I admire you Mark, for heading out into weather like that to take photos. I'm afraid I'm a fair weather photographer, which makes California the right location for me. This is a fine set of images and yes, ample evidence that this micro lens is capable of handling landscapes at infinity as well as close in shooting. Well done!

So yesterday was laundry day... Two shots taken with the 135 f/2 AI-s wide open... bokeh play for the fun of it.



The sun is shining so it is a perfect day for a drive to west Marin where temperatures will be in the mid-sixties. A great day for taking a few photos and I'll definitely have my camera with me.

Curtis, love the bokeh-play on the first shot! Don't get me wrong, but I have trouble to understand the true meaning of "laundry day": you go out shooting and someone else is doing the laundry stuff?

Mark, beautiful images from a beautiful winter-day! I really like the reflections and the snow-laden tree.

CGrindahl wrote:
georgms wrote:
Dustin, thank you.
Regarding the fisheye vs "conventional" UWA-lens - sometimes an image will look more natural when shot with a fisheye, in many cases a rectilinear lens is the one to grab.
The mighty and as a zoom unrivaled 14-24/2.8 was my go-to-lens for the last 4 years, but lately I've felt I would shoot every picture the same way when using the 14-24.
Time to re-discover the joys of using a quality fisheye-lens or to play more with stitched panos.
The 20/3.5 or 24/2.8 should make a nice companion to your 14mm. Both lenses are fairly compact and will take a Cokin-P "slim" filter holder (or an over-built wide-angle filter) without vignetting.
The 20/3.5 is known for it's nice way to deal with backlight - the 24/2.8 is more prone to flare.


I appreciate this observation Georg. Even with the best lenses we can at times get into a rut. That was my experience with the wonderful kit of L lenses I owned when shooting Canon. I started with rather pedestrian lenses and noted the improvement as I invested in better glass. That was certainly rewarding and I was generally pleased with what all of those lenses produced. But when I stumbled on the Nikon MF lenses after buying a D700, I experienced something quite different and extremely satisfying. Exploring with lenses that have a bit of character adds zest to life. I appreciate, of course, that for a pro, you need the money shot in order to get paid. If the latest and greatest gets you there will a minimum of hassle, that is not a bad thing. But your presence on this thread tells me that you're having fun with these wonderful older lenses. That we can buy then without breaking the bank makes such play more available to more photographers. All good, in my opinion.

And I'm loving the work you're doing with the 16 f/3.5. Shooting with a fisheye really demands thoughtful consideration of one's subject. As you note, it is not suited for every occasion, but where it works, it does quite delicious things. Your work with the lens demonstrated that wonderfully. For Ray on a DX camera, it can make a wonderful wide, but on FX it becomes very evocative. Great fun!

Thanks, Curtis! I have yet to try the 16/3.5 on the D7000. As stated before, I have to tame myself - overusing a lens with a unique rendering like the fisheye can lead to signs of fatigue on the viewers side ("oh, again a bent picture").
That said - the 16/3.5 will for sure pay for itself, while other lenses, like the PC 85/2.8D have to work a little harder ;-)
It's nice to smuggle an image taken with a 35 years old, manual focus lens on the sports-pages

Thanks for the comments on the B&W-bokeh-shot! It started quite innocently as a pretty clean and smooth color-image.
It was too smooth for my taste and the treatment in SilverEfex was kinda fun:

image as shot - D3s, late Ai 55/1.2 wide-open - SilverEfex can do wild things to a smooth background ;-)

georgms wrote:
Ben, nice to hear/read from you! Love your street-detail. "Downunder" from below or so - refreshing point of view.


thanks Georg and Reagan.

Curtis - love the bicycle bokeh.

ben

Georg is rockin' it lately for sure!

leighton w wrote:
georgms wrote:
Two more images taken with the 16/3.5 at the small lake. A step sideways results in a completely different view through the Fisheye-Nikkor.



Processing is always a question of my current mood - this one is a rather simple conversion of an underexposed shot.

Beautiful work with the 16 Georg.

Agreed.
The second one has a very special "mood".

jhinkey wrote:
Nikki went back-country skiing this morning. The weather more than cooperated.

More to come.

sbarricklow wrote:
Jake the Dog enjoying mild weather in the DFW Metroplex today.

CGrindahl wrote:
Temperatures dropped to 34 this morning but crept over 60 this afternoon. I stopped to take a few photos, including this one shot with the 135 f/2 at f/8 with the PK-13 extension tube attached... uncropped. This is a very sweet lens with tubes.




It deserves another look! Lovely.

jhinkey wrote:
Thanks for all the kudos from today's shots. I'm about to fall asleep after getting up so early and gaining 1,500 ft or so of elevation on skis.

