Avi B wrote:
A few pictures of the icicles around the office from today.

D300 + Nikkor SC AI'd 55/1.2

I really like the frozen berries in the first shot.

–Tony

mike-in-ak wrote:
Was out with the D3s and the Nikkor 500mm ƒ/4 P ED IF last weekend for the Iditarod. Everyone except the girl is looking at the musher. She's the only one watching the athletes.

D3s - Nikkor 500mm ƒ/4 P ED IF - ISO 1600 - 1/4000 - ƒ/8 - tripod

I will be using this to look for Comet PanSTARRS in the next week or so.


Cool shot with a nice lens. This is the first shot I have seen on here with that lens.

–Tony

Oosty wrote:
One more with the 500 + PN 11 Handheld a la Curtis of our deck also in my PJ's

At about 5 metres -note the bokeh and extremely shallow DOF
That donut bokeh takes a little getting used to! Nice capture, Peter.

–Tony

leighton w wrote:
Very nice images on the last couple of pages everyone!

Laura, I can REALLY understand your pain.

We have about 12 to 15 inches on the ground and it's still snowing. I had to take my air boot off and replace it with chore boots for the first time in 3 weeks. Spent two hours snowblowing the driveway and around the hoop-houses so we could beat the snow off. So far everything is alright although we have lost power. I have the generator running to keep the new chicks warm and have some power in the house. The village we live next to has power so our internet is still up, for now anyway. Hope all my friends up North will be ok as this storm is heading your direction!
I'm confused by all of the "white stuff" you guys keep posting shots of. It got pretty cold here today, like 64º. We even had some clouds!

–Tony

I visited an out of the way location to check photo possibilities. I'd first found it seven years ago when I was just getting serious about photography and rambled around my home town and the other towns in Marin looking for something fresh. That first time I had a friends Nikon 5700, a 5 megapixel camera with a rather profound shutter lag. It was my frustration with the shutter lag that motivated me to buy my first DSLR, the Canon Digital Rebel, 300D. But I got some good shots with that Nikon including six or seven at this particular location. The sun was setting... there was a bank of fog lying on the distant hill... colors were those of a lovely sunset. I processed the JPG files. I think they were about 1.5 megapixels. I posted one of those photos on Trekearth. It was well received.

It was perhaps two years later when I received an email from a person in the communications department of San Francisco Theological Seminary whose northern California campus is in San Anselmo. She'd seen the photo and wanted to know if the seminary could use it. It was a long, contentious negotiations that led to their licensing the photo for one year. At the end of that time they returned and we agreed on a three year licensing agreement. In the meantime the image had been used on a major recruiting campaign. They printed 10,000 brochures with my image on the front cover. The image now appears in a couple of locations on their website. The licensing agreement expires July 1, 2013 and I've contacted them about renewing it.

Today I found that in the intervening years a couple of trees have grown to the extent that the view I captured years ago is no longer available. But I did take a photo for old times sake. This was shot with the 105 f/2.5 P AI'd. I converted it to black and white for the fun of it...


I've no idea whether they will renew the licensing agreement. I've made quite a bit of money off that rather humble photo. I guess that goes to show that being in the right place at the right time is a good thing.

Lieutenant Z wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Lieutenant Z wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:

Thanks again Ben for your generosity in allowing all of us to use this excellent lens. Clearly it has inspired quite a number of folks to add this version or its older sibling to their kits. .

You are right. Ben is my new "Maitre à penser" : because of him I bought a nikon 85 HC, a Nikon 50 1.8 ais, a Zeiss 85 P, a BMW 530, a Dassault Falcon 7X.....

That's what friends are for...

Glad to know you're doing your part for the world economy...

This one? I think it sold for $35 million...

Dassault Falcon 7x

Serge Dassault is a friend of mine : he gave me a special price, a reduction of 10%

I get better gas mileage,let's start a plane forum!

Flight Isabelle_113_Nov 2008 by Rafael CA, on Flickr

saph wrote:
Good point Peter, there's been a bit of discussion about the 135 f2 recently so I was trying to hold it up to what I used to think was a sharpness standard among my AF lenses. I see the "color-bleed" in the Sigma picture. There's a bit better sharpness and contrast with the Sigma macro, but not a whole lot difference even in the crop. And I much prefer the bokeh of the Nikon in this situation, vs. the pointed eggs of the Sigma, but that's subjective.

