GeorgeBo wrote:
Guess that bridge was a little late to benefit from the infrastructure bill. Shame to see.
Just a little too late. Has an interesting history, at the time of the construction in 1908 it was the longest reinforced concrete bridge in the nation. It started out as a railroad bridge, abandoned, and then used temporarily by the state highway department for cars when a steel truss bridge downstream collapsed during WW1 and the shortage of steel meant that they could not replace the collapsed bridge quickly.
It is unsafe and collapsing into the river below that has recreational river use, and people get up onto the bridge, get stuck (climbing down is much harder than climbing up) with fire department rescues needed occasionally. It was recently auctioned off with preconditions for repair and/or reuse, but the winning bidder at $6500.00 could not come up with an acceptable plan (or more than likely reached the same conclusion as the state highway department, it is just way too expensive). It is scheduled for demolition in the next couple of years., though I hear about some people still trying to come up with ideas, dollars, and parties willing to assume the ownership and liability.
At the public meeting for the demolition, one group of whitewater enthusiasts actually asked that the bridge be left in place as the piers and fallen concrete chunks created the best whitewater conditions around for quite a few miles during high water events. Needless to say that did not gain traction.
I wasn't sure whether to post this but given the thread is slow I decided to go ahead.
I bring bad news - my 24/2.8 NC doesn't appear to work well on a full frame IR camera.
Over the years the lens has been one of my go-to optics on my DX IR cameras.
The recent softness in the edges and corners of that shot of Winchester Cathedral spurned me into running off a few brick-wall comparison shots.
Left = vintage 24mm, f/2.8 NC manual focus
Right = 18-35 ED G at 24mm
Bottom = an original view to show where the crop comes from.
Just after getting my Z6 last June I did some color image comparisons between the 24/2.8 NC, the 18-35G and 24-120G. In those, the old MF lens held up quite decently.
IR is a different matter so now I am wondering if the CRC element could be out of whack.
Anyone have any experience or knowledge if a decentered CRC could cause smeary edges?
Another round of experimentation with the Z6 is required but I am sad that the 24/2.8 might get relegated to the bench given the difference in IR image quality.
Nikon doesn't make them, but sure is good for carrying a lot of gear.
I can strap a bag and good size tripod on the rack on the back with no problem. That is one bike I built from components on my own. I actually got the frame from a UK shop on clearance a few years ago. Merlin Cycles, Buckshaw Village, Chorley
It may not be a trail blazer for speed, but it can climb like crazy and with only 6 psi air pressure in the tires, you don't even feel the roots and rocks on the trail. Oh yeah, does well in snow too. Up to about 4 inches, then you are really plowing instead of riding.
I will see if I can find some of my build pictures and post since the thread is slow.
D7200 + Nikkor 800mm f5.6 ai-s EDIF + tripod + gimbal head; ISO 360, f/8 at 1/800s; 33% cropping (8/24MP). The Elaenia left the tree and supposedly was delivering theses fruits for its offspring.
This shot almost certainly will be used for my new photo book (pdf only) on birds vs. plants relationships.
So happy to see the thread alive and kicking. I've been checkin in every now and then. I've lost the photo mojo for quite a while now, been shooting very little 2021. Got a new job taking some of the creative energy, me and the oldest son have started to train thaiboxing so got very little time left these days. Will go on a week holiday up north in a few weeks, will bring gear (yes it's still MFNL's). If all stars and planets are aligned in the right way (need a massive solar flare and a clear sky), we might be able to experience some northern lights.
Well, just checkin in and I'm still enjoying all the good photography shared here with those beautiful MFNL's. Hope all of you is well and still kicking it in this (still) weird times!
I guess I need a ruling on these images, because I used a modified Nikon TC-16A to impart partial auto focus capability to our beloved manual focus Nikkors. I am excited about being able to final focus much easier using this unique hacked Nikon hardware from the mid 1980s. Originally Nikon made the TC-16A to add AF to their MF lenses, but only on a handful of camera bodies. My first interest was in adding some fine focus capability to the Reflex Nikkor-C 500mm f8, because the focus throw is short (about 100 degrees) and minor adjustments seem drastic. I can report the TC-16A works and makes the 500mm f8 a 800mm f11? (1-2 stops slower) lens. Anyway, as I understand it, this thread is now about the manual focus Nikkor lenses on any camera body - not on how they were focused. (I.E. green dot, audio beep, live view etc) I do get these 95-99% focused manually, and then the TC uses the screw drive to move an internal lens group to final focus position. If anyone thinks this is crossing the line for the group just PM, or post to let me know, and I will remove them.
35mm f1.4 ais + TC-16A
55mm f3.5 Nikkor-P.C ai'd + TC-16A
180mm f2.8 Nikkor-P ai'd + TC-16A
200mm f2.0 ai + TC-200 + TC-16A
300mm f2.8 ais + TC-301 + TC-16A
400mm f5.6 ais + TC-16A
400mm f5.6 ais + TC-16A
500mm f8 Nikkor-C + TC-16A
EDIT: the black and blue "Recycle-bin" is actually a compost tumbler - just couldn't remember what it was called at the time of file naming.
