leighton w wrote:
Hope everyone is fine. I've been doing some remodeling and just had to get it finished. But when I saw the sunset last evening I thought I should share it. We haven't had a nice sunset in weeks, maybe months. The only weather we've had is 2 snowstorms. 50-135mm.
James Markus wrote:
This will set you back $85 (includes shipping), and it is good for 9 inches to infinity. Late model ai. On landscapes you may have to back off the hard stop a tad for critical focus. These are sharper lenses than almost any lens I have used from any manufacturer, and I still have two of them.
I certainly agree with your assessment of the 55mm 3.5 ai. It's one of Nikon's best bang for the buck lenses. Great edge to edge sharpness. For the last few years this has been my default 50mm.
I certainly agree with your assessment of the 55mm 3.5 ai. It's one of Nikon's best bang for the buck lenses. Great edge to edge sharpness. For the last few years this has been my default 50mm.
Yes, well, thanks to James Markus I am now one month's worth of beer poorer but I have one of those lenses on the way! It will be an interesting investigation.
I've been pondering the question of "realness" in an image. My old 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto has always produced results that look real to me even if the picture isn't razor sharp by digital standards, assuming I did everything right. I suspect that's because eyes have limited resolution, and I don't mean poor uncorrected vision. You can make a digital picture with higher resolution than human eyes. When you look at it closer than you would look at that physical person or thing you will get the "benefit" of that high resolution. If the picture has resolution similar to what the eyes would have seen in real life, then it will look real when viewed close up as we typically do. When I'm seeing someone or some thing, as opposed to just casually noticing, the sharpness of my peripheral vision never comes into play. Only when I examine a static picture would I even contemplate the edge sharpness. This assumes the display has high enough resolution, always an unknown. Just a hypothesis.
mp356 wrote:
Harbor sunset. Taken with the 24mm f3.5 PC-e. Thanks for looking.
Scott
Wonderfully captured light Scott. That coastline it always beautiful is seems.
---------------------------------------------
SiMuMe wrote:
Needs another drive-by in Summer for a fun comparison. I love the tree shadow on the garage door.
It was the shadow on the garage door that caught my eye. It changed and faded so quickly that between the insurance shot with an AF lens that was already mounted, and this shot, the light and shadow lost intensity.
---------------------------------------------
jimmuller wrote:
Yes, well, thanks to James Markus I am now one month's worth of beer poorer but I have one of those lenses on the way! It will be an interesting investigation.
I've been pondering the question of "realness" in an image. My old 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto has always produced results that look real to me even if the picture isn't razor sharp by digital standards, assuming I did everything right. I suspect that's because eyes have limited resolution, and I don't mean poor uncorrected vision. You can make a digital picture with higher resolution than human eyes. When you look at it closer than you would look at that physical person or thing you will get the "benefit" of that high resolution. If the picture has resolution similar to what the eyes would have seen in real life, then it will look real when viewed close up as we typically do. When I'm seeing someone or some thing, as opposed to just casually noticing, the sharpness of my peripheral vision never comes into play. Only when I examine a static picture would I even contemplate the edge sharpness. This assumes the display has high enough resolution, always an unknown. Just a hypothesis....Show more →
Devil-of-the-month is hereby awarded to James Markus for December 2025! Congrats on the acquisition Jim.
jimmuller wrote:
Yes, well, thanks to James Markus I am now one month's worth of beer poorer but I have one of those lenses on the way! It will be an interesting investigation.
I've been pondering the question of "realness" in an image. My old 50mm f/1.4 S-C Auto has always produced results that look real to me even if the picture isn't razor sharp by digital standards, assuming I did everything right. I suspect that's because eyes have limited resolution, and I don't mean poor uncorrected vision. You can make a digital picture with higher resolution than human eyes. When you look at it closer than you would look at that physical person or thing you will get the "benefit" of that high resolution. If the picture has resolution similar to what the eyes would have seen in real life, then it will look real when viewed close up as we typically do. When I'm seeing someone or some thing, as opposed to just casually noticing, the sharpness of my peripheral vision never comes into play. Only when I examine a static picture would I even contemplate the edge sharpness. This assumes the display has high enough resolution, always an unknown. Just a hypothesis....Show more →
Enjoy your new MF lens. I have no idea what beer prices are today, but approximately $80 a month seems a bit high. Generally, I did not like the taste of any beer, but I tried them all. After golfing 18 holes in 90 degree heat once, I had an ice cold good tasting Killian's I enjoyed, but nah - it was a fluke. Wine or single malt Scotch are a different matter, but due to meds - I haven't had anything alcoholic in many years. Strictly drink Britta filtered ice water now, and Michigan water is amazingly delicious. If you are not pleased with the lens - I am sure you can recover it's cost easily.
