Nikkor AF-S 24-85 f/3.5~4.5 G

This was my first AF lens, bought long after I got my Nikon F5.  For a long time I just used MF lenses on my Nikon F5 adamantly.

I only used this lens occasionally and for a short period of time as I seldom took pictures and I discovered "pro" lenses.  I bought it from Canoga camera out in California.  I still remember the time I did my research on buying an AF lens and the moment and whereabouts when I placed the order, weird.  Back then I shot film and I was happy with the lens granted my point of reference was 4x6 prints and I must be in awe how the AF-S worked.

Now I "have to" revisit this lens again.  My pro grade 20-35 suffered from a fall and is out of commission.  I don't think I ever shot any digital using this 24-85.  I wonder if I shoot at f/8 or f/11, does it even matter?  When the lighting situation is difficult I think a f/2.8 helps or if you dig the f/2.8 or larger aperture rendition.  In terms of build, for me, as long as the mount is metal I am kind of OK with the rest.  All lenses broke from fall and impact, plastic or metal.  Sometimes I believe a lens shade helps alleviate the impact better than any metal construction.  That being said, I appreciate any well made lenses that last for decades.

Believe it or not, this lens together with its dedicated lens shade were Made in Japan.  The LC-67 lens cap was Made in Thailand.

Both Ken Rockwell and Moose Peterson raved about this lens if you ever need any affirmation of your purchase.  It's very interesting to read how Moose marvelled the lens cap LC-67 as I guess back then the squeeze-in lens cap was a rarity and the LC-67 was quite possibly among the firsts if not the first to use this squeeze-in mechanism.

S, M, L against numbered sizing

When I see S M L kind of sizing I shake my head a little.  Especially if the outfit in question is priced at a fairly high price like a $600-700 leather jacket.

I take it it can have XS, S, M, L, XL and for numbered sizing 36, 38, 40, 42 and 44.  So are they same?  I really don't know.  I tend to think when one uses SML sizing, it's just a bit unrefined and for lower priced goods.

Many if not most manufacturers still not disclosing what those letters or numbers mean exactly even for those selling online.  I think that's crazy.  Does 42 mean the jacket is 42 inches pit to pit or it means it's supposed to fit body with a chest size 42 inches?  Even for those sites that provide a size chart it's not clear to me what 42 means.  I wonder how can online retailers get away with actual measurements.  Some sites say true to size, what does it even mean?  Just give out the true garment measurements already.

I feel like eBay sellers do a much better job in general.

AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D

I don't know if Nikon USA has any rule in naming or calling its lenses but this is how it's listed on Nikon USA as of today.

So much ink has been spilled on this lens ... and I am going to spill a bit more.

This lens has a built-in hood that I have no idea how it's supposed to work, does it lock, do you just pull it out, are you supposed to turn it, clockwise or anticlockwise or something something.  I really have no idea.  Sometimes it just seems to be somewhat stuck.

The lens has an aperture ring.  What's old is new again.  I just read the new Canon R or more precisely the new RF lenses (not rangefinder by the way) has a ring that can be programmed to work as aperture.  Didn't they do that in the beginning of the time?  This lens provides defocus control meaning you can control the out of focus look either in front or behind the focused subject or you can simply leave the defocus alone and leave it in the neutral position.  The thing is if you need to work fast and you need to change the aperture, chances are you might forget to change the defocus setting following the change of the aperture.  For example you set you f/stop at f/2 and you set defocus at R2, to match the f/2 aperture you set.  Somewhere along the way, you want to shoot at f/2.8 but hey you are too busy composing and whatnot and you just left the defocus setting unchanged at R2 insteal of R2.8 as you preferred.  Not a huge deal in real world situation but psychologically it makes you feel sloppy and incompetent.  Unless I have ample time I would leave the defocus in neutral position.

Is AF fast?  This is relative and I don't have any scientific way to say one way or another.  Given that it's a prime D lens, so I assume it's not that fast by modern AF-S standard.  However, I use it to shoot velodrome cycling and I don't think it's bad or unuseable.  I tend to blame myself if I miss focus.

One thing I have to mention, some say chromatic aberration is not a problem ... I say it is.  Again it's relative.  When I shoot with this lens I make sure I check enable lens profile and remove chromatic aberration in Light Room.  On the other hand, when I use the relative modern 16-35 and 70-200 I never notice any chromatic aberration at all.  I am not saying CA shows all the time, it rears its ugly head on edges where light and dark color meet.  Sometimes when you shoot you just go I can be bothered with oh I can't use this lens or that lens because I am shooting back light with high contrast or lots of whites on the edges.  The lens basically gives a purple halo around the subject.  I suspect if I use Nikon's software it may clean up better.

135mm at f/2 is pretty shallow depth of field.  It can work to your aesthetic as much as against it.  But you have that option to deploy the lens at f/2 should you want to.  Modern cameras have astonishing high ISO performance so shooting at f/2 or f/1.4 or f/0.95 is more of a preference than a necessity.

Shooting with fixed focal length can be challenging and oddly satisfying as if you want to challenge and hence prove yourself in composition.