James Markus wrote:
I guess I need a ruling on these images, because I used a modified Nikon TC-16A to impart partial auto focus capability to our beloved manual focus Nikkors. I am excited about being able to final focus much easier using this unique hacked Nikon hardware from the mid 1980s. Originally Nikon made the TC-16A to add AF to their MF lenses, but only on a handful of camera bodies. My first interest was in adding some fine focus capability to the Reflex Nikkor-C 500mm f8, because the focus throw is short (about 100 degrees) and minor adjustments seem drastic. I can report the TC-16A works and makes the 500mm f8 a 800mm f11? (1-2 stops slower) lens. Anyway, as I understand it, this thread is now about the manual focus Nikkor lenses on any camera body - not on how they were focused. (I.E. green dot, audio beep, live view etc) I do get these 95-99% focused manually, and then the TC uses the screw drive to move an internal lens group to final focus position. If anyone thinks this is crossing the line for the group just PM, or post to let me know, and I will remove them.
I agree that it's not so much about how they are focused. It's more about the quality and character of the lens. I don't have any problem at all with you using the TC-16A in this thread.
I agree that it's not so much about how they are focused. It's more about the quality and character of the lens. I don't have any problem at all with you using the TC-16A in this thread.
rafael,
I noticed it is sharper and vignettes less on some lenses, but I was stacking TCs on the 200mm & 300mm shots. It really works great on the 400mm f5.6 ais. I own two tc-16s - one unmodified, and one modified. I have been preparing to modify the untouched one, and have been working out a more elegant jumper wire from pin 3 position to the new pin 6 location. I can cut the 112, and 113 solder joints on the NEC CPU easily. The thing I worry most about is all those tiny pins and springs. I need a better tray with a rubberized bottom layer...got off track
However, the very thing I wanted most was a better way to focus my reflex lenses. It works, but needs strong contrast. Next to try it on my 800mm f8 reflex (Rokinon)
Jim
James Markus wrote:
rafael,
I noticed it is sharper and vignettes less on some lenses, but I was stacking TCs on the 200mm & 300mm shots. It really works great on the 400mm f5.6 ais. I own two tc-16s - one unmodified, and one modified. I have been preparing to modify the untouched one, and have been working out a more elegant jumper wire from pin 3 position to the new pin 6 location. I can cut the 112, and 113 solder joints on the NEC CPU easily. The thing I worry most about is all those tiny pins and springs. I need a better tray with a rubberized bottom layer...got off track
However, the very thing I wanted most was a better way to focus my reflex lenses. It works, but needs strong contrast. Next to try it on my 800mm f8 reflex (Rokinon)
Jim...Show more →
Ialso own a unmodified tC16a, for my F4, and a modified one for the D series cameras. You are more courageous than I in attempting this modification.
I did not know this TC16A before jumping in this MFNG. I saw guys shooting airshow and wanted to challenge mysefl as well.
50-300ais is little bit bulky for me but 500mm F/4 is really a challenge for handheld shooting. _D5N6607in by blurrist lump, on Flickr
Colin,
Did you try chimping the focus based off the red lens barrel dot?
Jim
DeltaSigma wrote:
I wasn't sure whether to post this but given the thred is slow I decided to go ahead.
I bring bad news - my 24/2.8 NC doesn't appear to work well on a full frame IR camera.
Over the years the lens has been one of my go-to optics on my DX IR cameras.
The recent softness in the edges and corners of that shot of Winchester Cathedral spurned me into running off a few brick-wall comparison shots.
Left = vintage 24mm, f/2.8 NC manual focus
Right = 18-35 ED G at 24mm
Bottom = an original view to show where the crop comes from.
Just after getting my Z6 last June I did some color image comparisons between the 24/2.8 NC, the 18-35G and 24-120G. In those, the old MF lens held up quite decently.
IR is a different matter so now I am wondering if the CRC element could be out of whack.
Anyone have any experience or knowledge if a decentered CRC could cause smeary edges?
Another round of experimentation with the Z6 is required but I am sad that the 24/2.8 might get relegated to the bench given the difference in IR image quality.
Yes I did and I also used live view.
Central image quality is pretty much equal between the lenses so I am sure I had focus on the place I wanted it.
All of those soft-edged images were taken on days when the temperature was not much above freezing.
Forecast is for bright skies today so I might repeat the exercise at lunchtime.
Colin
James Markus wrote:
Colin,
Did you try chimping the focus based off the red lens barrel dot?
Jim
Colin,
Your 24mm f/2.8 NC is a really good looking lens. Two possible solutions come to mind. 1) Shoot 3-4 vertical images to cover the scene with left edge down (becomes foreground) - then stitch or merge the photos. 2a) Employ focus stacking 2b) Try another MF 24mm Nikkor.
Jim
DeltaSigma wrote:
Jim,
Yes I did and I also used live view.
Central image quality is pretty much equal between the lenses so I am sure I had focus on the place I wanted it.
All of those soft-edged images were taken on days when the temperature was not much above freezing.
Forecast is for bright skies today so I might repeat the exercise at lunchtime.
Colin
James Markus wrote:
Colin,
Did you try chimping the focus based off the red lens barrel dot?
Jim
), we might be able to experience some northern lights. 