Here's a "real world" image at f4, 1/50s, ISO 1000, handheld with the Nikon 135 f2 AI.

mike-in-ak wrote:
Here is a shot of a grizz in Denali last fall with the 500 P. It is a bit shakey as I was shooting on a towel on the hood of my Durango but the vehicle was shaking because my wildlife spotter was busy trying to hide under the front seat.

D300 - Nikkor 500mm ƒ/4 P ED IF - ISO 400 - ƒ/5.6 - 1/400 sec - semi-hand held


Great bear shot. He looks very happy!

–Tony

kwoodard wrote:
leighton w wrote:
Reagan wrote:
Man, I feel your pain It is only 69 degrees today and cloudy
Stay safe

Reagan

Would you classify this as dripping sarcasm?

... In Central California, we are looking at rain and 50's...


I forgot my sunscreen today and got scalded.

Great shot! I have actually been toying with the idea of getting an FM2n and trying some of these lenses with film. Never shot with film, and there is a mini groundswell of folks working with it.

Not for the every day, but just as a lark...

Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Is Fisheye 16mm f3.5 AI better than the 16mm f2.8 AI ?

Better than my 16mm 2.8 AFD,

asiostygius wrote:
Thank you Reagan, Georg, Tony, Curtis, Samy and Rafael for the kind words.

Laura, hope your recover be quick and as painless as possible.

Resuming the Pompeii 2nd day shots, a mosaic at a house's entrance floor:


Mosaic at house entrance in Pompeii by labecoaves, on Flickr

6 stitched photos of a mosaic in the entrance (vestibule) floor of a house in Pompeii.
D7000 + Micro Nikkor 55mm f/3.5, ISO 320, f/8 at 1/1600s.
The collar and tongue have a fading but still visible reddish colour.
Very cool mosaic! It's amazing that ANYTHING survived that eruption.

–Tony

A few with my new D800E and 50mm 1.8 ais. Just went for a walk around town during my lunch hour. SOOC jpegs.

(Waiting on the postman to bring me mint copies of the following - 105/2.8 micro, 20/2.8, 28/2.8 and 200/4 all ais)

The old courthouse. Now a pub !




The local rag

jhinkey wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Is Fisheye 16mm f3.5 AI better than the 16mm f2.8 AI ?

Bjorn Rorslett rates the f/3.5 a bit higher...


Bjorn Rorslett's Review of Fisheye Lenses

John Hinkey in Seattle introduced us all to this particular lens and gradually a number of us followed. In fact, I bought John's first copy of the lens. He subsequently bought two more which he has kept. Everyone who has used the lens has become a fan. There were only a bit less than 8,000 of the f/3.5 lenses made and of those a smaller number with the AI conversion suitable for modern DSLR cameras. The f/2.8 comes in close to thirty thousand lenses, and none of those were pre-AI. I doubt you would lose a great deal by going with the f/2.8. The f/3.5 has become a bit of a holy grail for folks on this thread.

+1 on what Curtis says.

I owned both the 16/3.5 AI and the 16/2.8 AIS. The f/3.5 is slightly better with flare/ghosting with the sun in the frame while the f/2.8 is slightly better with the sun just out of the frame.
The f/2.8 has slightly better sharpness in the center than the f/3.5 wide open (they become equal stopped down), but falls way behind the f/3.5 in sharpness significantly off-center. This was apparent on my D300 and D700, & I suspect would be even more so on my D800.

The 16/3.5 continues to be one of - if not THE - sharpest lenses I own, even on my D800.

Here's how this all started. Back in my D300 days I was looking for a compact WA and had read about this lens on Bjorn's site. I failed to win a bid for a 16/3.5 AI'd after searching for one for over a year. Six months or so later the exact same lens went up for sale on the local CL here in Seattle and I grabbed it - talk about fate! I since had moved on from the D300 to a D700 and the lens continued to amaze.
A few years later I had an opportunity to grab a 16/3.5 AI off of the FM B&S for a decent price so I did. I then sold my 16/3.5 AI'd to Curtis (it had a factory AI ring conversion, not a modified aperture ring). I then found another one locally that was in slightly better cosmetic shape (though identical in IQ) for a decent price so I grabbed that one as well.
As Curtis said I have the two now - mainly because I use mine a lot and I have this fear that I'll drop it someday and won't be able to find a replacement. I usually sell my lenses that don't get used much, but this is an exception.

It did take a while to learn how to effectively use this lens, but hopefully as I and certainly others have shown once you do learn to use it well it can produce stunning results if a FE is your thing. I particularly like what Jose and Georg have been doing lately with it. Monty is a master as well. Curtis doesn't use it as much as he should.

