Laura, good to see you are recovering! Get that booster once you are able to.
NightOwl Cat wrote:
No prairie dog shots?
I'll pass on the booze though. I may attempt a walk today, just around the neighborhood, to see how much stamina I have left. Need that strength to get through the Christmas rush when I get back to work.
That is my plan, Samy. I have to wait 90 days from Wednesday. Puts me at Tuesday, March 08, 2022. I had plans for a walk today, however, weather has other plans at the moment.. high gusts of wind and rain. Maybe I'll gather up the kittens and a basket or two, and see what happens...
Doc note says return to work Monday if symptoms (other than the cough) subside. No fever since Thursday evening, as of this writing, so the occupational nurse will release me too.
saph wrote:
Laura, good to see you are recovering! Get that booster once you are able to.
Leighton, I set about trying to disprove that but the results were bad enough that I haven't had the heart to post anything from it
That exactly echos my recent trial of a copy!
I will add that when I 1st looked at my results I thought i must have selected the wrong lens hood, the vignetting was that bad.
It has considerable mass and it mechanically very well built so it would make a nice curiosity for the desk and serve as a fine paperweight.
These are from a small courtyard inside Palazzo Vechhio. This is usually a touristy space and have never seen it this empty which was great for snapping a few photos.
RE 43-86mm possible usages other than as a paperweight
I had a 24-120mm VR that I despised. It never failed to let me down. I know bunches of people swear their copies were A-M-A-Z-I-N-G, mine was crap. Before I sold it on the bay I considered converting it to an "impressionist" lens. Back in the day - a hack would be to smear Vaseline on a threaded clear UV filter - usually leaving a bit un-smeared in the center for focusing the camera. It provided a soft out of focus glow around the subject. It even worked with cigarette package cellophane held in front of the enlarging lens.
Thanks, I’ll have to take a look. The dark is a waterway that was perfectly mirrored, polarizer knocked it down. There was a lot of small debris on the surface of the water too, noticed one looked like a big dust spot being OOF, probably need to make a pass over it again. Thanks for the feedback!
cadman342001 wrote:
I love it for it's simplicity and the colour of the leaf is everything. Might have a couple of dust spots right in the middle of the shot though?
Hi Joe - we've not spoken before, nice to "meet" you and thank you very much. Philippe said the same thing about splitting the image in his comment on Flickr, before there was any comment about the pole here, so there you go.....great minds think alike!
Jay - you asked how I'm liking my "new" 135mm f2.8 from Paris. I'm not sure but I think I prefer the 135mm f3.5 version. I could be wrong, I haven't had much of a chance to use the 2.8 since it arrived, so take what I say with a momentous grain of salt, but I think the 3.5 is sharper and better resolving. I feel the images are more three dimensional with the 3.5, the transitions from light to shade are better and it is overall a bit more contrasty. Today's pic is with the f3.5. It could be sample variation, my 3.5 is a very good sample (I had other versions of these lenses in Sydney and I would have said the 2.8 was the better one then, so who knows). I need to keep trying the 2.8, and if it ever stops raining I will.
This couple were at the Trevi fountain and obviously wanted to throw coins in the fountain but didn't have any coins. I assume they're American, who else would be so cashed up as to want to throw 50 euros in.
Hi Joe - we've not spoken before, nice to "meet" you and thank you very much. Philippe said the same thing about splitting the image in his comment on Flickr, before there was any comment about the pole here, so there you go.....great minds think alike!
Jay - you asked how I'm liking my "new" 135mm f2.8 from Paris. I'm not sure but I think I prefer the 135mm f3.5 version. I could be wrong, I haven't had much of a chance to use the 2.8 since it arrived, so take what I say with a momentous grain of salt, but I think the 3.5 is sharper and better resolving. I feel the images are more three dimensional with the 3.5, the transitions from light to shade are better and it is overall a bit more contrasty. Today's pic is with the f3.5. It could be sample variation, my 3.5 is a very good sample (I had other versions of these lenses in Sydney and I would have said the 2.8 was the better one then, so who knows). I need to keep trying the 2.8, and if it ever stops raining I will.
This couple were at the Trevi fountain and obviously wanted to throw coins in the fountain but didn't have any coins. I assume they're American, who else would be so cashed up as to want to throw 50 euros in.
I have a love/hate relationship with my 135/2.8 AI-S
Sometimes it works well but more often than not I am displeased with the results.
If I want something in that focal range then the 105/2.5 PC wins every time because it produces more reliable images.
Having said that the 135/2.8 does produce some epic sunstars.
Does anybody have experience with using a 2x tele converter with an 85/1.4 AI-S? This lens is sitting on an A7R3, so I would have the choice between a Sony or a Nikon 2x converter. I am trying to figure out how much character such a combo would have at its optimum aperture at infinity.
Haha if I was in Rome, or anywhere, I am not throwing a 50 euro note away!! See Ben not all Americans are true to stereotype
bruni wrote:
This couple were at the Trevi fountain and obviously wanted to throw coins in the fountain but didn't have any coins. I assume they're American, who else would be so cashed up as to want to throw 50 euros in.
Hi Joe - we've not spoken before, nice to "meet" you and thank you very much. Philippe said the same thing about splitting the image in his comment on Flickr, before there was any comment about the pole here, so there you go.....great minds think alike!
Jay - you asked how I'm liking my "new" 135mm f2.8 from Paris. I'm not sure but I think I prefer the 135mm f3.5 version. I could be wrong, I haven't had much of a chance to use the 2.8 since it arrived, so take what I say with a momentous grain of salt, but I think the 3.5 is sharper and better resolving. I feel the images are more three dimensional with the 3.5, the transitions from light to shade are better and it is overall a bit more contrasty. Today's pic is with the f3.5. It could be sample variation, my 3.5 is a very good sample (I had other versions of these lenses in Sydney and I would have said the 2.8 was the better one then, so who knows). I need to keep trying the 2.8, and if it ever stops raining I will.
This couple were at the Trevi fountain and obviously wanted to throw coins in the fountain but didn't have any coins. I assume they're American, who else would be so cashed up as to want to throw 50 euros in.
You should try the 135mm f2.8 QC version. After Curtis did the comparison between all the different versions, I believe the QC was almost, but not quite, as good as the f2.
Here's one taken with the 2.8 QC on my D600. Wish I still had it.
It took the 24/2.8 and the 40/2 Z lens with me to London. I wanted to compare them in a real world test. Photography was not the purpose of the trip but I did surface from the Tube network in order to fire off a few shots whilst in transit.
You should try the 135mm f2.8 QC version. After Curtis did the comparison between all the different versions, I believe the QC was almost, but not quite, as good as the f2.
Here's one taken with the 2.8 QC on my D600. Wish I still had it.
Puts me at Tuesday, March 08, 2022. I had plans for a walk today, however, weather has other plans at the moment.. high gusts of wind and rain. Maybe I'll gather up the kittens and a basket or two, and see what happens...
