~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Martin S°rensen" <santana.sorensen@get2net.dk> wrote in message news:1171365103.976952.193820@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 4:39 pm, "Stňle Sannerud" <staale.sanne...@bibits.no>
wrote:

> A 50 1.8 gives superb bang for the buck. The only problem with it is that
> the field of view it gives is quite a bit too narrow on a DSLR, it behaves
> rather like an 85mm portrait lens in fact. Something in the 28-35 mm range
> is more generally useful, but then it is no longer dirt cheap :(

Matter of habits I guess. With my FA, I had a 35 and a 105 and rarely
missed anything in between. The lenses were picked for simplicity, good
quality and affordability. Never regretted.

I think I took about 3/4 of my pictures with the 105/2.5, and
something similar in digital world would either be the 50mm or 85mm.

/Martin
 
--On a Nikon dSLR the 50mm would be equivalent to 75mm
--(and a good, inexpensive choice). The 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor
--would be a longer (90mm) equivalent, and also serve as an excellent
--close-focus lens. The 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (36-127mm equivalent)
--is a fairly good zoom in this range (BTW, I have a new one to sell...). 
--Best pair would probably be the 24mm f2.8 and either the 60mm or
--85m, but these would not be cheap. A used 28mm f2.8D AF (42mm
--equivalent) or 35mm f2 AF (53mm equivalent) may serve the OP's 
--purposes well at a reasonable price...
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"wiyum" <w.beckley@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1171367304.943829.229130@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
 
> I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this
> post, but here goes.
> 
> I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to
> hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. And over time, I'd come to believe
> the hype. I'd decided that Canon, in fact, makes wide-angle lenses
> that are in some way inferior to the competition. I'd decided that the
> 24mm 1.4L that I've long sought was inferior, optically, to the Nikon
> competition. Enough people are saying it, it must be true!

Uh, see my Subjective Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors, at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html where some outstanding
lenses of other brands that I've tried are also listed. The 24mm f1.4
Canon was really excellent from f2.8 - quite an accomplishment
(and I preferred it to Nikon's 28mm f1.4 and 24mm f2). The 24mm
Canon TS also appeared to be excellent in a quick look at some
slides shot with full vertical rise. While I think Nikon has often made
better medium and lower-priced lenses than the Canon equivalents, 
the expensive ones can go either way (Nikon is usually more 
conservative with these, making excellent results easier - so the 
Nikkor 17-35 and 28-70, etc. are very hard to equal or beat - but 
with the very fastest WAs, well...;-).
 
[many comments that are true about the 24mm f1.4 Canon deleted]
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:53bokkF1s2lknU1@mid.individual.net... 
> "John" <johng1@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:1171182820.321020.303840@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

>> I am looking for a new Prosumer video camera under $3kUS.
>>
>> I currently have the Canon L1 Hi8 camera and a Panasonic VHS-C
>> camera.  I am very disappointed with the Canon camera for shooting
>> Tennis indoors.  When I play back the video it looks bright enough but
>> there is just way, way to much film grain. ; Could be user error, I
>> don't know? Some of the video I shot turned out OK at best and some
>> was so bad I could not even use it.  I thought that this camera was
>> going to be a bit better than my VHS-C camera but I don't see it!
>>
>> These are the features I like about the Canon L1 that I would like in
>> another camera....
>>
>> 1) Manual Shutter speed and Aperture setting.
>> 2)  Manual Zoom.
>> 3) Stereo/Zoom Mic.
>> 4) 15-16x optical Zoom
>> 5) Wide angle lens
 
> The Sony VX2100 or the PD-170 (the pro version of the prosumer VX2100) 
> produces the highest-quality standard definition video under $3,000. 
> Feature films have been shot with it, and the BBC uses them for ENG 
> (electronic news gathering).
> 
> You can set manual shutter and aperture.
> 
> It can zoom manually, but it is servo controlled, i.e. you turn a ring on 
> the lens but it's a servo motor that actually moves the lens elements.
> 
> It has a an excellent on-board stereo mike.  It doesn't "zoom," but that's a 
> gimmick anyway that doesn't really work.  You can always plug in a shotgun 
> if that's what you want.
> 
> Its optical zoom is 10x, but you can get a teleadapter if that's what you 
> need.
> 
> "Wide angle" is a subjective term.  There are high-quality WA adapters for 
> it if it doesn't go wide enough for you.
> 
> Its video quality is stunning and it does an incredible job under low-light 
> conditions.
 