Time to get back to work.

- John
Awesome set John! Like I mentioned earlier, your shots were one of the main factors in me wanting to get this lens. It looks like the one I am getting was one of the last copies from that particular run. Mine is 276731 and the run ended with 276977, which means it was probably made somewhere in 1976. It's almost as old as I am!

–Tony

MDoc9523 wrote:
Excellent shots John!
Here are a couple of my favorites with the 16mm 3.5

jhinkey wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
MDoc9523 wrote:
kings_freak wrote:
MDoc9523 wrote:
Here is a 16mm 3.5 for sale on Ebay BIN $385.00 It looks very clean and has factory AI. Seller has 783 FB at 100%
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Fisheye-Nikkor-16-mm-F-3-5-Ai-Lens-Manual-Focus-/290874953717?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item43b97f8ff5
That is a really good price. So good in fact, I just bought it! Thanks for the link Ray!

–Tony
Glad I could help Tony. I am so glad someone from here got that beautiful lens!!!!

That's what friends are for...

Well done Ray. It is comforting to know I'm not the only enabler on this thread...

Good that you have a 14 day return. This lens (and FEs in general) are very sensitive to marks/dirt/dust on the front element if you point it into the sun and stop it down. They seriously do show in the final image. I have to keep mine immaculately clean in order for any dust not to show up as slightly blurred portions of the image or unusual flare.

Hopefully this one does you well.

Also note that all three of my copies were way out of whack with regards to what the focusing ring says infinity focus is and what live view shows. So if I can't use live view I know where to set the focusing ring to achieve best focus either at infinity or closer for hyperfocal settings.

- John
Yes, the 14 day return is a nice addition. It will definitely take some getting used to, but I think it will be a fun lens. I will have to check the infinity issue that you are talking about and see if mine does the same thing. Do you have the newer AI versions or the older F model?

–Tony

CGrindahl wrote:
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Is Fisheye 16mm f3.5 AI better than the 16mm f2.8 AI ?

Bjorn Rorslett rates the f/3.5 a bit higher...


Bjorn Rorslett's Review of Fisheye Lenses

John Hinkey in Seattle introduced us all to this particular lens and gradually a number of us followed. In fact, I bought John's first copy of the lens. He subsequently bought two more which he has kept. Everyone who has used the lens has become a fan. There were only a bit less than 8,000 of the f/3.5 lenses made and of those a smaller number with the AI conversion suitable for modern DSLR cameras. The f/2.8 comes in close to thirty thousand lenses, and none of those were pre-AI. I doubt you would lose a great deal by going with the f/2.8. The f/3.5 has become a bit of a holy grail for folks on this thread.

Ok .. Therefore, I was wondering is there a possibility to buy here in Sweden 16mm f2.8 Ai for about $ 450 .. prices are higher here with us than they are with you .. You have much bigger used market
ex: A Nikon 105 1.8 Ai-s in very good condition can be around $ 700


The price you quote for the fisheye lens is very good if it includes VAT. And given the price you quote for the 105, you would definitely do much better buying the one Tony has and paying shipping and customs duties. You'd likely spend $550 for his lens with VAT and shipping. But there are only so many lenses and so much time. I trust you'll add to your kit when and how it makes sense to do so. I'm certainly glad you've had the experience of shooting with the 180 f/2.8 AI-s. It is a great lens that incredible value for money.

+1! Buy mine!

–Tony

raboof wrote:
MDoc9523 wrote:
Jose your Pompeii shots are just wonderful!

+1



+100!

–Tony

raboof wrote:
You probably saw another shot but this shot might make into a local hardcover photo book. I have to wait and see.

85mm f1.4

CGrindahl wrote:
I'm really procrastinating with a long list of things on my to do list... that I'm completely ignoring. I've been bitten by the camera bug and playing with my toys. Rather than go to the bank, I mounted the 300 f/4.5 AI-s ED-IF, with a TC-201 teleconverter and a PN-11 extension tube. Unfortunately, my effort to enter the correct information in the non-CPU register were for naught and these images show up as 500 at f/8, which was the lens last mounted on my camera.

Here are four leaf studies with the lens hand held but supported by adjacent walls.

The first and third shots are uncropped. I shoot with Auto ISO and here at 1/640th of a second. The third shot required ISO 2500, the fourth 1800 and the first two 1400.

Clearly with a rig this cumbersome to hand hold it is better suited for a tripod. We'll see how long it takes before I actually buy one of those...

Nice study Curtis. That is quite a setup!

–Tony