CGrindahl wrote:
And two photos from Berkeley, both taken with the 50-135 f/3.5 AI-s. The first was shot at 50mm, the second at 135mm... both converted with Silver Efex Pro 2. First a door for Leighton...
I don't know if this street performer really needs to money folks give him... it seems the most musicians feel obliged to ask for money when they perform. Clearly some of these folks appear down and out... this fellow could very well be a retired professor from U.C. Berkeley... quite a few of them hang our in this upscale commercial district. The Apple Store is just up the street....Show more →
Thanks Leighton... I didn't even see a "power to the people" sticker on that door... Berkeley must be losing its radical edge.
So I noted a rose outside the window of my cottage bathed in early morning light and thought I'd grab my camera with the 50-135 f/3.5 AI-s attached to take a few photos... which I did. Then I saw the 80-200 f/4.5 AI-s on the cabinet behind me and thought I'd do a comparison... then thought, why not add the long forgotten and occasionally maligned 100-300 f/5.6 AI-s sitting at the rear of the cabinet. That lens was much loved by our long departed friend Ray Steele. So here we go. Yes, the 50-135 has the advantage of catching the light when it was just about perfect, but all three lenses perform well. Check it out... first a shot showing what the camera caught with each lens at length, then closeups from each.
Nikon seems to have done a more than credible job with these early zoom lenses. I'll have to remember them when rambling about this weekend when Fairfax will have its annual festival. I shot it one time with the 100-300. I think this time I'll opt for the shorter lenses.
Curtis, I love the rose shots. Another sleeper zoom is the 75-150 Series E. I think I am going to break that one out of the cabinet when I go up to Staunton on the 15th. Not sure if I could shoot the "Leighton Lens" with Leighton in presence. Would seem to be wrong
There was someone selling 100-300 in quite good condition earlier which I had no interest then. Now that I think about it, it would have been a whopping 200-600 on my Olympus E-M5. I will keep an eye on these again!
gbohannon wrote:
Curtis, I love the rose shots. Another sleeper zoom is the 75-150 Series E. I think I am going to break that one out of the cabinet when I go up to Staunton on the 15th. Not sure if I could shoot the "Leighton Lens" with Leighton in presence. Would seem to be wrong
I'm almost embarrassed to admit George that I SOLD my copy of the venerable 75-150 Series E AFTER I bought the 50-135 f/3.5 AI-s and the 80-200 f/45 AI-s. I'll admit I'm a bit of a snob and for that reason I never could warm to the Series E lenses. The 80-200 is a tank in comparison with the Series E lens. Yes, I read all about its amazing performance but I didn't like it in my hand and didn't feel it performed better than either of the AI-s lenses... And surprisingly, I bought the 80-200 for less money, despite the fact that lens cost around $700 brand new.
I know I'm pretty much alone in my assessment. What matters about your upcoming visit, of course, is simply the opportunity to hang out with a couple of guys from this thread... regardless of the lens you shoot with. I wish Scotty could "beam me up" so I could join you. Have a wonderful time and share the photos... especially candids of one another. Nobody hiding behind their cameras...
CGrindahl wrote:
Thanks Leighton... I didn't even see a "power to the people" sticker on that door... Berkeley must be losing its radical edge.
So I noted a rose outside the window of my cottage bathed in early morning light and thought I'd grab my camera with the 50-135 f/3.5 AI-s attached to take a few photos... which I did. Then I saw the 80-200 f/4.5 AI-s on the cabinet behind me and thought I'd do a comparison... then thought, why not add the long forgotten and occasionally maligned 100-300 f/5.6 AI-s sitting at the rear of the cabinet. That lens was much loved by our long departed friend Ray Steele. So here we go. Yes, the 50-135 has the advantage of catching the light when it was just about perfect, but all three lenses perform well. Check it out... first a shot showing what the camera caught with each lens at length, then closeups from each.
Nikon seems to have done a more than credible job with these early zoom lenses. I'll have to remember them when rambling about this weekend when Fairfax will have its annual festival. I shot it one time with the 100-300. I think this time I'll opt for the shorter lenses. ...Show more →
Nice comparison. These old zooms hold their own IMHO.
gbohannon wrote:
Curtis, I love the rose shots. Another sleeper zoom is the 75-150 Series E. I think I am going to break that one out of the cabinet when I go up to Staunton on the 15th. Not sure if I could shoot the "Leighton Lens" with Leighton in presence. Would seem to be wrong
Go ahead George, you have my permission. Bring me a lens I don't have to try.