I agree with the above (which includes the very similar
Sony VX2000 and PD150 - and, BTW, I have a LN 
VX2000 and the WA and tele lens converters FS at --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm,
and this listing has the URLs for my comparisons with
other camcorders and a review of the VX2000, with
frame-grabs).
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)" <egruf_usenet2@cox.net> wrote in message news:90u9t2hje6st07j6s2cmdooaij4jdjm1bf@4ax.com...
>I finally had the circumstances to give this combo what I would consider a
> fair handheld test with my D200 this afternoon and obtained the same
> disappointing results I'd achieved at less optimal conditions. While I am
> guessing this is just the ramifications of the combined f/8 maximum
> aperture, I'm wondering if anyone else has gotten a D200 to autofocus ok
> with any f/8 lens or combo?
> 
> Details, fwiw:
> Bright sunny afternoon, shooting aperture priority at f/8, resulting
> shutter speed of 1/1250. Shot sitting down, back against a tree, elbow
> propped up on knee with VR on. Subject was a kingfisher in a tree 75-100ft
> away. I have sharp images with the lens only from a standing position at
> almost double the distance with shutter speeds of 1/750 - 1/800.
> 
> Has anyone else used this combo on any body with decent AF results?
> I'm guessing this is just the manifestation of f/8 on the D200,  even
> though it looks like AF works the results just suck and my next move is to
> get a lower magnification TC to use with this lens.
> -- 
> Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com)
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
 
I've noticed that particular lens and converter combinations
can work better or worse than others even though both the
lenses and converters are high quality. Lower magnification 
converters tend to perform better than higher magnification
ones, and I've rarely seen a 2X that performs well on anything 
wide open. Try shooting one stop (+) down, even though this
will result in a lower shutter speed. Also the TC1.7X and 
especially the TC1.4X are more likely to work well with the
lens wide open. With a lucky combination, though, you can
sometimes get good results even with two converters combined
(though not wide open, and the AF probably won't work).
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message news:yPhBh.32639$0u1.25796@newsfe15.phx...
> "wiyum" <w.beckley@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1171624824.313534.25740@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

>> To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You
>> can find them here:
>>
>> http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/
>>
>> This is a site of lens tests (mostly wides) conducted mostly on Canon
>> full-frame bodies, comparing just about every brand of lens with every
>> other brand. The site is full of examples where Canon lenses were
>> found to be inferior to other brands (the Nikkor 17-35, for example,
>> was held to be slightly better than the 16-35, for example, and
>> convincingly so), but the Canon 24mm 1.4L prime was rather
>> convincingly found to be just about the world's greatest lens in its
>> focal length. This from a battery of tests that only began at 2.8, so
>> that the playing field would be more level. After all of the dust
>> settles on these tests, only the Zeiss 25mm 2.8 ZF seems to hold its
>> own against the Canon lens, but lacking those extra two stops, and
>> autofocus, and costing only $200 less than the L lens, it seems like
>> the Canon is easily the smart choice if you own a Canon body.
>>
>> The site makes for interesting reading for anyone technically-minded
>> that is willing to see all sides of an argument. I left feeling no
>> less strongly that I really want that 24mm 1.4L, and feeling no less
>> happy with my 16-35 2.8L after seeing it up against the 17-35 Nikkor,
>> which certainly proved itself to be a better lens. If you can bear to
>> see things as they are, warts and all, there's alot of info to take
>> in.
>>
>> Thanks to Mogens for pointing this site out in this very thread.
>>
>> Will