Here's a couple more. Not all from Nikki - I also took the 16/3.5 AI of course. The 50/1.8G was also in the backpack, but it was never used.

Thanks Jose! It's one of my favorites too . .

Hah! It was simply aperture priority with a little bit of negative exposure compensation to keep the sky blue and to not burn out the sun star too much.

raboof wrote:
Great shots with Nikki, John.

Here is my 20mm f4 IR

leighton w wrote:
georgms wrote:
Some snaps from a short walk on the beach today:



Heimat LIX von georgsfoto auf Flickr
SEP2 can do strange things to a background ;-)


Love the crazy bokeh in this one. I need to get out and shoot!

Agreed!!

Thanks Tony and Kevin for the comments.

Georg, that photo deserved the publication, congrats!

georgms wrote:
Dustin, thank you.
Regarding the fisheye vs "conventional" UWA-lens - sometimes an image will look more natural when shot with a fisheye, in many cases a rectilinear lens is the one to grab.
The mighty and as a zoom unrivaled 14-24/2.8 was my go-to-lens for the last 4 years, but lately I've felt I would shoot every picture the same way when using the 14-24.
Time to re-discover the joys of using a quality fisheye-lens or to play more with stitched panos.
The 20/3.5 or 24/2.8 should make a nice companion to your 14mm. Both lenses are fairly compact and will take a Cokin-P "slim" filter holder (or an over-built wide-angle filter) without vignetting.
The 20/3.5 is known for it's nice way to deal with backlight - the 24/2.8 is more prone to flare.

CGrindahl wrote:
I appreciate this observation Georg. Even with the best lenses we can at times get into a rut. That was my experience with the wonderful kit of L lenses I owned when shooting Canon. I started with rather pedestrian lenses and noted the improvement as I invested in better glass. That was certainly rewarding and I was generally pleased with what all of those lenses produced. But when I stumbled on the Nikon MF lenses after buying a D700, I experienced something quite different and extremely satisfying. Exploring with lenses that have a bit of character adds zest to life. I appreciate, of course, that for a pro, you need the money shot in order to get paid. If the latest and greatest gets you there will a minimum of hassle, that is not a bad thing. But your presence on this thread tells me that you're having fun with these wonderful older lenses. That we can buy then without breaking the bank makes such play more available to more photographers. All good, in my opinion.

And I'm loving the work you're doing with the 16 f/3.5. Shooting with a fisheye really demands thoughtful consideration of one's subject. As you note, it is not suited for every occasion, but where it works, it does quite delicious things. Your work with the lens demonstrated that wonderfully. For Ray on a DX camera, it can make a wonderful wide, but on FX it becomes very evocative. Great fun!

georgms wrote:
Thanks, Curtis! I have yet to try the 16/3.5 on the D7000. As stated before, I have to tame myself - overusing a lens with a unique rendering like the fisheye can lead to signs of fatigue on the viewers side ("oh, again a bent picture").
That said - the 16/3.5 will for sure pay for itself, while other lenses, like the PC 85/2.8D have to work a little harder ;-)
It's nice to smuggle an image taken with a 35 years old, manual focus lens on the sports-pages



I love this image, the photo of a photo and the equipment that helped make it. I like the B&W version better though. I sometimes wished that newspapers were more selected in the images they published. Simply meaning that I wished they would put a B&W in there once in a while. I remember when the big papers like the Washington Post first started using color images, they would have it on the front page only, everything else would be B&W.

I have a Nikon FG body that I inherited and have been thinking of using. The person that I got it from said there was some sort of an issue with the camera. I think that the foam is breaking down and making things gummy/sticky inside which is causing the issue. How much do you think I would need to spend to get the camera up to snuff again so it is usable. With all the lenses I have now, its darn close to my dream kit when I still shot film back in the day. I would really like to use it, what kind of odds do you think I have to get it working?

kwoodard wrote:
I have a Nikon FG body that I inherited and have been thinking of using. The person that I got it from said there was some sort of an issue with the camera. I think that the foam is breaking down and making things gummy/sticky inside which is causing the issue. How much do you think I would need to spend to get the camera up to snuff again so it is usable. With all the lenses I have now, its darn close to my dream kit when I still shot film back in the day. I would really like to use it, what kind of odds do you think I have to get it working?

I just had my FE2 overhauled - new seals (gooey sticky crumbling mirror damper that left goo on the mirror), mount adjusted, AF screen shimmed. $140 and one week. If it's just the seals you can potentially do it yourself. I actually bought the seal kit for the FE2, but took it in to have the focus checked and I ended up just having them do the seals too as the seal kits are pretty inexpensive.

http://camerasealkit.com/em.html

Good luck -

John