DeltaSigma wrote:
George - glad to have been of assistance!
I must admit that I am getting much closer to jumping on a used D7100 or D600 to convert. CPU registers, exif data and aperture priority are the main attractions. I have more IR stuff (using AF lenses) on my Flickr stream
Colin
Step one done. Found a body. Now to pick a conversion service.
Alright. Its mine. Will be shipping soon. Now I will need to run a three way comparision between the 135mm f3.5 Q, 135mm f2.8 AI and 135mm f2 and decide which one to let go. Most probably it will be the f2.8 version which I have no complaints but is priced similar and easiest to be sold.
I have been thinking about thinning the herd but never given some solid thought.
NightOwl Cat wrote:
You may find that you get wonderful shots of the little one with it. Can't wait to see what you do with it.
---------------------------------------------
saph wrote:
Since Ram's looking at a 135 f2 AIS here's one with a 135 f2 K (on Df) to whet his appetite.
ramkumar999 wrote:
Alright. Its mine. Will be shipping soon. Now I will need to run a three way comparision between the 135mm f3.5 Q, 135mm f2.8 AI and 135mm f2 and decide which one to let go. Most probably it will be the f2.8 version which I have no complaints but is priced similar and easiest to be sold.
I have been thinking about thinning the herd but never given some solid thought.
gbohannon wrote:
Step one done. Found a body. Now to pick a conversion service.
G
Filter wavelength? Are you going for the deep b&w 830nm filter?
I think that is where I will be heading next because I often need to work hard in PP to get those black skies with 720nm. Gives me an excuse to hang onto the 720nm D80 too.
I wonder how your Nikon rangefinder lenses will cope - hot spot or not?
I have a converted Nikon 1 V1 (720nm). I'm looking for more color, so I think the next V1 will be 590nm.
Perhaps I should get an FX-body. Is a D700 a good option or is better to get a D600?
Chris Dees wrote:
I have a converted Nikon 1 V1 (720nm). I'm looking for more color, so I think the next V1 will be 590nm.
Perhaps I should get an FX-body. Is a D700 a good option or is better to get a D600?
Chris,
Both cameras require a similar level of complexity to convert.
Since both are FX the actual filter and conversion cost will be the same.
As I am primarily a D610 shooter the 600 and 7100 are obvious choices for me due to the same battery/charger and similar ergonomics.
I did consider a D700 but because of the above reasons decide not to pursue that avenue - although I have seen some spectacular IR images from the 700.
DeltaSigma wrote:
Filter wavelength? Are you going for the deep b&w 830nm filter?
I think that is where I will be heading next because I often need to work hard in PP to get those black skies with 720nm. Gives me an excuse to hang onto the 720nm D80 too.
I wonder how your Nikon rangefinder lenses will cope - hot spot or not?
Looking forward to your future IRs George.
That is what I am going to be reading about the next few days. Which filter to go with or possibly go full spectrum. But have been leaning 830nm. I am very interested to see how the RF glass will work. But I always have the F mount glass that I know performs well.
CGrindahl wrote:
The amazing thing about that 85 Ben apart from its pristine condition was the price. I bought an old H version of the lens for $214 after failing to find a decent H.C. thinking I got a good price since the newer lens was going for much more. When I stumbled on this particular lens the seller was offering it for $169. Needless to say I couldn't resist.
You speak about "immaculate" samples, but as I recall lenses in your kit suffered since the person doing your conversions did not treat them kindly. I don't know whether you've seen how Jose handles conversions, which he does himself, but he does an amazing job of both finding inexpensive pre-AI lenses in pristine condition and doing impeccable work making the cut and repainting the aperture ring. Of course, you now are mounting these lenses on your Sony, so there is no need to be cutting the aperture ring. I understand you have so many of these old Nikkors that you likely are no longer in the market, which is my situation as well. Inspired by you I've added 24 pre-AI lenses to a kit that already included 23 AI and AI-s lenses...
