I think these are day lilies? Not sure if they're a native or whether someone has planted some and they self seeded as it where.
Beautiful sight from earlier in the year.
Also, I've been using a simple K&F convertor on my Z6ii for my mf lenses but just received a 16mm f3.5 AI and it won't mount? Using the FTZ instead but anyone know why it doesn't mount on the simple adapter?
Jose, Wow! I have never got anything that sharp out my 500mm reflex Nikkor C. I use to own a 500mm AFS - and it was that sharp, but to think you can dispense with all that mass, and expense to get such excellent results is amazing. Bravo!
Jim
asiostygius wrote:
Plain Parakeet's seed predation with the 500/8 mirror.
cadman342001 wrote:
I think these are day lilies? Not sure if they're a native or whether someone has planted some and they self seeded as it where.
Beautiful sight from earlier in the year.
This was the xt2+LTII+28/2 ais IIRC
Andy
Ooh I like this one. It reminds me of a Crinum macowanni we had in the garden some years ago. I must find out what happened to it. We have a mole problem. It likes the bulbs. The sorroundings and processing of this one make it stand out nicely. Royal Lily according to Google Lens.
James Markus wrote:
Jose, Wow! I have never got anything that sharp out my 500mm reflex Nikkor C. I use to own a 500mm AFS - and it was that sharp, but to think you can dispense with all that mass, and expense to get such excellent results is amazing. Bravo!
Jim
Thanks Jim,
These reflex lenses are natrurally less contrasty and sharp than glass designs, but are small and light to hand held. Also a lot of fun. A thing I learned with time is that these mirror lenses need truly high shutter speed (at least 2x the focal lenght), even on tripod (!!). Do not know if this relates to the thin tripod collar and/or light weight of the lens body. And in this case, focus peaking helped a lot.
While looking around recently I found a much more contemporary 55mm micro nikkor. The ai version I have is from about 1981 or 1982, and while it does great on macro work - it doesn't work well for non-macro images. The one I found is from approximately 2003, and is the ais version which usually means the coatings are better at focusing the different colors on the same plain. On the 28mm f2.8 ais I went through 3-4 copies to find the "one". I was hoping that in the approximate 20 years between the ai and ais versions of the 55mm copies I have there would be improvements. Using focus peaking, a copy stand, and a remote trigger I have to conclude the ai copy I have is better than the minty ais copy I recently found. I still will test it on the D800, and in the field. However, chaulk round one to the f3.5 ai.
First - The f2.8 seems to have a longer focal length than the f3.5 - about 60mm is my guess. This results in a bit greater magnification. Second - the f2.8 has a tad less contrast than the f3.5.
EDIT...I did add a little contrast to the f2.8 images. On my phone it makes the record appear to have more contrast than the f3.5. Also, these are 1200 pixel 100% slices from the full image.
A hawk feather detail
55mmf2.8-ais-micro-iso160
55mmf3.5-ai-micro-iso160
A classical record that came in red - Debussy
55mmf2.8-ais-micro-iso500
That is an interesting test, James. It does seem like the 3.5 is getting maximum points in this round. Are they both at their respective wide-open apertures? Looking forward to more.
These are from the city made famous for its 1692-3 witch trials. Salem is a terrific small city and we enjoyed our stay there. I bet it is a wild party during Halloween.
The hotel which reportedly is a place George Washington stayed.
Clearing after the storm, compliments of the remnants from hurricane Elsa.
There are Tropical and Mediterranen biospheres, huge insects and nymph like inhabitants - as well a lots of UK staycationers on a daytrip to "The Eden Project", Cornwall, UK
Siphiwe, I shot everything at f5.6. I wanted a real world test of a macro lens lens as a macro lens. IMO 90% of the lenses have their maximum sharpness at f5.6. Sometimes it is f4, and sometimes it is f8, but of all my years of reading lens tests and my own experiences - f5.6 is the best. It corrects a host of problems with even marginal lenses like distortion, comma, edge sharpness, and corner sharpness etc. Both the f3.5 and f2.8 focus as close as less than 10 inches - so these were shot close to MFD (11"). I focused and shot each image individually in sets of four frames per setup. The extra lens group and lens element in the f2.8 + CRC correction may actually be contributing to the results. The feather is not flat, but I focused on the same area, and checked the rest of the frame to see if other areas reached better focus than the area focused upon. The record is flat and was my solution to the variable height surface of the feather.
Jim
SiMuMe wrote:
That is an interesting test, James. It does seem like the 3.5 is getting maximum points in this round. Are they both at their respective wide-open apertures? Looking forward to more.
There are Tropical and Mediterranen biospheres, huge insects and nymph like inhabitants - as well a lots of UK staycationers on a daytrip to "The Eden Project", Cornwall, UK
Today a bunch of tomatoes were ripe for picking - so that became the test object on my comparison of the 55mm micros. The setup is about 18 inches above the bowl of fruit at f5.6 using a remote trigger. I also used the D800 viewfinder green dot for focus confirmation as the live view on the D800 isn't as real time as on my 5DSR. This first shot is straight out of camera with no adjustments using the 55mm f2.8 ais micro, and showing what the focus point selection.
The f2.8 again with my normal lightroom and photoshop adjustments
The f3.5 with my normal lightroom and photoshop adjustments
100% detail of focus area on the f2.8 with my adjustments
100% detail of focus area on the f2.8 with my adjustments
Note: the file names contain an error. The f3.5 is an AI not an AIS. This new lens bugs me. The finish is better than the f3.5. It has a much smoother helical movement, and a more solid feel - plus it just looks better. But, the f3.5 is the better performer. I have a few lenses in this category. Beautiful paper weights I will never use. Looks like at some point I will need to get rid of these lenses.