Landscape example 15 image stitch with 55mm f3.5 ai wires crossing river are 3.4 miles away
James Markus wrote:
Enjoy your new MF lens. I have no idea what beer prices are today, but approximately $80 a month seems a bit high.
Thanks. I believe I will enjoy that lens just fine. That's an impressive picture of the river!
As for beer prices, that depends on the beer. On average four pint cans of a good Double IPA is about $16, i.e. $4/pint. Of course there are cheaper beers and some not so wonderful craft DIPA's too but I avoid them. At one month past turning 77 I am happy that I'm healthy and active enough to enjoy beer without worry. Since we eat vegan most of the time it's one of the few culinary pleasures I still get.
Someone famous, IIRC it was Ben Franklin, once said beer is proof that God wants us to be happy. Some folks don't like beer. For half of them it's because they never tasted a really good one. Life is too short to drink bad beer.
serge07 wrote:
James, great image of the river scene.
Happy Holidays
Serge
Serge, I am enjoying your Malaga photos. I was there in 1970 shooting bulk loaded Ektachrome 64 on my dad's borrowed Kodak Retina IIIc Thought you might like to see the Malaga/Torremolinos area back then
James Markus wrote:
Serge, I am enjoying your Malaga photos. I was there in 1970 shooting bulk loaded Ektachrome 64 on my dad's borrowed Kodak Retina IIIc Thought you might like to see the Malaga/Torremolinos area back then
serge07 wrote:
James, thanks for the link and great work specially for an 11 year old.
Torremolinos is vastly different today, condo city with lots of traffic. It was a much more beautiful place in your photos.
Glad you enjoy the photos, there are a few more coming your way.
Serge
My parents weren't thrilled that I tagged along - it was their 25th anniversary. My mom was in the teachers union as a librarian and the total cost (flights, hotel, travel tours and one meal per day was under $300) I had the money from my lawn mowing jobs, and I hardly saw my parents (skipped some tours) for 8 days and seven nights (had my own room on a different floor) I visited Malaga Cathedral many times, and would enter in a side door where all these dark wooden seats with life sized carved heads were between the seats. They were wood, but looked like polished onyx. A priest once watched me running my hands over the heads, and just nodded and walked away. He was the only person I saw in that cathedral.
Grabbed a 300mm f/4.5 ED-IF on a whim, told myself I was content with the 400mm f/5.6. Now I see the clarity the 400mm is missing… Might have a bit of tilt, I’ll probably check the elements but prob not a frequent landscape lens. Couple models for me today…
James Markus wrote:
My parents weren't thrilled that I tagged along - it was their 25th anniversary. My mom was in the teachers union as a librarian and the total cost (flights, hotel, travel tours and one meal per day was under $300) I had the money from my lawn mowing jobs, and I hardly saw my parents (skipped some tours) for 8 days and seven nights (had my own room on a different floor) I visited Malaga Cathedral many times, and would enter in a side door where all these dark wooden seats with life sized carved heads were between the seats. They were wood, but looked like polished onyx. A priest once watched me running my hands over the heads, and just nodded and walked away. He was the only person I saw in that cathedral.
Very cool. Your student room was very well catered for, Jim and based on the pictures of your other half that you have shared here, it seems you really made her happy. No surprise that you're still kicking it after all these years.
SiMuMe wrote:
Very cool. Your student room was very well catered for, Jim and based on the pictures of your other half that you have shared here, it seems you really made her happy. No surprise that you're still kicking it after all these years.
Thank you.
We've done pretty well, you could say. In the old days she would pick up my Nikkormat and snap away whenever she wanted to. So yesterday I showed her the controls on the Z5II which she has been avoiding. She promptly snapped three portraits of me with the 50mm f/1.4. They don't look like me though. It's someone else much older than I am, or else the old lens applied an aging filter. You don't need to see them.
50-135mm.
