Fujifilm X-S10 + adapter + Nikkor 300mm f/4.5K ED (non-IF), ISO 1000, wide open at 1/400s. 38% cropped (10/26MP).
Jose, thought you may find this interesting. I went out around 2 this afternoon to feed the chickens and a Bald Eagle took off from out the trees nearby and flew up the back field out of site. I didn't even know it was there but Karma spotted it and starting barking, which scared it out of the trees. It's very rare to see these magnificent birds this close. I only wish I had my camera with me.
James Markus wrote:
Scott,
Though I stayed at the wide end - I couldn't get decent focus at any setting in IR with my copy of the 25-50mm f4. However, on a normal full spectrum camera it is very sharp?
Jim
Yes, Jim, on a regular camera it is a great lens. It is very sharp, but still retains that vintage lens character. I used it on my Z5 with great results. Here is a link to my post with a couple of test shots with this lens: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/1737#16058798
Follow the links under the photos to view larger. I didn't apply any sharpening to either of the photos.
The ratings for zooms area means [(shorter + medium + longer/3)]; for my 25-50/4 the only usable range is at 50mm too, as your findings Scott. Looks like a pattern for the lens.
I agree completely with your findings. As I stopped down, the hotspot grew in intensity. It seemed that it was much worse at the short focal lengths of the lens, but I'm just going by memory. I may have been imagining this. Thanks for posting the chart with your research. I'm going to save it for future reference, if you don't mind.
Ken Hill wrote:
Pushing the 18mm to its limit on Presque Isle. The first shot shows the POV of the lens, the rest are as a result of cropping to the max.
My personal thoughts are that this guy needs to try out for the Olympics of dive off some of Mexico's cliffs
OK, so George asked, every time I test a lens I end up questioning my method, so hard to get the exact same focus, the same light from the sky, the same composition even.
But I am a sucker for this. These two lenses should be compared with a good looking human portrait, none were around today, wait for the weekend.
50mm 1.4 F not MC, the one dead center here, on FTZ to Z6
All at 1.4, ISO 100, shutter speed 1/8000. RAW of course.
Lens in the file name, files 100% in Flickr. Period filters on each lens, as this is how I use them. Processing copy paste except for minor exposure adjustment in post where noted.
These two are particularly troublesome as the different in contrast was not fully credible, but I did set the sky to exactly the same brightness value in the JPG.
Ken Hill wrote:
Pushing the 18mm to its limit on Presque Isle. The first shot shows the POV of the lens, the rest are as a result of cropping to the max.
My personal thoughts are that this guy needs to try out for the Olympics of dive off some of Mexico's cliffs
That's quite a sequence, full burst? How'd you fare on the jump?
New Zealand's most famous tree. After it was featured in a Natgeo win many years ago.
From all the photos I've seen, well, I was not prepared for its size.
Nor the gloomy weather
asiostygius wrote:
Hum, this confirms the bad rating for my copy of the same lens, at least for my IR modified D600 (720nm) chart:
...
The ratings for zooms area means [(shorter + medium + longer/3)]; for my 25-50/4 the only usable range is at 50mm too, as your findings Scott. Looks like a pattern for the lens.
Thank you very much for posting this chart, José! Between your chart and the list here I was able to figure out whether all but a very few of my MFN lenses would be useful for IR. My newly converted Fuji X-T2 is supposed to arrive in the mail tomorrow, so your timing could not be better for my purposes!
Here are a few more photos from the Vancouver Island circle route, all of which were shot in the forest. They were taken, respectively, with the 16 f/3.5 Ai, the 24 f/2 Ai-s (x2), and the 55 f/1.2 SC.
Zichar wrote:
New Zealand's most famous tree. After it was featured in a Natgeo win many years ago.
From all the photos I've seen, well, I was not prepared for its size.
Nor the gloomy weather
Thank you very much for posting this chart, José! Between your chart and the list here I was able to figure out whether all but a very few of my MFN lenses would be useful for IR. My newly converted Fuji X-T2 is supposed to arrive in the mail tomorrow, so your timing could not be better for my purposes!
Here are a few more photos from the Vancouver Island circle route, all of which were shot in the forest. They were taken, respectively, with the 16 f/3.5 Ai, the 24 f/2 Ai-s (x2), and the 55 f/1.2 SC.
The image with the log does it for me. Looking forward to seeing what the X-T2 can do as an IR kit.
Have had some beautiful mornings by the river lately. Couple from the 24mm f2.8 AIS. Also got Lenstagger based on reading it here, what a great resource!
Thank Rafael! Now I MUST stop looking at the Millennium Nikon S kit, must stop, must stop and blacklist eBay listings.
Wait, was that a notification that popped up??
rafaelcasd wrote:
OK, so George asked, every time I test a lens I end up questioning my method, so hard to get the exact same focus, the same light from the sky, the same composition even.
But I am a sucker for this. These two lenses should be compared with a good looking human portrait, none were around today, wait for the weekend.
50mm 1.4 F not MC, the one dead center here, on FTZ to Z6
All at 1.4, ISO 100, shutter speed 1/8000. RAW of course.
Lens in the file name, files 100% in Flickr. Period filters on each lens, as this is how I use them. Processing copy paste except for minor exposure adjustment in post where noted.
These two are particularly troublesome as the different in contrast was not fully credible, but I did set the sky to exactly the same brightness value in the JPG.