> Here's the bone of contention, "Commendable centre frame resolution from the 
> Canon, less impressive from the Nikon."  Less impressive?  The example shown 
> looks like the Nikon is out of focus.  Then the corners, while better on the 
> Nikon, are not good, just less ugly.  And the examples of the Nikon (and the 
> Zeiss) show signs of extreme oversharpening, causing more purple fringing 
> than the Canon, a lens known for that problem.  But that aside, which would 
> you rather have, a lens that is sharp in the center, or one that is sharp on 
> the edges, but soft in the center?
> I have no illusions about the performance of the Canon 16-35:
> http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900709
> But the Nikkor 17-35 isn't the solution.
> 
> Skip Middleton
 
I compared the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 with several other lenses, 
here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm. Note that 
in *this particular sample* (all were checked full frame, on film,
with infinity targets), the center resolution was top-class at
all FLs except around 28mm. It is not uncommon for lenses 
of this type to show sample variation - with relatively poor 
performance overall, relatively poor performance at some 
FLs in the zoom range, uneven center to one edge or corner
performance compared with others in the frame at a given FL,
or a generalized lack of field flatness which can cause the
center to appear less sharp than further out, or the corners to
be very soft with flat subjects (which is why I check with infinity
subjects - it removes the variability of accuracy of focus that
can occur at closer distances that may favor or penalize lenses
with particular characteristics though they may actually be 
equally sharp for most practical purposes). I'm impressed with
the quality of the tests at www.16-9.net/lens_tests (and the 
format is fun, too) - but sample variation can spoil the best of
efforts. I try to show the range of performance on my Nikkor lens 
comparison site (at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html) 
that I've seen when I've checked more than one sample of a
particular lens version. While there are no perfect lenses, and
most WAs and especially WA zooms tend to be less perfect
than the easier to design and consistently to build well longer 
lenses, the site above indicates that the sample of the 17-35mm
Nikkor I tried was generally surprisingly good in the center
wide open, quite good in the corners by f5.6, and superb
center to corners by f11. That sure satisfies me! I think that
is astonishing performance in any zoom that includes WA,
let alone one that is this wide. The lesson again is: don't just
buy and settle - if you care, TEST, and buy from a dealer that 
will take exchanges if you find faults that bug you (if they bug
you when the lens is new, they sure will later on when they
intrude on almost every image made with that lens!).
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:qalBh.59034$QU1.23854@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
 
>> ...With a lucky combination, though, you can
>> sometimes get good results even with two converters combined
>> (though not wide open, and the AF probably won't work).
 
> Unfortunately the Nikon AF-S converters will not stack without machining 
> off some metal put in to prevent that.
 
I didn't know that - but I did once remove the part of the bayonette 
of a TC20E that prevented it from being mounted on lenses it wasn't 
designed to fit (it wasn't very hard to do...).
--
 David Ruether
 http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"EEC" <echang@unex1.ucla.edu> wrote in message news:qg7ct2p7a1kamsqidagkf8q3rkc2it93g8@4ax.com...

> Here's an age old question that I would like to throw out --
> 
> When do you fix and when do you replace a camcorder?  
> 
> I have an 7 1/2 year old Sony DCR-TRV9 which has worked really well
> over the years.  I'm getting C32-33 errors which I think is a
> transport error.  Sony wants a flat $311. 00 to repair.  I can get an
> inexpensive DV camcorder for about the same price new.  OTOH, I really
> like having a 1/3 inch CCD, manual focus, analog inputs/outputs,
> headphone and mic jacks. 
> 
> If I replace with the same features (especially the 1/3 inch CCD) it
> would likely cost $700+.  I could also buy a HiDef camcorder, but I
> don't have that kind of money to do either.  
> 
> So do I buy low end and wait for HD to come down or do I repair and
> hope the repair hold me a few more years? 
> 
> Thanks in advance...
 
