I've been watching a fellow from the Netherlands on YouTube rebuilding a couple of stone houses in the Italian Alps. I didn't fully appreciate how pervasive that type of building was, there and elsewhere, but all the homes were built from stone taken from the mountains. I guess folks used whatever was available to build their homes... logs, stones, grasses, bamboo, dirt. It isn't easy with the modern conveniences we have to imagine living in such conditions. I need my internet connection...
This fellow tried to get approval to build a garage using timber and was turned down. He HAD to build out of stone... and that included the roof. Watching locals help him replace the roof on one of his homes was breath taking. The stones were HUGE and required three or four men to move. I guess the Italians want to maintain their heritage.
Here's a link to that channel if anyone needs an engaging diversion. This is the first year of his build... he is now in his third year and he has done amazing work.
CGrindahl wrote:
I've been watching a fellow from the Netherlands on YouTube rebuilding a couple of stone houses in the Italian Alps. I didn't fully appreciate how pervasive that type of building was, there and elsewhere, but all the homes were built from stone taken from the mountains. I guess folks used whatever was available to build their homes... logs, stones, grasses, bamboo, dirt. It isn't easy with the modern conveniences we have to imagine living in such conditions. I need my internet connection...
This fellow tried to get approval to build a garage using timber and was turned down. He HAD to build out of stone... and that included the roof. Watching locals help him replace the roof on one of his homes was breath taking. The stones were HUGE and required three or four men to move. I guess the Italians want to maintain their heritage.
Here's a link to that channel if anyone needs an engaging diversion. This is the first year of his build... he is now in his third year and he has done amazing work.
Curtis, thanks for the video. Whenever I visit ruins and old castles, I imagine people living without electricity and a domestic water supply system (some poor communities still do not have access to potable water and sewage systems). It was a hard life, for sure. We are blessed nowadays!
James Markus wrote:
Thanks to all the travelers sharing their photos. Been hitting "like" a lot.
I use to own many, many film cameras and even more lenses. I sold it all between 2003-2005, and the recent revisit to 35mm film makes me miss medium format. I am not interested in the large Bronica, Speed Graphic 4x5 etc, but in yesteryear's 4.5x6, 6x6, and 6x9cm folding marvels. Enter a new project - the 87 year old Agfa Isolette. Spelled Jsolette that very first year (1937) with a couple unique features. 1-The top plate is made of one of the first plastics called 'Trolitan'. 2-It can shoot two different size formats (4.5x6 or 6x6cm) using 120 film. All in a package smaller than a good 35mm film camera. There are more "rough shape" folding cameras winding their way through the USPS that I look forward to fixing & using. D850 with the 85mm f1.4 ais
CGrindahl wrote:
With the fine collection of 135mm Nikon lenses in my kit I didn't really think I needed another 135mm lens. That changed for me when I began buying pre-AI lenses. That was after Ben arrived and began dazzling us with his extensive collection of pre-AI lenses. Needless to say it became a passion for me. I found generally that the older lenses are very pleasing to my eye, even with older designs and without modern coatings. Yes, I loved the scalloped focusing rings and the metal bodies but it really was the performance of the lenses. I was surprised at what a fine performer the 135 f/3.5 Q lens is. I appreciate how small it is in comparison with the other lenses. I doubt I'll do anything like this again, but I do wonder how that venerable old lens would hold up with lenses in this comparison many of you have seen before... mmm.
milt wrote:
Curtis, thanks for the video. Whenever I visit ruins and old castles, I imagine people living without electricity and a domestic water supply system (some poor communities still do not have access to potable water and sewage systems). It was a hard life, for sure. We are blessed nowadays!
I have two friends living west of Asheville and conditions are pretty primitive. The woman fortunately still has electricity so she can power her well for water that she is boiling before using. The fellow was pleased there is a swimming pool in the complex where he lives so he can get water with which to flush the toilet. People are going to the river to collect water for the same purpose. And these two are way ahead of the folks who've lost their homes or are isolated with impassable roads. We are seeing what third world people know right here in the U.S. Recovery is going to take a long time with huge landslides, washed out bridges making it impossible for trucks to deliver food and other necessities. Western North Carolina and parts of Tennessee are in dire straits.
