James Markus wrote:
Hi everyone,
I know it has been quite a bit since I posted here. I pretty much lost my eyesight last fall due to the side effects of some meds I was on. Couldn't read at all for months and months. Anyway, stopped the meds responsible, and my sight has improved some. These are the first images I have shot in ages. Just seeing how the north light was hitting Phoebe made me run to get my camera out of the studio...
Glad to hear your eyesight is coming back, although slowly. That's the worst thing what can happen to a photographer.
A few years ago I sufferd from an aggressive kind of cataract, 2 eye surgeries later everything is fine again (a few small quirks though). It scared the hell out of me.
James Markus wrote:
Kevin, I don't know how lucky I am, but I am grateful for whatever recovered sight I have. I am also sorry you know the isolation that losing your eyesight can cause. I hope your recovery continues!
Jim
Yeah, it was (and at times still is) scary and isolating. Every now and then I will blink and when my eyes open, nothing is in focus and it can take 20-30 minutes to go away. Frustrating indeed.
Sorry to hear about eyesight issues with you guys. Jim, glad to see you back here and with excellent cat portraits. Kevin, hope yours starts improving soon! Very scary.
Philippe, fantastic visual of that gentleman. Someday I want to watch you in action to learn your technique
Chris, continuing to enjoy your Goslar scenes, need to check it out on a map to see where it is in Germany. Wow, a bit of a walk though to find your way back!
Scott, only you can make snow squalls look that scenic
Ken, very interesting geologic history of that area, I actually like the wider view, which gives a more complete idea about what you're describing.
Eike, fantastic semi frozen waterfall!
John, superb light on the snow covered peaks.
Mawz, another superb snow scene!
Kristian, fantastic scene with the star motion!
Leighton, nice blossoms, but they are not going to like tonight either, temps are dipping below freezing again in the area.
Buddy, nice to see the family enjoying the nice day outside!
Reagan, sure, make us jealous again with your sun and sand pics!
I have the TC14B but don't use it much. It would get you to ~150mm at f/4 I believe. Or is it f/4.5? I find teleconverters though degrade resolution a bit. If you just want a longer focal length, one of the 135s (f/2.8 or f/3.5) would provide 30% more focal length at not much more weight, and a 200 f4 AIS would double the length, also without adding that much more weight.
bobbelbob wrote:
I've got a couple questions for you. I'm thinking that I'm gonna buy a teleconverter for my 105/2.5 ais, which is the longest I got. Except for my 80-200mm f/2.8Af, but that's 2.7kg I dont carry on a hike.
So I would like to have some extra length when hiking and I dont wanna carry too much on a hike. Thats why I think perhaps I could throw in a teleconverter instead. Ideas about this? Do you have any suggestion of a good one?
Cheers!
/Kristian
I would say get a 200/4.0 AI-S. Much better and probably same price.
I have a Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-Q Auto 1:4 f=200mm (Pre-AI) for sale if you like (shameless plug)
The 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q is an outstanding lens. It would get you more focal length, but the other suggestion, the 80-200 f4 Ai-S would be the alternative I would advise to go for. Not only do you increase focal length to 200mm, but the Ai-S lens has a minimum focus distance of 1,2 meters, which is close enough to get nice OoF backgrounds. I have used my 80-200 f4 Ai-S a lot ever since I bought my 2nd copy of the lens. (I sold the first copy I bought back in 1990something only to find out that selling the lens was a real mistake)
But it also is a very sharp lens, which suffers little from CA's. I have never paid much attention to whether or not it has any kind of barrel or pincushion distortion. An open aperture of f4 might seem limiting, but is offset real well because of the MFD. And the lens is not real heavy, with merely 810 grams. The only real drawback might be the size of the lens when including a metal lens hood (HN-23), which significantly increases the size of the lens. Still, I highly recommend using a lens hood with this lens, to get the best results.