I compare the TRV9 camcorder with others at --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm 
(note new URL). It's mic sound is noisy and the picture is not 
very outstanding even with the large chip size (though the new 
tiny-chip camcorders don't have very good picture quality either).
Its one claim to fame (if you have an early version) is its ability
to shoot excellent B&W infrared in daylight, a function that
was disabled in later TRV9s and subsequent models. If yours 
can do that, you can FireWire the TRV9 to another camera 
used as a deck, or have it repaired. You could also look for
a good used replacement (the PC100 and PC9 are favorites 
of mine among older small camcorders - see --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm,
and the TRV30 can provide fine image quality [see above 
URL, and I have both a TRV30 and TRV9 [IR enabled] for 
sale at -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm).
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com 
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message news:7x7iufxkkl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> For a technical project I'm looking for good ways to shoot a subject
> about 1mm in diameter to fill the frame, i.e. about 15x magnification
> on a DSLR or lower magnification with a P/S camera.  The images need
> to be sharp all the way to the edges and corners.  The subject is not
> wiggling around or anything like that, and strong lighting can be
> applied if needed.  There is not anything like an unlimited budget for
> this project, but some modest expenditures are ok.  Possible
> approaches:
> 
> - DSLR with bellows and macro lens
> - DSLR with telephoto lens and reversed wideangle on the front
> - P/S with high-diopter close-up lens
> - Microscope with P/S or DSLR adapter
> - other?
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts.
> 
> Paul
 
One fairly cheap solution is extension tubes with a short FL lens 
designed for 8mm or 16mm movies mounted reversed on the end.
Lighting will be difficult, but with the right combination you may 
have an inexpensive (used movie lenses should be cheap, even
for the good ones) and high-quality combination... 
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:QUoCh.45687$Gr2.18842@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
 
> I'm looking at an 85mm f/2 AI Nikkor lens to use on a D200. The seller 
> is asking $200. I see mixed reviews:
> 
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
>
> "3 The replacement for the venerable f/1.8 lens was much smaller and very 
> compact, but unfortunately the optical quality is nowhere in the league 
> of its predecessor. In particular I found pictures taken with the 85/2 
> to be dull and life-less, and images took on a greyish cast as well. I'm 
> aware of reports claiming this lens is an excellent perfomer and am at a 
> loss to explain this discrepancy in opinions (I've tried several 85/2's 
> and they all behaved in a similar manner)."
> 
> Ken Rockwell raves about how rich & contrasty it is and suggests it's a 
> great deal if you can find one for $150.
> 
> Others here have mentioned it as one with very smooth bokeh in past 
> discussions.
> 
> I suppose I could test it before forking over cash against say my 
> 45/2.8P which I think is nice & contrasty and my 105/2.8 Micro which I 
> think has nice bokeh and is very sharp... and just look at the LCD to 
> see how it compares. Or if they will take $150 that's probably a good 
> deal. I also have a 70-200/2.8 so if it even matched that quality it 
> would be handy for it's small size & a bit faster. If I could see side 
> by side improvement in out of focus highlights, that would be worthwhile 
> to me for portraits even if it isn't razor sharp or super contrasty. One 
> use would be for night time street shooting.
 
The one I have listed at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-short-teles.htm
for $175 may still be available - and I keep a mint version of the
85mm f2 MF (along with a 35mm f2 MF) for travel with an FA body
(I can hand-hold this better than anything else) because it is so good, 
and more compact than my 85mm f1.8 AF. I list and evaluate this (and 
MANY more Nikkors) at  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
and rate the several samples of it I've tried very highly. It is very sharp
and contrasty - BUT, in common with the Nikkor 105mm f2.5, 135mm
f2.8, and 135mm f2, near closest focus the sharpness does decline at
the widest stops (from  about 6-7 feet out they are all excellent even 
wide open). This may account for the differences in reporting...
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Robert" <robertmlaws@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1171970527.057650.289710@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 9:46 pm, Paul Furman <p...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>> I'm looking at an 85mm f/2 AI Nikkor lens to use on a D200. The seller
>> is asking $200. I see mixed reviews:
>>
>> http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
> 
> I'll add my piece of trivia.   I believe the 85 f/1.8 is the lens that
> is used in the film 'Blow Up' (Michelangelo Antonioni').
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060176/
>  
> Robert

That would have been the 85mm f1.8 (followed by the f2, 
then the 1.8 AF - all different designs, and all excellent once 
multicoated (the very early version of the 1.8 without the 
multicoating was flarey).
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:YwFCh.29571$yC5.27171@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> tomm42 wrote: 

