Kevin,
I have used it with my 14mm f2.8 Rokinon, 17mm f3.5 ai Tokina, but it really isn't necessary because you can focus by the numbers on the lens barrel. Where the modified tc-16a really shines is with my 24mm f2.8 ais.These were lit by a single curly-Q florescent bulb on the ceiling and the room seemed dark. The 28mm, 35mm seem to work well too.
I couldn't get the photo post to go up to FM, and kept getting a "forbidden words" warning? I was just writing about the rare 100 year old rosewood instrument my son restored.
Jim
kwoodard wrote:
I don’t think I have ever thought to use a teleconverter with anything shorter than a 135mm. These kind of have a feel like using a 35 on a good crop sensor. I like these a lot!
Finally, I got a break from work (Spring break this week). I went to Borderland State Park, North Easton, MA. I brought both my Df and the D850. These pictures are with the Df. and 45mm f2.8.
milt wrote:
Finally, I got a break from work (Spring break this week). I went to Borderland State Park, North Easton, MA. I brought both my Df and the D850. These pictures are with the Df. and 45mm f2.8.
Kingfishphoto wrote:
Rafael.
Istarted with the male for many images, then the female arrived and perched on several rocks, post etc, and left. The male t hey went into the cry, miss you mode and much nois e e tc. T hen she came back and lande d near him, but kind od kept her distance. T hose cries and feathers r uffled would have made a great video.
Harry
Continuing my weird lens sessions with the humble bouquet. No roses, they are wilting.
Rayfact 90mm 1:4. This lens shares the odd central hotspot with the R-Nikkor 5cm, if any light hits the front element, a central circular area gets whitish, but all it takes is a shade to fix this.
Vignetting added.
There is a 60mm 2.8 D somewhere but it can't be seen here.
If you want to do micro work just get the 55mm 3.5 F for $60 or the 105mm 1:4 F for $120, these can do flowers and insects as good as any of the others.
There is a 60mm 2.8 D somewhere but it can't be seen here.
If you want to do micro work just get the 55mm 3.5 F for $60 or the 105mm 1:4 F for $120, these can do flowers and insects as good as any of the others....Show more →
When all I shot was macro/micro I lusted after the Comparator Nikkor 31.25X. At the time I had the right gear to make use of the lens. I knew an older gentleman who had this lens and some of his work was amazing. Used it for circuit boards and fine engravings on currency and very old bibles. I lost touch with him in the 90’s when I moved back to the US and he died shortly after I got here. All of his camera gear was donated to the German equivalent of Goodwill.
GroWeb wrote:
Thanks George! I agree: see my comment about Serge's post.
Thanks Serge! I continue to greatly enjoy the vicarious tour of Europe you provide through your skillful use of your X-E1.
Thanks Rafael. That is a fine set of flower photos you posted today!
Thanks Ray. That water lily image is poster-worthy!
Here is my final set of photos from the flight museum outside Winnipeg, along with a very last image from Fort William that got left behind on my hard drive. These were all shot with the Fuji X-E2 and the first three, at least, were taken with the 16 f/3.5 Ai fisheye.
Did you measure the seat pitch and width to compare to today's aircraft? The seat depth alone looks better. Great shot.
---------------------------------------------
cadman342001 wrote:
Loved the owl shot Harry ! I have seen a few shots of these Burrowing Owls, I presume they are not nocturnal? And endemic to the Americas ?
Here's a pano using the 105/1.8 from the shore of Lake Wakatipu with snowy mountains behind, luxury hotel on the lakeside beyond. Wide open on the GFX50S
Quite a pano, and the OOF looks great, with just the hint of that hotel. Love snow creeping down a mountain that is still green.
---------------------------------------------
AdaptedLenses wrote:
George, love that last shot with the Millennium and Andy, that’s outstanding. Does the structure have a purpose? Or just someone having fun.
One from the other morning, hint of the Milky Way. AIS 28mm f/2.8, need to get a taller tripod next time.
20 seconds at 28mm seems to break the "no star trails" rule for astro, but what do I know? I like how you made this picture work.
---------------------------------------------
rafaelcasd wrote:
Continuing my weird lens sessions with the humble bouquet. No roses, they are wilting.
Rayfact 90mm 1:4. This lens shares the odd central hotspot with the R-Nikkor 5cm, if any light hits the front element, a central circular area gets whitish, but all it takes is a shade to fix this.
Vignetting added.
You just proved your previous post, it's mostly the photographer that creates the image feel. You've got some great sets out of that one bouquet. And those macro lens bling shots are one reason to keep coming back to this thread, aside from the friendly chat and warm atmosphere.
serge07 wrote:
Thanks, Glen and glad you enjoy the travel photos.
I seem to enjoy cameras with quirks and its simplicity and small size/weight are huge plusses when traveling. On these trips, the camera bag is with me 10-12 hours daily. The camera has been through all sorts of weather and still looks like the day it was purchased.
You have been posting excellent photographs with the X-E2 which in my view was the last great X-E design. Do you still have the X-E2, nothing wrong with the 16mp chip.
Serge
Thanks for the compliment, Serge! No, I sold the X-E2 after buying an X-T2 and discovering that I couldn't entice my wife to develop an interest in photography and adopt the X-E2 for her use.
pbraymond wrote:
Did you measure the seat pitch and width to compare to today's aircraft? The seat depth alone looks better. Great shot.
No, Ray, I didn't have a tape measure with me, and I didn't think of the idea of measuring the seating space. However, at a glance, the width is not much different from modern seats, but the distance between rows (pitch?) was evidently much greater than today's knee-crushers!
My next series of 2017 cross-Canada photos will be from the Prairies, including the three below, all courtesy of the Fuji X-E2 and unspecified MFNG.
There is a 60mm 2.8 D somewhere but it can't be seen here.
If you want to do micro work just get the 55mm 3.5 F for $60 or the 105mm 1:4 F for $120, these can do flowers and insects as good as any of the others....Show more →
Ray, technically does pass the 500 threshold but then it’s not too far over. Just depends on how technically perfect an image has to be. I’m not sure if you’re using MF legacy glass technical perfection and sharpness is priority 1!
Rafael, you framing and editing on the floral shots is about perfect. Curious to know your developing and sharpening?
rafaelcasd wrote:
Continuing my weird lens sessions with the humble bouquet. No roses, they are wilting.
Rayfact 90mm 1:4. This lens shares the odd central hotspot with the R-Nikkor 5cm, if any light hits the front element, a central circular area gets whitish, but all it takes is a shade to fix this.
Vignetting added.
Had a walk around another nearby peninsular, the next one over from the Botanical Gardens.
If you recall the steamer the TSS Earnslaw that runs on the lake I posted a while ago, this is the old wharf, there is an engine in the shed that was used to haul the sled up the shore, repurposed from an earlier boat, the Antrim.
There is a 60mm 2.8 D somewhere but it can't be seen here.
If you want to do micro work just get the 55mm 3.5 F for $60 or the 105mm 1:4 F for $120, these can do flowers and insects as good as any of the others....Show more →
