CGrindahl wrote:
I'll drop one photo on the thread before heading off to bed. I was surprised to see these white blossoms open with winter still at hand. Of course, the warm days we've been experiencing surely has the plants thinking spring has arrived. This was shot at f/2.8 with the 135 f/2 AI-s.



Curtis, another classy flower shot!

kings_freak wrote:
My friend Natosha is back in town for a little while and was kind enough to come over for a shoot. It was beautiful outside after the storm rolled through, so we took advantage of the nice weather.

#1 and #4 were shot with the 105mm ƒ1.8 and #2 and #3 were shot with the 55mm ƒ1.2.

Strobist Info (Shots 2-4): SB-900 fired into silver reflective umbrella and triggered by Yongnuo 603s.

–Tony


Natosha by T&J Photography, on Flickr



Natosha by T&J Photography, on Flickr

Tony, the first and last model isolation are my preferred; great work!

Resuming my old slides digital scanning, this is the White-eared Opossum taken with my old and trusty FM body + 50mm f/2 (dont recollect if K or ai version, anyway, same optics).There is the possibility I used a 2X TC to deliver a 100mm f/4, but I am not sure.


White-eared Opossum - slide dupe by labecoaves, on Flickr

Old slide from August 1993, gallery forest in the Cerrado Region, southeast Brazil.

Nikon FM + Nikkor 50mm f/2 hand held + flash, Fujichrome Velvia RVP ISO 50.
Dupped through a D7000 + 20mm extension tube + 55mm f/3.5 micro @f/8 and ISO 100 +ES-1 slide copying adapter, flash + diffuser behind slide. ~30% cropped.

pburke wrote:
asiostygius wrote:
Georg, they deserve one more look, spetacular use of the 16/3.5 and incredible conversion.
they are so good, I almost find the current inflated ebay pricing for this lens acceptable

must resist...



Finding this lens is a challenge since fewer than 8,000 were made during the six years it was produced. Of those, around a couple thousand were produced as AI lenses. Yes, there were AI conversion kits available for some time after the pre-AI lenses were manufactured, so quite a number were converted. Yet a great many of the lenses available now are pre-AI lenses and no more kits are to be found. I believe Ray picked up the last one for his lens.

What these lenses might be worth is surely a question not easy to answer. Limited availability will surely make lenses that come to market more valuable. And, doubtless, interest in the lens on this thread will push prices up. That is a sad truth of this venture we are sharing. Lenses that perform well get lots of attention and increased demand generated affects prices. I've lost a lens on E-Bay when another participant of this thread was willing to bid more. Fortunately, I was a bit ahead of this curve and bought lenses before the thread could affect prices. In fact, I may have contributed simply by finding a lens and talking about it here.

I doubt I would buy an AI'd 16 f/3.5 at the prices I now see on E-Bay with the cheapest at $628.88, but that wouldn't stop me from continuing to look. John is a serious shopper who looks for gear all over the place and he has bought THREE of these lenses over time. That makes good sense when one is hunting for a fairly rare lens and hoping to get the best possible price. Don't give up Peter, just keep shopping...

CGrindahl wrote:
pburke wrote:
asiostygius wrote:
Georg, they deserve one more look, spetacular use of the 16/3.5 and incredible conversion.
they are so good, I almost find the current inflated ebay pricing for this lens acceptable

must resist...



Finding this lens is a challenge since fewer than 8,000 were made during the six years it was produced. Of those, around a couple thousand were produced as AI lenses. Yes, there were AI conversion kits available for some time after the pre-AI lenses were manufactured, so quite a number were converted. Yet a great many of the lenses available now are pre-AI lenses and no more kits are to be found. I believe Ray picked up the last one for his lens.

What these lenses might be worth is surely a question not easy to answer. Limited availability will surely make lenses that come to market more valuable. And, doubtless, interest in the lens on this thread will push prices up. That is a sad truth of this venture we are sharing. Lenses that perform well get lots of attention and increased demand generated affects prices. I've lost a lens on E-Bay when another participant of this thread was willing to bid more. Fortunately, I was a bit ahead of this curve and bought lenses before the thread could affect prices. In fact, I may have contributed simply by finding a lens and talking about it here.

I doubt I would buy an AI'd 16 f/3.5 at the prices I now see on E-Bay with the cheapest at $628.88, but that wouldn't stop me from continuing to look. John is a serious shopper who looks for gear all over the place and he has bought THREE of these lenses over time. That makes good sense when one is hunting for a fairly rare lens and hoping to get the best possible price. Don't give up Peter, just keep shopping...