>> I think $200 is too much, considering the 85 f1.8 is in the high $300s
>> new. BTW I have an old design 85 f2 on my Leica M2, worthless at f2
>> but fantastic at f2.8-11 but then drops off precipitously at f16-45
>> (yes has f45 on it) remember it is a 1959 lens. I'd try to talk him
>> down to $150-175, but if it is a lens you have been searching for ;-).
>> I just bought a 100 f2.8 E ($60) it is the tiniest lens, smaller than
>> my 24 f2 AIS which is also a small lens. The d200 is so manageable
>> with the small lenses on it, you also don't attract attention nearly
>> as much as with a zoom. At longer focal lengths I don't see a problem
>> with focusing with the D200, just wish it would recognize f2 or better
>> in the view finder seems to stop at f2.8.
 
> Well it is local so no shipping & he says it's in perfect condition & I 
> can test it. I just got burned for shipping on a 'bargain grade' used 
> mail order lens. This wasn't on my watch list, just looked interesting 
> when I ran across it.
 
If it is local, private person (no tax), mint, and you can test 
it (and especially if he will take $190 or so...;-), GRAB IT!
(If it checks out well - you should be able to shoot infinity
targets with it at f2 and still have all four corners sharp on 
full frame.) You will not be disappointed. The AF beats it
near closest focus wider than f4 or so, but there is little
difference at greater distances, with unusually fine
performance at f2 for either lens.
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:6vkCh.45635$Gr2.36188@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:

>> I know where there is a Nikkor 17-35mm 
>> locally that is possibly still available for $1000 (it may be possible
>> to talk the seller down a bit - and it is likely returnable if not satisfied).
>> It will not be mint, but likely nice enough though it was used professionally.
>> Holler if interested and I will email you the contact information (it is not
>> the one I checked out...).

> Thanks but I think I've decided I really don't want this lens. I would 
> mostly use a 'normal' zoom for street shooting where I want to be 
> inconspicuous and lightweight or landscapes where I have the time to 
> change lenses. It will be more fun to collect some smaller prime lenses 
> for this range and I can afford a few nice old AI lenses for that budget.
 
Wise decision...;-) Don't overlook the surprisingly good 28-70mm
f3.5-4.5 or 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (I have a new, checked-out one of
these FS...) for compact "walk-around" zooms - but non-zooms
like the 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8 
and 1.4, 85mm f2, 100mm f2.8 E, 105mm f2.5, and 135mm f2.8 
are all compact and sharp. The 75-150mm f3.5 would also be
interesting...
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Just D" <no@spam.please> wrote in message news:wjOCh.296539$qy.30318@newsfe16.lga...
 
> Does anybody have any experience with this one?
> 
> 500 8 Reflex-Nikkor.C
 
It is listed at  my www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
(note the address change). There are two versions, the "C"
is the earlier, larger one. I preferred that one, though the 
later compact one focused closer and was good at medium
distances. The first version was good enough to perform well
with the Nikon TC14/14B converters for a surprisingly good
700mm (1050mm equivalent on digital) that is fairly light and
compact - though it is a slow f11 (but in practice, even slower).
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Summer Wind" <summer-wind@swbell.net> wrote in message news:hoZDh.498$P47.64@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...

> At Close Range With National Geographic
>
> Sunday, February 25, 8:00pm (Central)
>
> The work of nature photographer Joel Sartore, including the challenges of getting candid shots in various locales. Included: 
> comments from National Geographic magazine editors.

I saw this program (in HD! ;-) - it is excellent. It gives a very good
idea of what it really means to be a NG photographer, and most
of the time, how difficult and lacking in "glamour" it is. This show
is an excellent portrayal of JS and what drives him to do work he
often doesn't like and to solve uncomfortable and difficult problems
to get his pictures. It is very honest and thorough in its coverage,
and it is not a "puff" vanity or publicity piece. See it if you can - I
highly recommend it.
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message news:1172337336.566868.327120@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 12:05 pm, "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>> > Which station / network?

>> "PBS Show This Sunday 02/25..."  in US - I don't know if it is
>> available elsewhere.

