rafaelcasd wrote:
OK, so the 300mm 4.5 ED K came in.
I got Lucky!!! Lens is nearly perfect, very minor hood scratch, perfect glass, not a spec of dust, smooth focusing, good iris. Unfilled warranty card with the correct serial number, box with original packing.
Here are some test samples, boring but if you go see them at 100% on flickr they prove lens is good.
Tested on the Z6 as the ai kit has not come in from Finland yet, it was due today on DHL, no rush.
All at 4.5, this lens needs no iris.
saph wrote:
Jay I was thinking of using the 24 PC-E next weekend for a particular building. Your continued work with it is prompting me to put it to use again.
Nikon has generously offered me a $0.01 commission on any 24mm PC-E shots they see on this thread so get out there and use it! I'm saving up for a Z!
More Bok Tower with the D800 24mm PC-E and 55mm f/1.2.
asiostygius wrote:
Wow Rafael, congrats. Not a perfect Rafael's condition, but anyway it appears better than mine copy.
Looking forward for your shots.
Another from the "parrot session":
Thank you Jose (and the rest of the team) for your congratulations. This 300mm 4.5 ED K/ai is a very hard lens to find. The three lenses I have lusted for that I did not have are: 300mm 4.5 ED K, 10mm 5.6 OP and NOCT,
Of course what I buy has to be close to mint condition, which makes the game harder.
I have seen several OPs for sale, bought one once from Adorama but returned it for an inner lens defect, missed on another due to price hesitancy on my part.
I can buy NOCTs all day buy refuse to pay $3K and up, so I will never own one.
300 4.5 ED Ks I had never seen for sale, this is the first time in 40 years of lens collecting and 15 years if looking for one that I found a sample for sale.
Happy to give it a good home for the next 20 years, after that it will be someone else's, and still in close to mint condition.
Working on processing IR better, because I don't really know anything about IR except I keep seeing posts here in B&W that I really like. I had guessed that White Balance would play a role, but I had no idea the way to get there - other than in camera WB, or software WB. I wrote Photoshop actions that would get part of the look right, but miss other parts. Colin gave me an indirect WB hint "2000 K" (camera WB doesn't go that low), as did the IR conversion outfits "custom WB". Fortunately for me - last month - Robert Reiser put a rather straight forward guide up on creating custom WB IR profiles to use in LR. HERE IS A LINK to that guide if anyone else is interested. BTW, screw on filters do work, and can provide some interesting advantages to an IR camera conversion. Anyway, I really haven't anything IR worthy, but my favorite so far is the leafy end of a trumpet vine.
Here was my 3200K WB attempt at processing a 720nm screw on filter image shot with the 85mm f1.4 ais
Same image with a custom profile created last night for my 5DS-R
I know in the Nikon cameras, IBIS function is tied to the focal length of the lens. When using lenses with CPUs the camera reads the FL and applies the correct stabilization for that given lens. When using adapted lenses, the stabilization applied is based on the FL that you input manually in the menu database. This is a challenge when using a non-cpu adapted zoom lens, especially one with a large range 35-200 for example. If you set the FL manually for 35 and zoom to 200, your IBIS will be way off.
Ok.. Getting to my question. For the Fuji when using the speedbooster, what focal length are you inputting in the camera. The actual FL of the lens or the effective FL from the speedbooster. Example of a 105mm lens. 105mm is the actual lens FL, but when using the speedbooster/focal reducer it is effectively 75mm (105 x .71) to the sensor
It would seem that it would impact the effectiveness of the IBIS. No?
I know this is from last week, but if you have the Lens Turbo II (or any of the speedboosters that have the same magnification) I made this chart that may be of use to some of you. If memory serves, when I was using a borrowed XH1, setting the lens data to the adjusted FL worked better. If using a dumb adapter (no glass) I used the FL as listed on the lens.
