This lens is really only good for film, and it is probably excellent for it. Did try to mount it on the Z6, but only half heartedly as I am afraid to damage the shutter. So the lens was still too far out an only f/16 gave me a photo that was usable. I have owned 4 of these lenses, and sold or returned them all due to cosmetic or glass defects. Due to their weird mounting it is easy to damage the lens, or the rear cap, the Nikon viewfinder is also optically good but very flimsy. The rear of the lens is so close to the sensor that it gets color artifacts on the sides.
Will reserve for film only. The Voigtlander is much better and easy to mount onto Fs or Zs.
rafaelcasd wrote:
Glen, I have been watching these quietly as I learn to see in infrared through yours and James Photos. Maybe the D800 needs to get the treatment.
I've been greatly enjoying my developing relationship with infrared, Rafael, so I would definitely encourage you to join in on the fun. I learned that there are factors to consider in choosing the camera body to have converted, including a DSLR versus mirrorless factor. I chose a mirrorless body for two reasons: 1. I had one that had just been rendered redundant; 2. It appeared to be the better option, all else being equal. I find using my X-T2 for IR to be almost exactly like using it for regular photography pre-conversion. I know that Jim is using a converted DSLR, so he would be able to speak on what that is like. LifePixel has a page that outlines the camera considerations here; in fact, their site provides a ton of information about the overall conversion process and the available options.
Here are a few more infrared images from my Forbidden Plateau adventures. The first one is from the 24 f/2.8 NC and the others are from the 50 f/1.2 Ai-s.
Rafael, Here is the un-cropped frame. Notice how low the bird is in the frame - it is because I had been shooting snake grass for the umpteenth time and left the focus point low. Out of 8 frames 5 were sharp. A couple days earlier I shot Downy, Red-bellied, and Pileated woodpeckers as well as Bald eagles multiple times with either Canon or Nikon AF gear. Two other serious Photographers were running around with 600mm lenses and when I was on the ridge...the eagles and woodpeckers were on the ridge, but the two guys were by the river. When I was by the river the birds followed me down, but the two guys had moved to my previous position. I never expected to be chasing birds again - and the birds were around me in very close proximity with Chickadees, Nuthatches, Titmouse, Northern Flickers, but in constant motion - almost mocking me with incessant chatter.
Jim
rafaelcasd wrote:
The woodpecker is incredibly sharp considering the amount of cropping your likely had to do. I really like the combination of the TC-16a and the 400mm 3.5, incredibly good at shorter distances.
I'm certainly no expert on IR having just started this journey in January of this year due to Colin's IR contributions to this thread on FM. However,it is addictive and I find I look at scenes differently by considering how the added drama of IR would effect the image. I picked up a used, already converted by Lifepixel, Canon 5D 12.8 MP full frame DSLR. (after making a DIY house brick out of a perfectly good Canon 7D body) During my professional career I always carried both Nikon and Canon gear, and ran a minimum of two cameras. So, this really isn't any different - Just one camera is IR plus I don't carry tons of lenses in roller bags. Just two bodies and two lens trying to anticipate whatever I will shoot that day. I'm having fun, and hoping the foot of snow melts so I can get a few more outdoors days.
First two with the Nikkor-P.C 55mm f3.5 ai'd, and the next two with the 28mm f2.8 ais.
A couple from Westminster Abbey which relaxed its long standing photography ban in October 2020. Tweaked these using a tablet screen so hope they are decent.
rafaelcasd wrote:
Both photos are excellent Ray, the translucency of the red makes it very appealing, the bridal party - life amongst dead trees.
Did not think of the bridal party that way, but good observation!
---------------------------------------------
rafaelcasd wrote:
I am all for it!, send me all your lenses please, I am so nice i will not even charge you admission!
PS: love the color of that panorama.
So generous, Rafael! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure none of my collection will pass the Rafael-condition test, and I would not want to sully the museum collection. I don't think even George's gear photo skills can rescue some of my lenses.