Jose, Curtis, a really good ai converted sample sold for $330 on ebay a week ago, and this is the second like sale this year, just keep an eye out and bid right before closing. I am looking to buy a second sample.
Rafael

CGrindahl wrote: I doubt I would buy an AI'd 16 f/3.5 at the prices I now see on E-Bay with the cheapest at $628.88, but that wouldn't stop me from continuing to look. John is a serious shopper who looks for gear all over the place and he has bought THREE of these lenses over time. That makes good sense when one is hunting for a fairly rare lens and hoping to get the best possible price. Don't give up Peter, just keep shopping...

my problem is that I know of the Zenitar 16mm, and there will be a point when I will break down and just buy the Russian glass to finally take some fisheye pictures again (sold my Rokinon 8mm with the DX body)

Rafael another gorgeous set. #3 especially does it for me. Looks like "french cancan" -)
Tony, lovely series (and model) even if I prefer candid street portraits
Reagan, nice color shot of a nice looking b/w dog
Ronny, we want swedish women pictures not swedish statues.... -) however great light & contrast

Citroën "quinze/six", 28 2.8 ais :

Wonderful Philippe. I commented on another Nikon thread that a person who is considering which wide lens to purchase should look at this thread for your work with the 28 f/2.8 AI-s. It doesn't get better than this in my opinion. You really understand the strengths of this lens and invariably use it to its greatest advantage. Well seen and beautifully executed. Love the conversion as well. BW seems to be speaking to you...

pburke wrote:
CGrindahl wrote: I doubt I would buy an AI'd 16 f/3.5 at the prices I now see on E-Bay with the cheapest at $628.88, but that wouldn't stop me from continuing to look. John is a serious shopper who looks for gear all over the place and he has bought THREE of these lenses over time. That makes good sense when one is hunting for a fairly rare lens and hoping to get the best possible price. Don't give up Peter, just keep shopping...

my problem is that I know of the Zenitar 16mm, and there will be a point when I will break down and just buy the Russian glass to finally take some fisheye pictures again (sold my Rokinon 8mm with the DX body)


That might be called sacrilege but since this is a Sunday morning we should probably avoid religious discussions...

Doubtless, my decisions are shaped by my commitment to this thread, which I recognize. I'm content that not everyone is guided by the same muse. Since this is my one hobby, I feel justified in spending a bit more to stay "in the fold" so to speak. I've seen the Zenitar lens advertised and have seen photos taken with it. At a another time in my life I might have considered it as a low cost alternative but not now. If you go that way I'm sure you'll have a good time without stretching your budget, but sadly, we won't get to see your handiwork.

Kit building is forever and there is nothing that limits the options for someone with either a limited or an unlimited budget. The siren call of Zeiss has been heard in this household, but it has yet to motivate me to buy one of those lenses... in large part because I love the Nikkors in my kit AND because I enjoy this community of photographers too much to wander to other thread or boards. Good luck Peter, wherever your kit building leads you...

Lieutenant Z wrote:
Rafael another gorgeous set. #3 especially does it for me. Looks like "french cancan" -)
Tony, lovely series (and model) even if I prefer candid street portraits
Reagan, nice color shot of a nice looking b/w dog
Ronny, we want swedish women pictures not swedish statues.... -) however great light & contrast

Thanks, Phillioe

And Ronny, you need to "heed the call" of the request for Swedish women
and Phillipe it wouldn't hurt you to set an example for him

Reagan

CGrindahl wrote:
Wonderful Philippe. I commented on another Nikon thread that a person who is considering which wide lens to purchase should look at this thread for your work with the 28 f/2.8 AI-s. It doesn't get better than this in my opinion. You really understand the strengths of this lens and invariably use it to its greatest advantage. Well seen and beautifully executed. Love the conversion as well. BW seems to be speaking to you...

You are too kind and lenient, Curtis. Thanks.

Reagan wrote:
Lieutenant Z wrote:
Rafael another gorgeous set. #3 especially does it for me. Looks like "french cancan" -)
Tony, lovely series (and model) even if I prefer candid street portraits
Reagan, nice color shot of a nice looking b/w dog
Ronny, we want swedish women pictures not swedish statues.... -) however great light & contrast

Thanks, Phillioe

And Ronny, you need to "heed the call" of the request for Swedish women
and Phillipe it wouldn't hurt you to set an example for him

Reagan

You guys are a "pair to draw to..."

Reagan, you need that 300 to "reach" the bikini clad girls of Florida... then we don't need photos of Swedish or French women...

Hi gang, eye surgery has me on the photographic sidelines this week, but wanted to echo Curtis' comments on the 28mm 2.8 ais and Philippe's fine use of the lens in his Citroën shot.

