Thread 4467176

Good afternoon!
I have been an amateur enthusiast film photographer for a few years now.
I have been shooting with my Nikon N65 and the standard kit lens that it came with.
I am hoping to make my first big upgrade to a better lens.
I was eyeing a 35mm lens as I like to take pictures similar to pic related (it is an actual picture I took)

Any input is appreciated
I apologize in advance for any lack of insight

>>4467176 (OP)
>flash indoors

>>4467176 (OP)
Any prime lens would be an upgrade for film photography
>>4467180
What is the issue retard, too hard for you since you can't chimp?

>>4467176 (OP)
Ken rockwell could help you. Seek his advice.

nikon 35mm f2d, done

Hey OP here,
A few questions..

Why is it bad that I had flash go off indoors? I mostly shoot in auto as of now and the flash goes off quite a lot.. albeit I do like how the flash pictures come out

I am thinking just the Nikon prime 35mm lens in 2.8f, of course auto focus but now I am trying to figure out what lens styles will work with my camera, I believe the N65 is an f mount..?
Does this mean that I will be able to get cheaper original Nikon glass since it is an older format and outdated or are the lenses usable on other newer cameras as well keeping price high?

Is there such thing as 'affordable' or 'inexpensive' nikon made glass for the early 2000's 35mm slr's?

Thank you
I attached another picture I took on my N65 35mm superia x-tra 400

>>4467221
The flash usually flattens an image and gets rid of anything that could add additional substance to a photo.
it also blows colors out of wack and gets rid of any shadows that could detail(substance). If you like the look more power too you. Play around with it wnd maybe add something to soften the flash

>>4467224
flash photography is also difficult as fuck to learn and master. most high level photographers usually just end up using external lighting in studio like ring lights for shoots

>>4467224
great to know! thank you, how would I be able to play around and take pictures in low light conditions without getting just a blank photo on my roll? I suppose I need to take it out of auto and go into manual mode and set the aperture yes?
What if I am in a dark bar, how would I make sure the photo comes out?
I shoot 400 speed film if that helps

I am looking at my local marketplace for F mount lenses as I believe that is what I am supposed to buy that fits for my camera but the pickings are quite cruddy even for a 100 mile radius in NYC

Attached another photo I took

>>4467226
>how would I be able to play around and take pictures in low light conditions without getting just a blank photo on my roll?
400 speed film is 400 iso i assume you already know that(not sarcasm just making conversation)
basically the key is to aim near areas of light while having the people you want still in frame/focus
Yes you would need to set the aperture wide and would be limited for how small you can set it when it comes to night and dark conditions as too small and you'd have 1 second or longer shutters speeds due to less light coming in.
The same rule applies to dark bars. And you can always soften the flash to make it less harsh by softbox.
overexposing slightly is fine
under exposed film will punish you.
You can stick to auto if that's what you're comfortable with
last thing you need is to go broke from film spenditure experimenting in manual mode.

>>4467224
Or you can use bounce flash or not overexpose with a flash... off camera is important if you want decent flash also.

>>4467228

Cool thank you!

I will have to figure out the aperture functionality on my camera, I do want to venture out of auto and get into manual and play with the exposures of my film.
I have unfortunately learned with a few rolls already about under exposing film and just basically getting blank images and or avant garde looking art color shots..
I also picked up some kodak portra 800 recently as another guy I know who shoots film says he truly prefers that over superia xtra 400 which I am running on my last few rolls that I had stashed away from my stock up..so I am make the switch to 800 speed film if I prefer it but I do like how my fuji 400 images come out..all depends if I will like the look I suppose

If I am in a shadowy environment such as a night out at a dim lit restaurant how would I go about overexposing the shot if there is not many available light sources to aim into?

Also is there a way to be in auto but not have the flash go off? I feel like on 50% of my photos it wants to go off

Also if you have any lenses you'd suggest I try it would be appreciated! I am currently on the kit lens that the camera came with which is a 28-80. Thank you

>>4467233
>If I am in a shadowy environment such as a night out at a dim lit restaurant how would I go about overexposing the shot if there is not many available light sources to aim into?
dont aim into the light source directly
meter it off a light part of the subject

>>4467231
For future reference is it better to purchase a camera body without a flash already in it? For example how the canon 5d does not come with a flash and you have to attach your own versus my N65 which has that pop out flash
Applicable for both film and digital?
Thank you

>>4467235
No, unless again you want that dirty amateur aesthetic, cameras with pop up flashes tend to be very puny and not fill the entire scene.

Check https://strobist.blogspot.com/

This would be a better idea of off camera flash and if it fits with your ideas

>>4467237

Thank you!

I was actually thinking about buying a z30 or z50ii but i suppose i may be better off with the z30 instead of the z50ii as the z50ii comes with an integrated flash?

As for my next future film camera, definitely no integrated flash got it! Thank you

I appreciate the website recommendation.

>>4467235
On camera flash is basically the worst type of flash. There's times when it is good or fine, but most of the time it is not what you want. At a minimum you want hotshoe mounted flash you can point upwards for bounce will usually be good enough if you have a ceiling to bounce it off of. If you get a pc sync cable so you can hold flash in one hand and camera in other that will be even better, but it is kind of a pain in the ass.

>>4467238
this actually looks good because it meshes into the already existing light

>>4467235
You can attach a flash unit to your hotshoe. The F65 itself can't be used as a commander for off-camera flash, but you can get one with a wireless commander-thingy to stick on the hotshoe that communicates with another flash unit.
If you are just using the on-camera flash, try bouncing upwards by simply putting a white card in front of it (needs a relatively low, bright ceiling).