---------------------------------------------
leighton w wrote:
I LOVE THIS. That slice of light coming through the trees definitely makes the image. Also, choosing to process in B&W is icing on the cake.
Thanks Leighton. There were two good mornings with good light and atmospherics that particular week. I do like the B&W myself, though I have to say I stumbled upon it while trying to present a different look than the other shots from that week. The ease of experimenting with B&W processing is really one of the great benefits of shooting digital. Back when I used to do absolute minimal processing and printing B&W in high school (along with the severe limitations of budget), I could never have dreamed of this many options!
--------------------------------------------- AdaptedLenses wrote:
As is this, sublime light.
James Markus wrote:
Rafael, Here is the un-cropped frame. Notice how low the bird is in the frame - it is because I had been shooting snake grass for the umpteenth time and left the focus point low. Out of 8 frames 5 were sharp. A couple days earlier I shot Downy, Red-bellied, and Pileated woodpeckers as well as Bald eagles multiple times with either Canon or Nikon AF gear. Two other serious Photographers were running around with 600mm lenses and when I was on the ridge...the eagles and woodpeckers were on the ridge, but the two guys were by the river. When I was by the river the birds followed me down, but the two guys had moved to my previous position. I never expected to be chasing birds again - and the birds were around me in very close proximity with Chickadees, Nuthatches, Titmouse, Northern Flickers, but in constant motion - almost mocking me with incessant chatter.
Jim
rafaelcasd wrote:
The woodpecker is incredibly sharp considering the amount of cropping your likely had to do. I really like the combination of the TC-16a and the 400mm 3.5, incredibly good at shorter distances.
Hmm, has anyone else noticed anything a little wonky with the site? I responded to a PM and it stalled and stuttered before posting. When I quoted James it attached my post as part of the quote? Hitting the like button not functioning until second or third press? My internet here is working great and I did a quick check of various other sites and all were quick and responsive. I had noticed this a day or so ago but thought it was a one off.
Mary, You somehow lost the close bracket on your quote. Yours reads [/quote it should be [/quote<] with the < removed. I did have two posts show up after I responded to a third post, but I think I was looking at a cached page.
Jim
mjgphotoz wrote:
Hmm, has anyone else noticed anything a little wonky with the site? I responded to a PM and it stalled and stuttered before posting. When I quoted James it attached my post as part of the quote? Hitting the like button not functioning until second or third press? My internet here is working great and I did a quick check of various other sites and all were quick and responsive. I had noticed this a day or so ago but thought it was a one off.
pbraymond wrote:
Thanks Leighton. There were two good mornings with good light and atmospherics that particular week. I do like the B&W myself, though I have to say I stumbled upon it while trying to present a different look than the other shots from that week. The ease of experimenting with B&W processing is really one of the great benefits of shooting digital. Back when I used to do absolute minimal processing and printing B&W in high school (along with the severe limitations of budget), I could never have dreamed of this many options!
This is exactly the reason I find processing as much fun as the actual act of capturing the image.
Iam seeing strange thinks like Mary mentioned. Today two of my older images needed to be clicked on to open like they were not from using Freds posting system.
I also need multiple mouse clicks on this site to get a new/different result.
Harry
James Markus wrote:
Mary, You somehow lost the close bracket on your quote. Yours reads [/quote it should be [/quote<] with the < removed. I did have two posts show up after I responded to a third post, but I think I was looking at a cached page.
Jim
mjgphotoz wrote:
Hmm, has anyone else noticed anything a little wonky with the site? I responded to a PM and it stalled and stuttered before posting. When I quoted James it attached my post as part of the quote? Hitting the like button not functioning until second or third press? My internet here is working great and I did a quick check of various other sites and all were quick and responsive. I had noticed this a day or so ago but thought it was a one off.
Thanks Jim, I did not notice that. Hope this is just a glitch with the site that clears respects the like button and posting on PM.
Guess we shall see.
