I like his photos on his website. It was clear his older stuff was shot on Kodachrome. He is 90 years old now.
This is just a 7 minute introduction to a documentary about him. I watched this, but haven't watched the whole documentary.
The Big Picture created this Emmy award winning documentary on living legend photographer Jay Maisel
Interesting article written by Jay:
Notes from Jay Maisel: Don't Worry, Have Confidence, and Stick to Your Guns
https://www.peachpit.com/articles/artic ... 5&seqNum=2
For the last few years, I have pared down all my equipment to one lens and one camera. I have been walking around with this for the last three years. The camera is, of course, a Nikon D3s; the lens, a 28–300mm zoom.
I am unashamed of my love for this lens. It has saved me from walking around with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm, 135mm, 180mm, and 300mm lenses.
I used to use a 70–300mm and carried a 24–70mm lens in a little belly bag. My daughter said, “You look like a huge dork with that belly bag.” In point of fact, the belly bag prevented me from using the 24–70mm. It was a matter of inertia and the fact that I basically think in telephoto terms most of the time.
When Nikon came out with a 28–300mm, I thought, “This probably won’t work. It’s a compromise. They’re attempting too much. It won’t be as sharp.”
Wow, was I wrong! I could not be happier and, in addition, it has enabled me to shoot at wide angles, since the lens is already in my hands.
I got an assignment to shoot an air-to-air shot and the client wanted me to shoot with a Hasselblad. I told him it would be better with Kodachrome 35mm. He said, “No, it’ll be better with 120.”
I went up, did the shot with 120, and then did it again with Kodachrome. When I finally showed him the job, I showed him the Kodachrome first. He loved it. I then asked if he wanted to see the Hasselblad stuff. He said, “Nah, it couldn’t be better than the 35mm Kodachrome.” That was the end of the Hasselblads.
That has some more info.
I doubt that he still uses a huge Nikon D3. Not a camera I would have any interest in. I have held the D3, D4, D5, and D6 at stores with big lenses on them such as the 70-200mm f2.8. Not for me. Here are a couple of comparison photos. My old A700 + 18-250mm is in between in size.bakubo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:40 am Recently I read that Jay Maisel loves the Nikon 28-300mm on his Nikon DSLRs. He likes the biggest Nikon DSLRs such as the D3 class. A few days ago youtube recommended a short video of him talking about his way of photographing and it sounded just like what I have done for almost 50 years. Just go out with no particular plan or type of photograph in mind and then just wander for hours and be open to anything. I have also loved lenses such as the Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 (28-300mm-efl) for years and for the same reason. It has been my workhorse lens. Before I started using m4/3 in 2012 the Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 (27-375mm-efl) on the Sony A700 was my workhorse lens. I have a dozen m4/3 lenses and about a dozen A-mount lenses, but these were the gems. Most of my best m4/3 photos and A700 photos were taken with them. Great when I travel!
Sony 18-250mm (27-375mm-efl):
<= 40mm (60mm-efl) - 44%
>= 135mm (202.5mm-efl) - 33%
Olympus 14-150mm (28-300mm-efl):
<= 30mm (60mm-efl) - 53%
>= 100mm (200mm-efl - 24%
There are no question compromises on superzooms be it full frame or crop. However often reviews can be overly technical and not really representative of real world shooting/results. Or it could be that xyz lens is "good enough" for the user.
That Nikon is rather "spendy" new I will say that a bit pricey I think -though reasonable on the used market.