the solitaire wrote:
The 200mm f4 Nikkor-Q is an outstanding lens. It would get you more focal length, but the other suggestion, the 80-200 f4 Ai-S would be the alternative I would advise to go for. Not only do you increase focal length to 200mm, but the Ai-S lens has a minimum focus distance of 1,2 meters, which is close enough to get nice OoF backgrounds. I have used my 80-200 f4 Ai-S a lot ever since I bought my 2nd copy of the lens. (I sold the first copy I bought back in 1990something only to find out that selling the lens was a real mistake)
But it also is a very sharp lens, which suffers little from CA's. I have never paid much attention to whether or not it has any kind of barrel or pincushion distortion. An open aperture of f4 might seem limiting, but is offset real well because of the MFD. And the lens is not real heavy, with merely 810 grams. The only real drawback might be the size of the lens when including a metal lens hood (HN-23), which significantly increases the size of the lens. Still, I highly recommend using a lens hood with this lens, to get the best results....Show more →
100% agree. But for me, I prefer the 80-200/4.5 with the square baffle on the back. Lens also works amazingly well with extension tubes.
Glad to see you back on the thread, and major bummer about those meds' side effect on your eyesight. Glad that the side effects are reversing themselves.
James Markus wrote:
Hi everyone,
I know it has been quite a bit since I posted here. I pretty much lost my eyesight last fall due to the side effects of some meds I was on. Couldn't read at all for months and months. Anyway, stopped the meds responsible, and my sight has improved some. These are the first images I have shot in ages. Just seeing how the north light was hitting Phoebe made me run to get my camera out of the studio...
I have the TC14B but don't use it much. It would get you to ~150mm at f/4 I believe. Or is it f/4.5? I find teleconverters though degrade resolution a bit. If you just want a longer focal length, one of the 135s (f/2.8 or f/3.5) would provide 30% more focal length at not much more weight, and a 200 f4 AIS would double the length, also without adding that much more weight.
I also have the TC14B which is great but it doesn't fit any of my lenses shorter than 300mm and the 500mm reflex if the rear filter is removed.
I've always wanted to visit Death Valley National Park, and had the opportunity last weekend.
The Timbisha Shoshone, who have lived there for over a thousand years, call the place Tümpisa, meaning "Rock Paint." I think that's a better descriptor than the one given by the lost 49'ers after their ill-fated attempt to find a shortcut to the California gold country. There was a lot more color than expected.
The first three shots were taken with the 28/2.8 and the fourth with the 180/2.8.
Foggy14 wrote:
I've always wanted to visit Death Valley National Park, and had the opportunity last weekend.
The Timbisha Shoshone, who have lived there for over a thousand years, call the place Tümpisa, meaning "Rock Paint." I think that's a better descriptor than the one given by the lost 49'ers after their ill-fated attempt to find a shortcut to the California gold country. There was a lot more color than expected.
The first three shots were taken with the 28/2.8 and the fourth with the 180/2.8.
When on travel/holiday I always use my "big guns". 24-70E, 70-200FL, 300PF and often 200-500E.
This time I went all MF (primes) and already the 2nd day I regretted my decision.
At the castle there was a falconry show and they even had a American Fish Eagle.
My longest lens is a 135/3.5 and of course manual, so not much flight scenes.
Samy, I had the TC200 but I thought that the picture quility got quite bad. The 200/4 ais or Q-version would perhaps be a good option to bring instead of the 105 and a TC. On my last trip I brought the 50-135 ais but I would like to go a bit longer than 135 next time.
Chris, thanks but I can“t do pre-ai.
Buddy, I gotta check that one out. Have heard a lot of good stuff about that lens. But I“m a bit afraid that it could be too heavy.
Peter and Samy, perhaps the TC14B could be something as well. But, would it work with for exampe the 200/4.0 ais? Do you also think that this TC is one of the better, do I loose less quality with this one compared to the TC200?
Btw, I compared the weight between the 80-200/4.0 ais and the 200/4.0 ais on photosynthesis page. It“s 810g against 510g, the 80-200/4.5 ai weighed in at about the same as the ais 4.0 version. For a week of hiking the 200/4 ais is a better option for me.