CGrindahl wrote:
With the fine collection of 135mm Nikon lenses in my kit I didn't really think I needed another 135mm lens. That changed for me when I began buying pre-AI lenses. That was after Ben arrived and began dazzling us with his extensive collection of pre-AI lenses. Needless to say it became a passion for me. I found generally that the older lenses are very pleasing to my eye, even with older designs and without modern coatings. Yes, I loved the scalloped focusing rings and the metal bodies but it really was the performance of the lenses. I was surprised at what a fine performer the 135 f/3.5 Q lens is. I appreciate how small it is in comparison with the other lenses. I doubt I'll do anything like this again, but I do wonder how that venerable old lens would hold up with lenses in this comparison many of you have seen before... mmm.
I was talking with a photographer friend who also shoots Nikon (he doesn't have any online presence, barely uses a computer other than playing with the pictures he takes). He bought a Z5 and we were talking about its IBIS capabilities and while we were talking, I realized that my short stint with the Z5...I never had it turned on! So, I was cruising the B&S and noticed one for sale that was local. I worked with the seller and got it for a very good price (less than what I sold mine for). So, I plan to go through the manual and really dive into it. I still haven't found my 35/2 or 24/2.8 which makes me think I may have left them in a hotel or AirBnB... I still have all my glass, so I am going to start slowly and give this another go. I have been a Fuji fan since the XE1 came out, but I was not happy with the XT5 at all. I think I am too used to the XT2, which is a very solid camera that feels good in the hand. The XT5...it felt cheap. The fact that it totally bombed on me (wouldn't turn on and whatever happened to the camera, toasted the lens as well...immediate error on any of my Fuji's). So...in honor of Reagan...I'm back to Nikon on Nikon!
I fell into a bad habit Kevin, and checked E-Bay to see if they have any good condition 135 f/3.5 Q.C. lenses and they do, both with and without the Nikon AI conversion kit. If you really wanted to revisit your "favorite" lens you can... and put it through its paces on the Z5. What adaptor will you be using for your manual focus lenses? Inquiring minds want to know. Hope you're handling the heat okay. It has been over 100 where I live in the Bay Area. I'm really ready for autumn to arrive...
CGrindahl wrote:
I fell into a bad habit Kevin, and checked E-Bay to see if they have any good condition 135 f/3.5 Q.C. lenses and they do, both with and without the Nikon AI conversion kit. If you really wanted to revisit your "favorite" lens you can... and put it through its paces on the Z5. What adaptor will you be using for your manual focus lenses? Inquiring minds want to know. Hope you're handling the heat okay. It has been over 100 where I live in the Bay Area. I'm really ready for autumn to arrive...
Nikon 135 f/3.5 Q.C. AI
The 135/2.8-QC was my favorite of that range. It was razor sharp and I loved the output. My favorite MF Nikon lens will always be the 55/1.2. It’s my desert island lens and the only lens I have two of.
I have one of the better built third-party adapters. It’s nice and tight and the tolerances are very good (measures within about 0.005mm of the FTZ). If I find an FTZ II for a good price, I’ll probably buy it so the non-cpu lens data is recorded in the metadata.
The campus I work at has a couple weather stations, including one in the parking lot I park in. I was working with a faculty member from the science department and asked what the temperature was in the lot…121 degrees. The sensor is 10 feet above the asphalt parking lot so it bakes in the summer. They set the record for temperature at that station this year at 149 degrees. I believe the air temperature that day was over 113 and there was no wind and the humidity was just over 20% (perfect fire weather). That day saw many tread impressions from hot cars parked in the lot. Stay cool out there! Next week looks like we will finally get some relief.
CGrindahl wrote:
I fell into a bad habit Kevin, and checked E-Bay to see if they have any good condition 135 f/3.5 Q.C. lenses and they do, both with and without the Nikon AI conversion kit. If you really wanted to revisit your "favorite" lens you can... and put it through its paces on the Z5. What adaptor will you be using for your manual focus lenses? Inquiring minds want to know. Hope you're handling the heat okay. It has been over 100 where I live in the Bay Area. I'm really ready for autumn to arrive...
