leighton w wrote:
I remember when you first posted this. It help me to decide to buy the QC version, which sadly I don't have anymore.
I recall making a big deal about the 135 f/2.8 QC after I bought it and there was a bit of run on the lens for some time. I bought one for our friend in Tasmania. It may have been the second one shown in the photo above because I don't have two any longer. I remember he found a PRISTINE copy of the lens for $99. The one I already owned was not quite so fine, but I certainly was not prepared to pass that lens on. He got the pristine lens. I think the seller wouldn't ship internationally so I bought it and sent it along. I'm afraid I don't recall the name of that fellow though he was quite active at the time. I think he was originally from Canada but worked all over the place because of his specialized medical training. Perhaps you recall his name...
Perhaps in the 135mm range but that is a small victory indeed given you're amazing kit. We know you are a VERY serious shopper when it comes to photo gear. You give us glimpses every one in awhile and it is always impressive Rafael. I was delighted when you showed up on the thread and very happy that you stayed engaged. You rather set the standard with regard to car photos... amazing what appears on southern California streets in the summertime... was it in Encinitas? What delight!
rafaelcasd wrote:
Thank you Curtis, It seems when all the healing is done, my vision will be quite OK, it takes a long time for the tissues in the eye to settle after surgey, vision is great one day, not so much the other and it is too early to get prescription glasses.
Even now I am able to much better see the viewfinder and focus more accurately.
Here is my old 9ft headboard, reminiscent of my surfing days. The home armory hangs from it.
With the 5cm 3.5 Reproduction-Nikkor, R-Nikkor. but at high ISO handheld. This lens really needs a shade when used outside. Anyone have a spare 5cm 3.5 34.5mm thread Nikkor or Nicca shade?
I recall making a big deal about the 135 f/2.8 QC after I bought it and there was a bit of run on the lens for some time. I bought one for our friend in Tasmania. It may have been the second one shown in the photo above because I don't have two any longer. I remember he found a PRISTINE copy of the lens for $99. The one I already owned was not quite so fine, but I certainly was not prepared to pass that lens on. He got the pristine lens. I think the seller wouldn't ship internationally so I bought it and sent it along. I'm afraid I don't recall the name of that fellow though he was quite active at the time. I think he was originally from Canada but worked all over the place because of his specialized medical training. Perhaps you recall his name... ...Show more →
Curtis, was his name David (surname something like Hammond, if I am not mistaken)? If so, he was (is?) a Canadian who lived much of each year in Tasmania and some part of each year spending time with family in Windsor, Ontario.
leighton w wrote:
I remember when you first posted this. It help me to decide to buy the QC version, which sadly I don't have anymore.
But, happily, you sold it to me, Leighton. Thank you very much for doing so. I will make a point of taking it out for some exercise sometime soon.
Here is some more infrared action from my D7200 and 18 f/3.5 Ai-s at the Comox classic car show (which is called "Hot August Nights").
CGrindahl wrote:
Although I'd actually made the decision before this comparison, it confirmed I could get what I wanted at that focal length without needing to spend so much money OR to carry so much weight. I didn't have the f/3.5 lenses when I did the comparison but I use the lens quite a bit. When I want a bit wider lens it will be the K or the Q.C. I won't sell the f/2 but that is simply because it seems impossible to sell ANY lens. Were I shopping at the moment, I'd be looking for an older lens... something like THIS. (I would note that the slightly heavier/larger Q.C. and K lenses are easier to handle than the smaller AI lens. I feel the same way about the Q.C. version of the 200 f/4 lens)
CGrindahl wrote:
I recall making a big deal about the 135 f/2.8 QC after I bought it and there was a bit of run on the lens for some time. I bought one for our friend in Tasmania. It may have been the second one shown in the photo above because I don't have two any longer. I remember he found a PRISTINE copy of the lens for $99. The one I already owned was not quite so fine, but I certainly was not prepared to pass that lens on. He got the pristine lens. I think the seller wouldn't ship internationally so I bought it and sent it along. I'm afraid I don't recall the name of that fellow though he was quite active at the time. I think he was originally from Canada but worked all over the place because of his specialized medical training. Perhaps you recall his name... ...Show more →
I don't recall his name. All I know is that you have done that several times for people. Glen may have come up with the name. You know those Canadians stick together.
Curtis, was his name David (surname something like Hammond, if I am not mistaken)? If so, he was (is?) a Canadian who lived much of each year in Tasmania and some part of each year spending time with family in Windsor, Ontario.
But, happily, you sold it to me, Leighton. Thank you very much for doing so. I will make a point of taking it out for some exercise sometime soon.
Here is some more infrared action from my D7200 and 18 f/3.5 Ai-s at the Comox classic car show (which is called "Hot August Nights").
I had forgotten that. Glad to be reminded that it went to a good home.
EDIT: I just looked at my records. I sold that to you in 2006!
Fuji make better articulating screens than Nikon !
My D850 screen is only 2 way which after using my Fuji GFX50S is 1 less than it should be ! (The Fuji is 3 way)
SO annoying!
leighton w wrote:
If I got down in the prone position, I may not get back up! Thanks goodness for articulating screens.
He's bought ALL the Rafael Quality (TM) lenses in the World. Now he's buying prototype #002 and other ultra rare exotics most of us have never even heard of ! :😀
#legend
Andy
CGrindahl wrote:
Perhaps in the 135mm range but that is a small victory indeed given you're amazing kit. We know you are a VERY serious shopper when it comes to photo gear. You give us glimpses every one in awhile and it is always impressive Rafael. I was delighted when you showed up on the thread and very happy that you stayed engaged. You rather set the standard with regard to car photos... amazing what appears on southern California streets in the summertime... was it in Encinitas? What delight!
It has to be the focal length that has the most pristine unused examples.
The 3.5 were excellent and so cheap in as new condition. I had a pre-ai scalloped 3.5 in immaculate condition that I paid 60 bucks for.
Light, sharp, metal goodness.
Actually see proportionately more beater f2 copies than the 2.8 or 3.5
The f2 I have is too heavy. I know it but I just can't help myself ! :😀
CGrindahl wrote:
Add one more... not including the f/3.5 lenses that came later...
cadman342001 wrote:
Fuji make better articulating screens than Nikon !
My D850 screen is only 2 way which after using my Fuji GFX50S is 1 less than it should be ! (The Fuji is 3 way)
SO annoying!
cadman342001 wrote:
Fuji make better articulating screens than Nikon !
My D850 screen is only 2 way which after using my Fuji GFX50S is 1 less than it should be ! (The Fuji is 3 way)
SO annoying!
.
Thanks goodness for articulating screens.