Also, if you want, you can shoot with the famous Nikki!
Well nose to the grindstone and processing of Memorial Day at the Boeing Museum which is a terrific place. It was packed making shooting the static displays difficult because of all those in attendance,
What I like about this crowd is that while I was engaged in framing a shot at least a dozen people froze in their tracks to allow me to do so, So there are considerate people!
leighton w wrote:
Go ahead George, you have my permission. Bring me a lens I don't have to try.
Also, if you want, you can shoot with the famous Nikki!
Would love to shoot with the famous Nikki
Just let me know what you would like to shoot with. I will bring some of the LTM Nikkor lenses. I still have the Fuji M mount adapter so no issues there.
CGrindahl wrote:
I'm almost embarrassed to admit George that I SOLD my copy of the venerable 75-150 Series E AFTER I bought the 50-135 f/3.5 AI-s and the 80-200 f/45 AI-s. I'll admit I'm a bit of a snob and for that reason I never could warm to the Series E lenses. The 80-200 is a tank in comparison with the Series E lens. Yes, I read all about its amazing performance but I didn't like it in my hand and didn't feel it performed better than either of the AI-s lenses... And surprisingly, I bought the 80-200 for less money, despite the fact that lens cost around $700 brand new.
I know I'm pretty much alone in my assessment. What matters about your upcoming visit, of course, is simply the opportunity to hang out with a couple of guys from this thread... regardless of the lens you shoot with. I wish Scotty could "beam me up" so I could join you. Have a wonderful time and share the photos... especially candids of one another. Nobody hiding behind their cameras...
You answer your own question George... enough is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, it is also in the eye our significant other if she or he really cares about such matters.
You might want to give Leighton the thrill of shooting with the NOCT... something to tell his grand babies about...
Yes, nice that you can give Nikki a try. She is one very sweet lens. It was very kind of Ben to keep her "in the family" when he wandered off to wherever he is at the moment. Have fun guys!
I don't want to disappoint Laura since she keeps that figurine around JUST FOR ME...
Since you didn't say, I'm assuming I wasn't able to hook you with that one... That's thirty dollars less than what I paid! You're a very disciplined person George...
CGrindahl wrote:
I don't want to disappoint Laura since she keeps that figurine around JUST FOR ME...
Since you didn't say, I'm assuming I wasn't able to hook you with that one... That's thirty dollars less than what I paid! You're a very disciplined person George...
I sent the seller a message to see if the zoom is tight or if it is loose
So you can say I nibbled the bait, but not the whole hook yet.
Comforting... and lovely, of course, since you so enjoy fishing George...
The odds of finding one with a tight zoom are close to zero, so if that is the criteria you need satisfied you're probably safe. Of course, we ALL know you're very good with your hands... SOOO, it is possible to solve that problem with a bit of ingenuity...
Now off to do laundry... I'll look for what you decide when I return. Happy shopping my friend.
I have a couple of older MF zooms that I think would benefit from a good cleaning & lube. Through Jack, I have started using a guy that does very reasonable work on primes, but he won't work on zooms. What recommendations do folks on this forum have for people who do zoom cleaning?
CGrindahl wrote:
Comforting... and lovely, of course, since you so enjoy fishing George...
The odds of finding one with a tight zoom are close to zero, so if that is the criteria you need satisfied you're probably safe. Of course, we ALL know you're very good with your hands... SOOO, it is possible to solve that problem with a bit of ingenuity...
Now off to do laundry... I'll look for what you decide when I return. Happy shopping my friend.
I have a couple of older MF zooms that I think would benefit from a good cleaning & lube. Through Jack, I have started using a guy that does very reasonable work on primes, but he won't work on zooms. What recommendations do folks on this forum have for people who do zoom cleaning?
Thanks - Doug
Doug - Check out this site by Richard Haw in Japan. He has popped on this forum from time to time and he has an outstanding blog on cleaning Nikkor lenses. I think he has some zoom instructions as well. I have learned a lot following his directions.
I will keep an eye on these again!