Since picking up this lens a few months ago, I've really enjoyed using it for landscapes.

Cheers, Jeff.

CGrindahl wrote:
pburke wrote:
CGrindahl wrote: I doubt I would buy an AI'd 16 f/3.5 at the prices I now see on E-Bay with the cheapest at $628.88, but that wouldn't stop me from continuing to look. John is a serious shopper who looks for gear all over the place and he has bought THREE of these lenses over time. That makes good sense when one is hunting for a fairly rare lens and hoping to get the best possible price. Don't give up Peter, just keep shopping...

my problem is that I know of the Zenitar 16mm, and there will be a point when I will break down and just buy the Russian glass to finally take some fisheye pictures again (sold my Rokinon 8mm with the DX body)


That might be called sacrilege but since this is a Sunday morning we should probably avoid religious discussions...

Doubtless, my decisions are shaped by my commitment to this thread, which I recognize. I'm content that not everyone is guided by the same muse. Since this is my one hobby, I feel justified in spending a bit more to stay "in the fold" so to speak. I've seen the Zenitar lens advertised and have seen photos taken with it. At a another time in my life I might have considered it as a low cost alternative but not now. If you go that way I'm sure you'll have a good time without stretching your budget, but sadly, we won't get to see your handiwork.

Kit building is forever and there is nothing that limits the options for someone with either a limited or an unlimited budget. The siren call of Zeiss has been heard in this household, but it has yet to motivate me to buy one of those lenses... in large part because I love the Nikkors in my kit AND because I enjoy this community of photographers too much to wander to other thread or boards. Good luck Peter, wherever your kit building leads you...


Absolutely understand what you are saying. My hobby is the end result of using the tools, not the tools themselves. Just like you, I've been on the Canon side of things for a while, because at the time, those tools were the best for what I was doing. Now I am on the Nikon side, mostly because at the time I went to digital, the Nikon bodies still allowed me to use those old lenses I bought in the 1980s. However, that doesn't mean I will use those lenses exclusively.

For me, the kit I am building these days has to primarily deliver when I do landscape photography well off the highway, in a place I carry my gear to. Weight is a big concern, image quality as well. I went FX because it allows me to pack small prime MF wide angles like the 20mm f3.5 I recently bought (for $100), while it also allows me to take advantage of modern lightweight zooms like the 70-300mm without needing a sherpa team to get me to where I am headed.

I would have loved to buy a 50-300mm ED, because I still remember how I pressed my nose against the glass of the local photo shop in Germany back in the 80s, where one of these was for sale, used, for probably less than it goes for today. It was impressive, big, very heavy, and at the time too expensive. Today, I could easily pick one up, but the images this old lens will take in 2013, compared to the refurbished 70-300mm ED VR I just picked up are probably not any better, and the weight difference became the deciding factor for me to go with the plastic lens. I ma use that lens for a few years and go in a different direction, but on DX I had a 55-200mm and it served me well, so within my parameters, the AF lens made sense.

The fisheye is a specialty lens - home or while on a trip. It's probably one of those where when I pack my gear I will always go "is it really worth to carry this pound for 2 weeks?" - and based on past trips, I think I'd usually leave it behind. So the value for me is limited, even though I always loved what this lens can do, going back to watching a friend in the 90s using it as his primary "pit lane lens" in motorsports. Fantastic stuff with character, so much so that I recall some of his images 15 years later. So, I do really have reason to want that 16mm f3.5, and up to $350 is acceptable to me. Beyond that, it's really in a territory where I feel I should just save up and get the 14-24mm.

Anyway, the cool part with the MF gear is that I am still able to shoot the same 50mm f1.8 I had on my nikkormat in 1984 when I first went Nikon. I am quite sure I won't be shooting my plastic AF 70-300mm in 2042 any longer

yesyes .. will try Z and Reagan;-)
can I borrow your 180mm next weekend Z ?
I've only got one with AF and then I can't post here;-)
Is a little shy of me .. probably need a 180mm ais
By the way Z..great shot

Heck, all this talk about the 16mm. Who would want one of those when you can get this!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-10mm-OP-f5-6-RARE-LENS-/370712275837?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item56502c6b7d

leighton w wrote:
Heck, all this talk about the 16mm. Who would want one of those when you can get this!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-10mm-OP-f5-6-RARE-LENS-/370712275837?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item56502c6b7d

does this have VR?

For anyone (Reagan) considering the 300mm 4.5 EDIF, I can only say that I love mine. It is super sharp and light weight enough to shoot BIF. I went out today to keep in practice following my friendly fowls. The lens is definately worth the money to me

Simply beautiful Ray!

I noticed that all of these are at f8, is this the sweet spot?