The ‘Caldara di Manziana’ is a unique and special place, one hour's drive from Rome, recognised as a Natural Monument. It is a marshy area, characterised by sulphurous waters flowing from underground. Here, you can admire the largest spring where a geyser develops phreatic explosions of sulphurous water reaching a temperature of 27 °C. But this is not the only peculiarity of the area: there is a grove of white birch, a species that usually lives in cold climates, at higher altitudes; yet it is here.
CGrindahl wrote:
With the fine collection of 135mm Nikon lenses in my kit I didn't really think I needed another 135mm lens. That changed for me when I began buying pre-AI lenses. That was after Ben arrived and began dazzling us with his extensive collection of pre-AI lenses. Needless to say it became a passion for me. I found generally that the older lenses are very pleasing to my eye, even with older designs and without modern coatings. Yes, I loved the scalloped focusing rings and the metal bodies but it really was the performance of the lenses. I was surprised at what a fine performer the 135 f/3.5 Q lens is. I appreciate how small it is in comparison with the other lenses. I doubt I'll do anything like this again, but I do wonder how that venerable old lens would hold up with lenses in this comparison many of you have seen before... mmm.
I remember this comparison from years ago which in fact lead me to purchase the QC version. It was a lovely lens and built like a tank But man it was heavy.
I actually did a comparison between it and my 50-135mm at the long end (of course) and found the zoom held up extremely well against the QC variant. I posted the comparison on the thread and will post it again if I can find it.
Just to keep things moving along...I couldn't find my comparison between the 135QC and the 50-135mm. So I'm posting a few taken with the 135mm QC for the heck of it.
When I did my comparison at 135mm I was shooting with the 135 f/2.8 in both the Q.C. and K versions, both of which I still own. At the time I was raving about those lenses and I think it stirred some interest on the thread for the Q.C. I know I bought one for our friend from Canada who was in Tasmania at the time... can't recall his name and I don't believe he is visiting this thread any longer. But yes, as with so many of the pre-AI lenses, I was thrilled by what they delivered. At one time I had TWO Q.C. lenses.
And like you I count the 55 f1.2 lens as a desert island lens. I had THREE copies of the 55 f/1.2 S.C. AI but I sold one to Ken in Portland. I felt as though I'd become a hoarder and it didn't seem fair. But I love that lens... the sumo wrestler of my lens kit.
I'm afraid I took a weed cutter to my Flickr account a few months ago to avail myself of the free account that limits users to no more than a thousand photos. I believe I had 3,700 at the time. I mention that because a few of my snarky files... like the one you post... disappeared. At least I think they did. Let me check...
Here's a shot I took a year ago with the 135 f/2.8 K AI while rambling around my neighborhood. It was sitting in a file ready to be uploaded to Flickr... didn't happen until right now.
leighton w wrote:
Just to keep things moving along...I couldn't find my comparison between the 135QC and the 50-135mm. So I'm posting a few taken with the 135mm QC for the heck of it.
You doubtless remember when the Q,C, lens was being talked about on the thread. They could be picked up for less than a hundred bucks. As I said with the comparison, I preferred the Q.C. and K for their form factor. They didn't give up much to the 135 f/2 AI-s and are much lighter AND much less expensive. My f/2 was my most expensive lens... beautiful and a great performer but a monster to carry around.
Of course, we all know the 50-135 f/3.5 is a favorite of yours. If I recall correctly I brought the first one of those to the thread but I moved along. It proved to be a wonderful lens for shooting at the market and you certainly made the most of what it has to offer. Thus is became the "Leighton lens.," as it should be.
It is wonderful that kids in your neck of the woods are having the opportunity to become involved in theater. We had active theater and music programs for kids when I was working in Vallejo and the Cultural Commission was involved. I served as staff to the Commission and so I quite naturally became involved. There are many ways kids can become engaged... sports, music and theater are wonderful outlets, as is 4-H. The kids in your photo look very alive. I love all three photos but that one makes me smile.
