Y’all got me wanting to start scouring the local thrift stores for HiFi setups. I’d never get around to turning it on, but I know there’s some great equipment out there.
A couple to move the photos along, 28mm f/2.8 AIS and morning sunshine.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
So first a note, sorry to disappoint, but the 105 PC is not perspective control. It refers to penta
Understood. I looked up the SN. It is the model just before the one I have. I'm not sure what my friend meant about a reversible hood. My hood screws on backwards too. It would be one way to carry the hood without it sticking out so far and risk being knocked off, but certainly not for use. The focus ring s inaccessible that way
------------------------------------
grantgoodes wrote:
I personally would be thrilled to have an F2 drop into my lap:...
Thanks for the comments. I am indeed excited about the whole package. I recall the F2 being "The Camera" back in the day. And I would figure out those filters pretty quickly, I'm sure.
---------------------------------------------
James Markus wrote:
Before you start your film journey watch the movie "Tampopo" about the perfect Japanese ramen bowl, and the perfect Japanese omelette. It is good to get in the right mood for these things. ... However, exploring is half the fun - enjoy
Will do! (FWIW, I retire at the end of April and should have much more time that I'll need to fill. The pursuit of perfection, especially if it involves ramen or omelettes is a good place to start!) I will surely be asking again about film options.
In the meantime, none of you has said anything about batteries.
jimmuller wrote:
Understood. I looked up the SN. It is the model just before the one I have. I'm not sure what my friend meant about a reversible hood. My hood screws on backwards too. It would be one way to carry the hood without it sticking out so far and risk being knocked off, but certainly not for use. The focus ring s inaccessible that way
Doubtless the hood referred to is the HS-4 or HS-8 "snap-on" hood, which can be placed in-reverse on the lens for storage. Many (including the legendary Bjørn Rørslett) had a hate-on for Nikon's HS hoods as they had a tendency to fall off when in use. The best hood for the 105/2.5 is the HN-8 screw-in hood which literally can't fall off, but also can't be reversed for storage.
grantgoodes wrote:
Doubtless the hood referred to is the HS-4 or HS-8 "snap-on" hood, which can be placed in-reverse on the lens for storage.
That makes sense. Mine is an HS-8 which I found on eBay $5. The threads are good (not all I saw on eBay had good threads) and it seems to screw on snugly forward or reversed. But the "for storage" bit makes sense. Thanks.
jimmuller wrote:
In the meantime, none of you has said anything about batteries.
I find mine on Amazon. There are silver oxide replacements for many mercury oxide batteries, or adapters for existing batteries to work in place of the original battery. I usually spend most of my time hunting on line for the correct battery that has at least 2-3 people verify that it works. Pen FT, Yashica GT, Nikon FM etc.
I think I am done with non-ai lens acquisitions. This last one was actually factory ai'd, but sold as a fungus infested non-ai (no good photos to determine but the price was great). After a good exterior cleaning - I'm not sure I want to bother opening it up to finish cleaning it as It performs pretty good - imo. My lens jis screw drivers & wrenches are complaining however
Ran a little test against the 20mm f2.8 ais and both perform good. The older UD is slightly slower, softer, and has less contrast. It also has less shadow detail (not sure why). However, in terms of aesthetics - it is a pretty lens.
D850_w-Nikkor-P.C_55mm-f3.5-ai'd-of the Nikkor-UD 20mm f3.5 ai'd lens
What was supose to be a non-ai family photo L>R 135mm - 5.8 cm - 50mm - 35mm - 20mm
Ripolini wrote: James Markus wroteIt also has less shadow detail (not sure why).The older 20/3.5 UD seems to have more vignetting.
If the aperture in the text overlay on each pic is actual rather than the lens' maximum (the way my Z5-II w/FTZ records only the max aperture), then the comparison is between slightly different apertures. On my monitor they show as slightly different overall brightness. I wonder how they would compare with both lenses at, say, f/3.5 or f/4.
FWIW, the Thousand and One Nights #20 describes the 20mm UD with passing remarks at the end about its successors. It's a tough but entertaining read.
What's the buzz, tell me what's a'happenin', what's the buzz, tell me what's a'happenin'...
kwoodard wrote: jimmuller wrotemjgphotoz wroteColin, Kevin, the correct term is "male selective hearing".
MaryI'm sorry, did you say something?All I’m hearing is a buzz…
Ripolini wrote: James Markus wroteIt also has less shadow detail (not sure why).The older 20/3.5 UD seems to have more vignetting.
I do not did think it is the lens causing the larger vignet, The outer barrel is also a hood held on by a set screw. It isn't fully seated (see the large gap between the two series of front rings by the "Nikkor" engraving). It wiggles a bit. I need to loosen the screw and push it fully on then tighten. I paid more than twice as much for the separate 20mm f2.8 ais hood (HK-14) than this f3.5 lens. The hood slips over the exterior barrel, and if not fully seated it causes a vignet as well.
But you have to give the UD "style points" just based on that beautiful build with scalloped focusing ring and aperture ring and when paired with the original hood
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Difference in contrast is pretty shocking. Quite possibly why I never cared for the UD personally, but probably edits fine.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Difference in contrast is pretty shocking. Quite possibly why I never cared for the UD personally, but probably edits fine.
Yes, it is noticeable. However, after shooting the 645Z for a while - I really appreciate getting flatter raw files where I can control micro contrast in post processing. The photos in the listing focused on damage to the coatings in a classical fungus pattern. After cleaning a couple times it really minimized much of it. I had intended to remove the coating altogether since it was on the exterior of the front element. (very odd place)
GeorgeBo wrote:
But you have to give the UD "style points" just based on that beautiful build with scalloped focusing ring and aperture ring and when paired with the original hood
AdaptedLenses wroteDifference in contrast is pretty shocking. Quite possibly why I never cared for the UD personally, but probably edits fine.
It is one of the reasons I got it - it is one of the prettiest Nikkors + I was itching to work on a lens.
jimmuller wrote: Ripolini wroteJames Markus wroteIt also has less shadow detail (not sure why).The older 20/3.5 UD seems to have more vignetting.If the aperture in the text overlay on each pic is actual rather than the lens' maximum (the way my Z5-II w/FTZ records only the max aperture), then the comparison is between slightly different apertures. On my monitor they show as slightly different overall brightness. I wonder how they would compare with both lenses at, say, f/3.5 or f/4.
FWIW, the Thousand and One Nights #20 describes the 20mm UD with passing remarks at the end about its successors. It's a tough but entertaining read.
The fully open aperture difference is what I wanted to see. How much more separation from the background would f2.8 give compared to f3.5. I see the difference. The first two are full frame, and the next two are crops (upper left corner) to show focus and shadow detail differences.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Difference in contrast is pretty shocking. Quite possibly why I never cared for the UD personally, but probably edits fine.
True but the overall brightness is, ah, brighter in the newer lens. That's how it looks to me anyway. Which says you want the extra brightness, which is what JM was looking for, I believe.