I remember when the 18-135mm SAM turned up, I wasn't expecting to keep it or like it. Having read some reviews they were rather lack luster. However real world I found that the performance is mostly very good. A few weaker focal lengths 24m is one (needs stopping down), 135mm it's not quite there on the corners/edges, though I find it quite good ie good enough it's far from bad as the Kurt review indicated. So either the reviews I read were iffy copies - or just don't reflect realistic expectations. It's sharp wide open in the middle across the range, and it excellent at the important 18mm mark, most are not - including the mirorrless ones are poor here. So I kept it. I admit I didn't pay for it (Sony send it with that replaced A57), but if it broke or I lost it I would replace it
Quite a useful range I find 27-200mm equivalent. Perhaps it could be a bit smaller, and there is more distortion than shorter range zooms. Overall a nice lens and I've used it often. Works well for action too, used it many times for marathons where it is useful to be able to go from telephoto to wide. I never used the 18-250mm or the 18-270mm. I think DK liked them -though I wasn't overly impressed at some focal lengths from the shots I saw. Maybe they are worth a look at on the used market. Another thing I often see is some people touting this "must use primes" nonsense, to the point where the dismiss all zoom lenses even shorter ranges like a 24-70mm. I use primes and zooms, it's too limiting to restrict yourself to just primes
2004: Canon L pro 17-35mm f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6
I was and still very impressed with the old Olympus 14-54 F.2.8 Mk 1, Mk 2 not quite as good, superb bit of glass. Its on my old retired E-510
More recently I got a used mint Canon 15-85 lens, its on my 650D, excellent lens, most of my reviews are from real world pictures, not technical at all.
As I mention in an earlier post my most recent purchase was a low mileage A58, plus an excellent Konica-Minolta 17-35 F 2.8 D, It screams Tamron, but on a cropped body its a very sharp lens. It seems that Tamron were almost sub contractors for KM as many lensed branded KM were re badged Tamron, even one of the Zeiss zooms was made by Tamron.
I have handled the lens several times. The first time was in 2019. I cannot post big photos here so take a look at this 2019 post of mine with a full-size 20mp PEN-F photo taken indoors at the worst focal length and aperture (200mm, f6.3 wide open). ISO 200, 1/30 second, standing, not leaning against anything and depending on PEN-F IBIS for this 400mm-efl photo. Far from ideal conditions, but I thought the sharpness was certainly very acceptable for me and my uses. In my typical use of a lens such as this or the 14-150mm I would be outdoors with usually much better light so it would be even better. Darn, that PEN-F IBIS is awesome! Newer bodies have even better IBIS. But, 400mm-efl at 1/30 second while standing and not leaning on anything or bracing myself is pretty good.
Of course, the lens isn't all that big. Maybe smaller than my old Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3. But I have become accustomed to the smaller m4/3 gear for traveling and don't really want to go back to bigger stuff.
Olympus 12-200mm f3.5-6.3
78 x 100mm
Olympus 14-150mm f4-5.6 II
63.5 x 83.8 mm
Go bold or go home. Some would say get the Olympus 12-200mm f3.5-6.3 and get rid of the rest. Go for the gusto!
I don't think I will go for the gusto though.
It does seem despite his cutting down on what he uses photo wise he still owns quite a few Nikons, and dare I say his place is full of stuff! He's no question a bit of a hoarder for other things (place is packed full of stuff!). I do like his style though and his thoughts on photography are bang on target
I did take the time to read a few reviews of the lens and technically it tends to get panned a bit (ie soft corners, distortion, needs stopping down, ho hum oof areas etc), yet often users say they love it and use it all the time. I assume long term if someone wasn't happy with a lens, you would pass it on if you disliked it. So perhaps there is a middle ground.
It reminds me a bit of the "epic" shootouts I've read between all the 24-70mm F2.8's, and how xyz one has much smoother rendering or nice areas out of focus. Some complain about this brands "onion rings bokeh". Yet when I looked every single modern 24-70mm F2.8 has onion rings! Every one Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Canon RF, Sony GM - not one was onion ring free! Don't get me wrong rendering can matter, quite a bit. Differences were not big either. when I used the Tamron mostly it was pleasant for rendering - yet if you go looking for flaws you can find it as you can with every lens. I pity the person looking for onion ring free rendering on modern lenses, across many focal lengths/models it's present. Even on top end lenses
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests