Well, I'd gotten this IR converted camera in the last couple years, and kept forgetting I had it. Had it yesterday as I planned to go to a park after work yesterday to test it out, but work jinx kicked in and I wound up not getting home till almost 630.
Attached was the 105 f/2.5 AI-s. If I ever have time, I need to figure out how to do the white balance thing, I had a note here to do it but...
I do miss walking through there. Used to get off the T there and there'd be a one man band playing by the T entrance who was pretty good. Also various other interesting characters trying to get a little money for their next bottle of cheap wine, like every city has...
milt wrote:
Laura, I cycled by the reservoir but never went there to take pictures. I often go to the Arnold Arboretum and have taken tons of pictures; however, none with manual lenses (next trip, I will bring my 200 micro). I explored Boston a lot on my bike, so I never dared to take my big camera.
Here one of the Boston Common with 24mm 2.8 (I am learning how to use the 24mm, I still prefer the 45mm and 50mm)
milt wrote:
Rafael, sorry for the misunderstanding! The holy trinity is the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm f 2.8 autofocus. I have only the 85mm 1.4 (the D version of the autofocus). Unfortunately, I do not have the manual lenses 85 and 105, but
I do have the manual 135mm 2.8.
I bought all my manual lenses locally. I do not dare to buy from eBay.
Regina.
The 135mm 2.8 is an excellent lens Regina.
I am an eBay advocate, as long as one buys a returnable item and pays with Paypal; their buyer protections are great. But it takes time to find a good buy.
It is proper to redefine divinity for lenses! Divine to me are the 10mm OP, 8mm 2.8, 15mm 5.6, 16mm 3.5, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 55mm 1.2, 55mm 1.2 CRT, 58mm 1.2, 70mm micro, 85mm 1.4, 135mm 2.0, 180mm 2.8, 200mm 2.0, 400mm 3.5, 800mm 5.6 - all MF - there are lesser divinities as well, worth owning.
But there is lens freedom and each one can define holiness as one believes; as for RF Nikkors, I am waiting for the lottery to buy the rare ones.
Jman13 wrote:
So, I just picked up this guy. (as an aside, I always forget how good KEH Bargain grade lenses are...just some fine superficial marks, mostly on the hood, and one decent sized speck of dust in the lens.).
Have barely had a chance to shoot anything with it, but first impressions are very positive. Rather sharp, and a gorgeous rendering. Just two quick test shots outside after getting the lens - D750 w/ AIS 180mm f/2.8 ED:
Jman13 wrote:
I don’t believe so. Over the years, I’ve only owned two Nikon lenses before the last 2 weeks (non-AI 35 PC and the 105/2.5 about 10 years ago, and I think I posted images from there in the Alt image thread at the time). I recently picked up a D750 and a handful of affordable lenses, but I’m primarily a Canon shooter (R5 and R8).
I wasn’t going to get a lens like the 180 at first, but it’ll be a great lens to bring out on my Canon bodies too from time to time.
Jordan, we would suffer your Canon bodies gladly to see photos from the 180mm ED.
rafaelcasd wrote:
The 135mm 2.8 is an excellent lens Regina.
I am an eBay advocate, as long as one buys a returnable item and pays with Paypal; their buyer protections are great. But it takes time to find a good buy.
It is proper to redefine divinity for lenses! Divine to me are the 10mm OP, 8mm 2.8, 15mm 5.6, 16mm 3.5, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, 55mm 1.2, 55mm 1.2 CRT, 58mm 1.2, 70mm micro, 85mm 1.4, 135mm 2.0, 180mm 2.8, 200mm 2.0, 400mm 3.5, 800mm 5.6 - all MF - there are lesser divinities as well, worth owning.
But there is lens freedom and each one can define holiness as one believes; as for RF Nikkors, I am waiting for the lottery to buy the rare ones. ...Show more →
Rafael, I got a 55mm 1.2 and returned it because it was sold as AI and was non-AI (I know we can use it on the Zs, but not on my D850).
Jose - Nice shot of the Brazilian Pepper Tree. This attracted many birds at a favorite bird watching location, but the park cut it down because it was non-native and the sap toxic like Poison Ivy. It seemed particularly interesting to Blue and Rose Breasted Grosbeaks who dined on the berries without apparent ill effect
Samy, spot heal those few tiny reflective spots, use all of those D850 pixels, and print that wall hanger BIG !!!!! Beautiful lighting, composition and subject! Love it!
James Markus wrote:
I want to work on my color IR profile some more, but the black and white profile exceeds my expectations by a mile. Controlling the highlights has always been a challenge for me in IR. With the old 5D I had to chimp focus, and bracket exposure resulting in, many frames to get best exposure, and focus. With this rig it is way way easier. I not only can see the focus through live view, but also the exposure. Really chuffed about live view - thank you Colin.
Jim, in one posting you've helped me solidify my thoughts on IR cameras. I was toying around in ebay recently looking at IR converted cameras, hoping to be able to expand shooting around harsher sunlight with the IR potential on the really cheap. Your posting definitely has me convinced that if I do make the jump, I want live view of some sort, either a more recent DSLR or a mirrorless converted.
Ray,
I use to own a 6 x 9 cm Zeiss SuperIkonta with a 105mm Tessar lens that you focused by "windage, and prayer". You hoped the barrel markings were accurate, and you found out after the film was processed if you got the shot. The move to SLR with the 1935 or 1936 Exa Ia and ground glass finders (owned one these as well) - then split prisms. Egads, there was no excuse missing focus anymore. With the approach I took took shooting IR with the 5D it felt like I was back to the Zeiss SuperIkonta again. I can see critical focus occur in real time, and the exposure changes with any shutter speed change, or f-stop change. For a guy that shoots at least 95% of the time in manual mode (ISO, f-stop. shutter speed, degress K white balance all determined by me} Live view is amazing to me.
pbraymond wrote:
Jim, in one posting you've helped me solidify my thoughts on IR cameras. I was toying around in ebay recently looking at IR converted cameras, hoping to be able to expand shooting around harsher sunlight with the IR potential on the really cheap. Your posting definitely has me convinced that if I do make the jump, I want live view of some sort, either a more recent DSLR or a mirrorless converted.
pbraymond wrote:
Jim, in one posting you've helped me solidify my thoughts on IR cameras. I was toying around in ebay recently looking at IR converted cameras, hoping to be able to expand shooting around harsher sunlight with the IR potential on the really cheap. Your posting definitely has me convinced that if I do make the jump, I want live view of some sort, either a more recent DSLR or a mirrorless converted.
Ray,
Do some research before buying a Z camera that has been converted to IR. The phase detect AF pixels buried in the sensor array can cause banding issues that, to me, could ruin a shot where the sky is uniform dark grey.
The guy who raised the question in the above thread was super helpful after I reached out to him (Scottie, fellow Brit). He even sent me some RAW files. The banding was sufficient for me to halt an IR Z camera purchase. If you are interested enough I can forward on some additional info - PM me.
Whilst writing this I am now wondering how LR's denoise feature would handle the banding. Experiment on its way......
Do some research before buying a Z camera that has been converted to IR. The phase detect AF pixels buried in the sensor array can cause banding issues that, to me, could ruin a shot where the sky is uniform dark grey.
The guy who raised the question in the above thread was super helpful after I reached out to him (Scottie, fellow Brit). He even sent me some RAW files. The banding was sufficient for me to halt an IR Z camera purchase. If you are interested enough I can forward on some additional info - PM me.
Whilst writing this I am now wondering how LR's denoise feature would handle the banding. Experiment on its way......
So, that was very interesting. LR's denoise did an excellent job of removing the PDAF induced IR banding from my donor Z5 raw image. The banding can be seen as thin, regularly spaced dark horizontal lines on any large uniform background.
Because I know about it I can still see the odd minor artifact/remnant in a uniform grey sky after denoising - but if you didn't know banding existed you would never notice it after denoise has been applied. Now my interest in a Z IR camera has been raised again armed with the knowledge that any images (worthy of keeping) with large uniform areas can be saved at the expense of another processing step and companion DNG file.
Jim, live view is cheating Its not fun until you look through a fogged and very dim finder of an Ikonta folder and try to figure out focus and composition
James Markus wrote:
Ray,
I use to own a 6 x 9 cm Zeiss SuperIkonta with a 105mm Tessar lens that you focused by "windage, and prayer". You hoped the barrel markings were accurate, and you found out after the film was processed if you got the shot. The move to SLR with the 1935 or 1936 Exa Ia and ground glass finders (owned one these as well) - then split prisms. Egads, there was no excuse missing focus anymore. With the approach I took took shooting IR with the 5D it felt like I was back to the Zeiss SuperIkonta again. I can see critical focus occur in real time, and the exposure changes with any shutter speed change, or f-stop change. For a guy that shoots at least 95% of the time in manual mode (ISO, f-stop. shutter speed, degress K white balance all determined by me} Live view is amazing to me.
An example of a rare success (mostly) with the Airesflex TLR. The magnifier part of the top hood doesn't quite align, so its a bit of a squint and guess, but this time it did work.
I believe aperture was ~f/5.6. Film is Fuji Pro 400H.
This guy has been drumming away at the buckets since well before the pandemic at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore. I was glad to see he is still around. Other street performers that used to hang around in the area seem to have moved on.
Mary and others, thanks for the comments on those shots. Mary, the color is thanks to the dense haze in the area. While it helped the pictures and contrast, my lungs are still in recovery since I made the mistake of spending over an hour out and about maskless in that air.
Rafael, good demo of the 135 3.5 9 blade. Its an under-appreciated lens. asiostygius wrote:
And now, something completely different (from birds), with Chuong's (ex)lens:
