Thanks Buddy. Just let me now if you ever move here or visit, I'll give you some good spots to explore!
the solitaire wrote:
Samy, I really enjoy seeing the medium format photos. Such amazing clarity and definition!
Phillippe, those landscape photos with the 105mm and 50mm are incredible. Not a detail about them I can't like
Kristian, the cloud shot is magic! Makes me want to find a job in Sweden.
I think the list you posted there looks like an all-in list, offering you a bit of everything. Even if the 28mm and 50mm combined weigh as much as the 25-50 zoom, I think these two lenses offer more versatility due to the narrower MfD and the faster lens speed.
Leighton, you even had me looking into the 50-135. But it's not that much shorter then, or lighter then the 80-200 f4 I love so much. At the moment I don't want to let the longer zoom go, so I will have to see how it will suit me on my next camera...Show more →
Interesting you mentioned the 80-200/4.5 Ai, as I found this lens very cheap on a local second hand shop. Do you have any shots with this to share? Or perhaps more info. It looked as if it was in very good shape and my spending pants came on..
leighton w wrote:
Buddy, I had the 80-200 (4.5 version), but the files I was getting out of it looked to clinical to me. This is just my opinion, but I have always thought the files from the 50-135 were Leica looking in the color and contrast areas. Plus, it's sharp as a tack even wide open, and the bokeh on the long end rivals the 135mm f2. Int the end, it was the only MF zoom Nikkor I kept and will ever keep. Having said that, I also think the 28-50mm f3.5 AIS has the same character traits as it't bigger brother, but in the end, it wouldn't focus close enough on the wide end so I didn't keep it.
bobbelbob wrote:
Interesting you mentioned the 80-200/4.5 Ai, as I found this lens very cheap on a local second hand shop. Do you have any shots with this to share? Or perhaps more info. It looked as if it was in very good shape and my spending pants came on..
It's been a long time I didn't take my MF 300/2.8 out. Today, very overcast day with a few showers, I went out with it for a few shots of some local birds.
bobbelbob wrote:
Don´t seem to be able to open the album. Not on the phone nor on the computer, perhaps something wrong with my line..or is it flickr..
I was having trouble earlier, but it seems alright now.
kwoodard wrote:
Ken, I especially like the third shot. If you are up to trying, how would that shot look with a square crop and b/w conversion? I have been contemplating doing a similar shot to yours, with the processing I suggested.
Hey Kevin, funny you should ask. I had already done it in B&W but decided to post the color instead. This was actually a test for an alternative sharpening workflow involving upsampling the image to 150%-200% of original pixel dimensions, aggressive sharpening, downsampling to original size, save file, and downsampling to final screen size with mild sharpening. It's too much to do with every image. Also, it looks fine on a high resolution monitor, but sort of gritty on a lower res. display.
Yesterday I lied ... here are some more from the Labrynth. My thanks for the likes and comments and I apologize for the multitude o shot from this beautiful place.
Comments on some great shots are in order:
Sar you truly captured a "birds eye" with color and composition.
Samy a "blank: tombstone sets the B&W photo off very well. Nice composition.
Chris thank you for the comment.
bobbelbob wrote:
Interesting you mentioned the 80-200/4.5 Ai, as I found this lens very cheap on a local second hand shop. Do you have any shots with this to share? Or perhaps more info. It looked as if it was in very good shape and my spending pants came on..
I was quite a bit happier than it appears Leighton was with the 80-200 f/4.5 AI. I picked up a copy for $76 and fell in love with it. I wrote on the thread about my experience. The lens cost over $700 when new in the 1970's. I made the calculation of current value given inflation since then and it came to about $2,200, or the equivalent of the latest and greatest 70-200. A friend who was into Nikon back in the day spoke of how much he wanted to buy that lens, but he simply could not afford it. Although I don't have all of my old photos transferred to my Flickr account, and likely won't do so, I selected one shot I took with this fine lens for my Top 15 that I can share with you.
I love using the push-pull zoom/focus ring, especially when shooting with tubes. This image was taken with a 36mm extension tube attached. The push-pull makes it incredibly easy to find focus. This was shot at noon on a bright day but the light fall off with an extension tube while shooting wide open with spot metering produced this result. I seldom shoot with any of the zooms in my kit, but I really love the lens. I don't doubt Buddy when he expresses his love for the next version of this focal range, the f/4, but never saw the need to add a second lens. Remember, the best f/4.5 is the one with the square baffle at the rear... Happy shopping Kristian.
leighton w wrote:
I was having trouble earlier, but it seems alright now.
I checked the link Leighton and then browsed your albums a bit. That's a nice way of presenting your work. It definitely is useful for discussions about lenses to have a single lens featured in one album. I browsed the one devoted to the 180 f/2.8 and really enjoyed your work. I really don't need to be reminded of what a fine lens that is, but seeing how you used the lens I'm impressed. I know it wouldn't be as useful on a cropped camera, of course, so that lens will not likely find its way back into your kit... such is life.
Another photo taken with the 135 f/3.5 Q AI with a PK-12 attached. I stopped down to f/8 and shot in manual mode to get enough light. I wanted a touch more depth of field than I get shooting wide open with tubes. Even at f/3.5 the focal plane gets quite narrow with a 12mm tube.
CGrindahl wrote:
I checked the link Leighton and then browsed your albums a bit. That's a nice way of presenting your work. It definitely is useful for discussions about lenses to have a single lens featured in one album. I browsed the one devoted to the 180 f/2.8 and really enjoyed your work. I really don't need to be reminded of what a fine lens that is, but seeing how you used the lens I'm impressed. I know it wouldn't be as useful on a cropped camera, of course, so that lens will not likely find its way back into your kit... such is life.
Thanks Curtis. Thats a lovely image you took of the flower above. I just never warmed to that lens and wasn't crazy with the bokeh at times.
The 180 is a fantastic lens as we all know, but it's a handful on the X-T2 and longer than I need/want to shoot. The 50-135mm suits all of my needs for length, and the Fuji 90mm f2, as seen here, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097477/641#14069165 is more than I'll ever need in those focal lengths.
saph wrote:
Rafael, you need a Leica LTM camera for that lens. I also have the Bessa R, but its rangefinder length is a bit limited for telephoto lenses.
Kristian, I wish I had taken the canyon images, but that spot would be very much on my bucket list. The pics are thanks to Ken and his modern Noct. Niee scenes in Malmo, and look forward to your Bali tour pics!
Jay, quite a cactus!
Philippe, that middle photo at Pierre Damoy's domain is very striking! Nice area to wander through!
Ram, neat light on the dam.
What is a way to use LTM in digital, does it fit Sony mirrorless with an adapter?