With regard to the 50 f/1.4 S I have to say I don't own one. I bought the S.C. version of that old lens. But I also was inspired by folks on this thread to add both a 5cm f/2 S and a 5.8cm f/1.4 S which are delightful lenses with which to play. Perhaps you'd like to try out the 5.8 to see how that performs on the Sony. Great to have you back on the thread Ben. You add a bit of what I call "snap, crackle and pop..." ...Show more →
$169!! No??!! That's crazy. I don't know how you do it. I never find bargains.
Yes, I have the 50 f1.4 SC too. I was so impressed with the S that I figured the SC would be better with all those coatings (and they were cheap in those days, under $100), but no, it didn't turn out that way. Nothing wrong with my SC but my 50S is special. Might just be sample variation .
Yes, I've got the 5.8 too - got sucked in by Jose.
As for your 24 pre-ai lenses, that's not on me, that's all you sir. And it's probably not too late for therapy......just saying. I suggested one or two gems from the pre-ai line but you went out and bought 24!
ramkumar999 wrote:
Alright. Its mine. Will be shipping soon. Now I will need to run a three way comparision between the 135mm f3.5 Q, 135mm f2.8 AI and 135mm f2 and decide which one to let go. Most probably it will be the f2.8 version which I have no complaints but is priced similar and easiest to be sold.
I have been thinking about thinning the herd but never given some solid thought.
That was before I bought the two 135 f/3.5 Q AI lenses now in my kit, so I'll look forward to your comparison... I came away from this exercise much impressed with the very reasonably priced 135 f/2.8 Q.C. and proceeded to recommend it on this thread. There were a few takers who were as happy as I was with a poor man's version of the f/2 lens. Honestly, I love them all. Well done Ram!
gbohannon wrote:
Ben if you want to have fun with Nikkor and the XT-2 dip your toe into the old Nikkor Rangefinder lens waters in either S mount or LTM on the Fuji. Great experience and the rendering of those old lenses is great.
George
George, don't you start - the last thing this thread needs is another enabler. I'm going to give the 50S a spin on the XT2 for Leighton this weekend. We'll see how it goes. I've used my nikkors (and Leica M ) on the XT2. It's fun to play around, but I find the adapters are a pain and the Fuji primes are so good, so very good, that I always end up wondering what the bloody hell I'm doing.
But, for Leighton, I'm going to go very "lens gendered".
ben
bruni wrote:
George, don't you start - the last thing this thread needs is another enabler. I'm going to give the 50S a spin on the XT2 for Leighton this weekend. We'll see how it goes. I've used my nikkors (and Leica M ) on the XT2. It's fun to play around, but I find the adapters are a pain and the Fuji primes are so good, so very good, that I always end up wondering what the bloody hell I'm doing.
But, for Leighton, I'm going to go very "lens gendered".
ben
Actually Ben, this thread THRIVES on having multiple enablers... Of course, we could interpret such behavior simply as friends encouraging friends to expand their horizons as you did for me with the pre-AI lenses. I couldn't be more delighted than to have begun that next chapter of my adventure. Especially now that I'm shooting with the Df, I delight in shooting with older lenses. In fact, it is rare when I have a later version manual focus lens in my camera bag.
That was before I bought the two 135 f/3.5 Q AI lenses now in my kit, so I'll look forward to your comparison... I came away from this exercise much impressed with the very reasonably priced 135 f/2.8 Q.C. and proceeded to recommend it on this thread. There were a few takers who were as happy as I was with a poor man's version of the f/2 lens. Honestly, I love them all. Well done Ram!
Damn you Curtis - you're sucking me in again. I'm interested in the K, and especially the QC. I see a lot of Q versions on ebay - and they're very cheap. Is there much difference between the Q and QC?
bruni wrote:
George, don't you start - the last thing this thread needs is another enabler. I'm going to give the 50S a spin on the XT2 for Leighton this weekend. We'll see how it goes. I've used my nikkors (and Leica M ) on the XT2. It's fun to play around, but I find the adapters are a pain and the Fuji primes are so good, so very good, that I always end up wondering what the bloody hell I'm doing.
