Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon series E 36-72mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:30 pm    Post subject: Nikon series E 36-72mm Reply with quote
Hi there a few days ago I told everyone how much I love my series E 75-150
I own a canon 60d which is a crop sensor camera so as much as I love that lens it's not exactly practical a lot of the time
I have been reading about the Nikon 36-72 which seems to available at a price I can afford .
Does anyone have this lens ? , are you happy with it ?
I primarily take pictures of bands on sometimes dimly lit stages so having something that doesn't autofocus is a challenge so until I can afford the Tamron 17-50 I'm eyeing would you say this is good lens for the job ?
Does anyone have any other suggestions of an available cheap, fast ,good standard zoom
Thanks


PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the main thing to consider is that the 36-72 is a relatively slow lens and so perhaps not ideal for your proposed use. But otherwise, the Series E lenses seem under-rated and can be great value.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 36-72 is not a bad lens, but it falls short of the high mark set by the 75-150. On the good side, it is cheap and compact.

If you can spend a little more, try a Nikkor 35-70/3.5 Ais. Nice lens. I used one for years and was never disappointed. It even has a macro feature that isn't true macro, but lets you take reasonably close up shots. A wider angle Nikon lens in the same class is the Nikkor 28-50/3.5. The 28-50 is smaller and lighter than the 35-70, but has no macro function.

As scsambrook mentioned, Nikon's 36-72 is only an f/3.5, which is a bit slow for use in darkened concerts. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better, at 2/3 of a stop faster. Sadly, the best zoom you're likely to find will only be an f/2.8, most of which are quite expensive, and the vast majority are variable f/stop generally slower than f/3.5. Did you ever consider that perhaps a fast prime could work for you? A 50/1.8 or 35/2 can be had for a very low price--a Nikon E 50/1.8 often sells for less than $30, and it's a very good lens, about as sharp as the Nikkor 50/1.8, but not as well made and it's only single-coated, so it isn't as flare resistant.

Just a thought.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 'E' series is quite a mixed bag, as you likely already know. With a few notable exceptions (75-150 which you already have, was an standout along with solid 100. The 28 & 35 are valued in partuicular for their UV transmittance) most of the rest are disappointing on digital, the glass being cloaked with limited coatings to save cost and the optics themselves long ago outclassed.

The 36-72 is unfortunately one of the latter.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A fast prime or two is probably the best if you're shooting live music on stage.

If you can get fairly close to the stage, a 50mm would probably do very well on an EOS. On my 7D I mainly use the 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for shooting live music up close. There are all kinds of very affordable and good 50mm manual lenses that you could try, just peruse these forums and you will most likely find a ton of useful information.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree that a Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 might be a better choice for stage work. I have also used a Nikon Series E 100mm f2.8 for that.



But don't count the 36-72mm out in low light. It can still be used to good effect.



PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
gaeger wrote:
I agree that a Nikon Series E 50mm f1.8 might be a better choice for stage work. I have also used a Nikon Series E 100mm f2.8 for that.

But don't count the 36-72mm out in low light. It can still be used to good effect.


Oh, yeah. The E 100/2.8 is a great lens, smaller and lighter than my 105/2.5 and just as good, or close enough that there's no practical difference.

This brings up a second, very important issue concerning fast lenses vs. slow lenses in low light: seeing well enough through the viewfinder to reach proper focus. If you're using a tripod with a still subject, it's not really problem--I've used my 35-70 in dim conditions, too. But if you're handheld, shooting moving subjects (such as, on a dimly lit stage), it can be very important.

Here's a shot at a play using a 105/2.5. It was shot at f/5.6 (I wanted all of them in focus, or close to it--wouldn't happen at f/2.5), but a friend, using a slow, f/5.6 zoom, couldn't see well enough to get proper focus. Another reason to consider a faster prime over a slow zoom.



PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
the glass being cloaked with limited coatings to save cost


I'd like to see some solid evidence of that - as far as I can make out, Nikon never explicitly stated that they had limited coatings, and that is probably a inference from them claiming superior coatings for their more expensive products, but that might be purely marketing.

Given the negligible price of coating at large industrial scale (pretty much all the cost there is is in the setup of each batch, and that is independent of the amount of layers), there was not that much point in making lenses with "lesser" coatings once MC wasn't experimental any more. At the time, their blue-purple colour was unusual as most older Nikon multicoated lenses had a green or gold hue, but most later Nikon lenses look quite like the E lenses. That rather sounds as if they had been the first to use a new (perhaps cheaper, but in the long run more successful) coating process, rather than "lesser" coatings.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And yet, cheap lenses tend to have cheap coatings; they save every penny on every part of every lens. More to the point, despite the Nikon name on the Nikon Series E lenses, they were not made by Nikon, but by contracted 3rd party manufacturers. I've never looked into who made each lens of the series, but I can say that the 75-150/3.5 was made by Kiron.

As such, "Nikon" didn't use cheaper lens coatings, the 3rd party manufacturers did.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arninetyes wrote:
And yet, cheap lenses tend to have cheap coatings; they save every penny on every part of every lens. More to the point, despite the Nikon name on the Nikon Series E lenses, they were not made by Nikon, but by contracted 3rd party manufacturers. I've never looked into who made each lens of the series, but I can say that the 75-150/3.5 was made by Kiron.

As such, "Nikon" didn't use cheaper lens coatings, the 3rd party manufacturers did.


No one said "cheaper lens coatings", they were lesser ones, as in fewer and less effective, and were made for Nikon using their specifications.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
No one said "cheaper lens coatings", they were lesser ones, as in fewer and less effective, and were made for Nikon using their specifications.


And, consequently, less expensive.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
The 28 & 35 are valued in partuicular for their UV transmittance)


Could you, please, further expand the subject? It is the first time I hear about this lenses (which 28 and 35 exactly?) to be specially UV transmitting. Up to what degree? I guess they are not quartz made.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
12 year old thread.
I doubt you will get a response on series E lenses transmittance values now.
Some claims in the above for series E lenses done by 3rd parties.
Never seen any proof of this for the E series, but I still have not read everything.
The coatings on the E lenses I've experienced were mostly equal to whatever task they would be put up to.

The major difference for me has been in the handling- the plastic internals and externals leave a lot to be desired.
The lenses are usable in most situations, but pale in comparison to their non-economy counter-parts in terms of use and handling.
I've found most of the E series to be optically adequate ( with some optically excellent like the 100/2.8 )- and that's about it.

-D.S.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1