As for lenses, the F65 takes both AF-D and AF-S. AF-D is cheaper, but will focus slower on the internal focusing engine of the F65 (your kit lens is AF-D).
A 35mm full frame prime is expensive. A 50mm would be much cheaper. You can get a 50mm f1.4 AF-S for about 100 dollars.
Don't buy the 35mm DX. That one is for cropped APS-C formats.

>>4467176 (OP)
how much do you bench

>>4467290

Thank you for the information :)

So.. my concern is I don't really like taking photos in 50mm adjustment on my kit lens and I tend to do 35mm and I always use my 80mm to the max, so I know a 24-40mm would suit me best, and a telephoto for the animal photography I do if I had to assume something like 110 would be sufficient, but how are the adjustable zooms that are 80 to 200 mm telephoto?

So for what it comes down to,
Could you guys help me get ideas of F mount Nikon lens that is 24-40mm and the same for about 80-200mm?
Would I have a lot of blur if I went for a 1.4 on the 35mm instead of 2.8? I wish there was a catalog of the lenses that are compatible with my N65 that I could browse so I could make my selection, if anyone knows of such a thing please let me know!
Thank you in advance

>>4467368
Ken rockwell got you covered bro

>>4467369

His website was not very useful, he suggests using an adjustable lens instead of prime so that tells me he isn't really too good of a source

>>4467370
Ken rockwell is a god. Do not ever speak ill of him again.

Pretty sure he has the compatability lists you're after also.

>>4467370
Feed this man to Ken's growing family

>>4467368
Yeah, 50mm can be a bit difficult to work with. Decent for portraiture with a bit of background space. Not great for cramped indoors environments, not great for wide outdoor scenes.
It's an excellent lens though.

>80-200mm
Much cheaper than the 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S, but will probably be quite slow on the F65's internal drive. It's a heavy beast.

>Would I have a lot of blur if I went for a 1.4 on the 35mm instead of 2.8?
Yes. Blur is a function of f-stop and focal length. 35 is quite short, so you need a big aperture to get any DOF out of it.

>Could you guys help me get ideas of F mount Nikon lens that is 24-40mm and the same for about 80-200mm?
My favourite is the 24-120mm f4, but it's fat, heavy and expensive, and f4 is pretty slow on film (800 ISO is fucking expensive, and still quite low compared to digital).
A 24-70mm f2.8 sounds like the obvious choice for you, but that's even more expensive, and just as heavy.
Getting a 24mm f1.8 is probably a better option.

>>4467368
>>4467374
Also
>All-metal 80-200mm AF-D on a tiny plastic F65
lmao, that thing will break in half

>>4467373
>ken is a lovecraftian entity
kek

>>4467176 (OP)
Hey OP, everyone is wrong except this guy >>4467198
and the based god Ken Rockwell
>https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35af.htm

Almost any other choice you can make for a 35mm prime will be bigger, heavier, more expensive, less compatible with the camera you're using and no sharper in practical use.

>>4467369
Z O O M

>>4467412
Let me guess... You need MORE?

>>4467379
>less compatible with the camera
Wrong.png
An AF-S 35mm f1.8 (full frame) will be more compatible, because the F65 internal focusing drive is slow. It is also just a sharper lens, but you will not notice on 35mm film.
You are right that it will be much more expensive, though.

>>4467368
>>4467374
For a cheaper option, you could consider the old Tamron USD Di 24-70mm f2.8. It even has image stabilization (I think the first 24-70mm to offer it, long before Nikkor?), which the F65 supports.
I bought one for 180 bucks not too long ago.
It's a bit soft for digital fullframe (36MP), but more than enough for 35mm film.

>>4467412
I like that he's got the flash on there.

>>4467368
>something like 110
I'd tell you to get the 105 f/2.5 AI but I don't know how workable manual focusing is on that camera. Some of these cameras have incomplete support for AI lenses if I recall correctly. If you can make it work, I absolutely recommend it.

Also, I do have the 35 f/2. Nothing wrong with it that I can tell, but I don't like using it for whatever reason and usually prefer an old 24 2.8 MF tokina. Not sure why.

>>4467508
>manual focus
Why the fuck

>>4467509
The 105? It's just good. Go read the reviews if you don't trust me, it's universally praised for a reason.
The 24? It's a 24. Manual focus is piss easy with that FoV.

>>4467510
Manual focus is just dumb beyond belief, but especially on a 100+mm, and especially on an F65 (like you correctly assume). Not to mention you get no VR.
24mm is possible, but still just incredibly pointless.

>>4467225
>most high level photographers usually just end up using external lighting
Well yeah, on camera lighting limits you to only two methods; direct flash and bounce, neither of which are particularly difficult. The main learning curve with bounce is getting more efficient with knowing which surfaces you can use, how far away you can be, and correctly predicting what settings you'll need based on how much light your bounce will produce. Direct flash basically has no learning curve, it's just set your exposure on camera and fill with flash.

>>4467506
according to ine of my buddies who's been doing this decades longer than me if you mesh the flash against existing light it can help boost the image
i trust him because he's been hired to do professional stuff before

So.. I am thinking that after a lot of research to get the Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/2 af-d as my prime.. what do you guys think? I want to stick with 35mm as I am not too keen on the 28mm look.. any suggestions/advice/criticism is greatly appreciated.. thank you!