But, for Leighton, I'm going to go very "lens gendered".
ben
Ben - do you like old lenses? Check out these - all adapted for Fuji or Sony for that matter
(repost from the past but new to Ben)
Last picture below shot with the 3.5cm LTM in the first picture. Classic rendering ACROS simulation. Minimal post processing.
Heck, even every so often > I < get into the enabling act
CGrindahl wrote:
Actually Ben, this thread THRIVES on having multiple enablers... Of course, we could interpret such behavior simply as friends encouraging friends to expand their horizons as you did for me with the pre-AI lenses. I couldn't be more delighted than to have begun that next chapter of my adventure. Especially now that I'm shooting with the Df, I delight in shooting with older lenses. In fact, it is rare when I have a later version manual focus lens in my camera bag.
bruni wrote:
Damn you Curtis - you're sucking me in again. I'm interested in the K, and especially the QC. I see a lot of Q versions on ebay - and they're very cheap. Is there much difference between the Q and QC?
I really wasn't much interested in the 135 f/3.5 Q because I already had four lenses at the focal length. It was when I bought the Df that I began looking more closely at that early lens, in part because it is such a beauty that really fits perfectly on my silver Df. I stumbled on two converted lenses around the same time and somehow ended up buying them both. I honestly don't know how that happened since I was only interested in one. But one was $51 and the other $65 so no hardship there...
Here is a photo of 135 Q with a few other familiar pre-AI lenses.
It is important to remember the 135 f/2.8 Q.C. is a bigger and faster lens. I always thought of it as a small version of the 180 f/2.8 AI-s in its performance. It produces some luscious images. Here is a moment in time showing the 135mm lenses in my kit. On the right are TWO f/2.8 Q.C. lenses. In reality I bought three, but one was for David H. in Australia. Eventually I sold one of the two below as well.
[/url[url=https://flic.kr/p/L1DFzB]55.1.2.SC.135Family.02 by Curtis Grindahl, on Flickr
I've told the story of the K purchase... I was looking for a Q.C. after more than one glass of single malt and bought the wrong lens... the K. I was more interested in earlier versions at the time so a lens with a rubber focusing ring was not at the top of my list. But it is a beauty with the same optical design as the Q.C. I appreciate the slightly larger form, though I'm definitely a fan of the f/3.5. I think for mounting on the Sony you'd like the smaller form factor. Honestly, you can't go wrong with any of these lenses. And you should be able to STEAL an older unconverted copy of either the Q or the faster Q.C. Happy shopping Ben...
Chris Dees wrote:
The "problem" with the 135/2.8 QC is it has no scalloped focussing.
That is a problem only for the few of us who became obsessed with scalloped metal focusing rings... I know you're in that club... so am I. That is why the f/3.5 Q stays in the camera bag and the f/2.8 Q.C. stays in the cabinet...
AND, I don't own a f/3.5 Q.C. for exactly the reason you mention. It has improved coatings but gives away the silver nose... I don't think that matters to Ben.
I regret getting rid of my 135/2.8 QC. But that thing is so darn heavy! I bought the battery grip for the X-T2, so It may come back to my bag one of these days.
Curtis, that comparison pic you posted was the one that lead me to the QC in the first place.
I'm off to do laundry but I'll drop one photo from my trip on the thread. This during a baseball game Monday evening between the Minnesota Twins and the New York Yankees... won by the Twins. This was shot from my seat with the 105 f/2.5 P AI.
!! No??!! That's crazy. I don't know how you do it. I never find bargains.
Of course, we could interpret such behavior simply as friends encouraging friends to expand their horizons as you did for me with the pre-AI lenses. I couldn't be more delighted than to have begun that next chapter of my adventure. Especially now that I'm shooting with the Df, I delight in shooting with older lenses. In fact, it is rare when I have a later version manual focus lens in my camera bag.
I don't think that matters to Ben.