> Sadly, our two local PBS stations don't carry it.
> I even searched the National Geographic network on my dish.  Not
> showing there either.

Ah, too bad. Maybe it will eventually appear on "NG on demand" on digital 
cable, though being a PBS-network program, that seems unlikely. PBS
does often delay-broadcast programs (the one on the NG photographer,
"At Close Range With National Geographic", appeared here a couple 
of weeks ago, and is not scheduled to appear again here tomorrow or in
the near feature - I just did a search on www.titantv.com for it). It may be
worth buying the DVD from PBS, if they offer it...
--
David Ruether


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <erqesb$r6c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
 "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message 
> news:1172337336.566868.327120@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 24, 12:05 pm, "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:
 
> >> > Which station / network?
 
> >> "PBS Show This Sunday 02/25..."  in US - I don't know if it is
> >> available elsewhere.

> > Sadly, our two local PBS stations don't carry it.
> > I even searched the National Geographic network on my dish.  Not
> > showing there either.
 
> Ah, too bad. Maybe it will eventually appear on "NG on demand" on digital
> cable, though being a PBS-network program, that seems unlikely. PBS
> does often delay-broadcast programs (the one on the the NG photographer,
> "At Close Range With National Geographic", appeared here a couple
> of weeks ago, and is not scheduled to appear again here tomorrow or in
> the near feature - I just did a search on www.titantv.com for it). It may be
> worth buying the DVD from PBS, if they offer it...
> --
> David Ruether 

It's available for purchase on the website of the photographer who was 
featured:

http://www.joelsartore.com/products/dvd.php

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrotes.com:

> Sadly, our two local PBS stations don't carry it.
> I even searched the National Geographic network on my dish.  Not
> showing there either.

This show was originally aired in HD on 2007.02.05.  The torrent for that 
show is posted on MiniMova at: http://www.mininova.org/tor/578461.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 10:06:39 -0600, "Summer Wind"
<summer-wind@swbell.net> wrote:

>At Close Range With National Geographic
>
>Sunday, February 25, 8:00pm (Central)
>
>The work of nature photographer Joel Sartore, including the challenges of 
>getting candid shots in various locales. Included: comments from National 
>Geographic magazine editors. 

At Close Range with National Geographic DVD
Item no: ACNG601

http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2602022

24.99

==
     John S. Douglas
     Photographer & Webmaster
     Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" banjo" <-deeenoregistrar@hotmail.co.uk_no> wrote in message news:KzwEh.14501$Zl6.1096@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
 
> after reading what others have said, i have decided to give this lens a 
> miss.
 
A surprisingly good smallish/lightish long lens is the older-version
Nikkor 500mm f8 combined with the TC14 or TC14B (you need
to remove the rear filter on the mirror to mount the converter).
F11 (slower in practice) 700mm (1050mm equivalent on digital), 
but good enough for some purposes and easy to carry.
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off>
> "eddie rukidding" <eddie@rukidding.com> wrote in message 
> news:j4d1u2hkbf9jca7n2hh1cfffrgv4fnaanq@4ax.com...

>>I have a PB-4 bellows unit and own both a D100 and D200 DSLR.
>>
>> Is it safe to mount either camera to the PB-4?
>>
>> If so, will I be able to get any type of metering, using a manual
>> focus and aperture type lens and  realizing I will have to manually
>> stop down the lens?
>>
>> The more I read on websites on this, the more confused I get and I
>> fear damaging my cameras in the process.
>>
>> Any help appreciated!!
 
> I'm sorry, I could not find a definitive answer on the web.  I use a PB-5 on 
> a D200 to good effect. [some hours of googling later]  I just found out 
> Nikon says I shouldn't do this (though not why I shouldn't do this) and 
> mirs.com says it will damage the autofocus electrical contacts.  Hmmm...  I 
> did it for years with a D70 with no ill effects, and several times now on a 
> D200 with no ill effects.  I'm going to try to contact Nikon and ask them 
> directly.
> 
> Ok, I called them, and they don't know.  What a crock that was.  He said, 
> "It doesn't say, so if you're mounting it without any problems, I wouldn't 
> worry about it."  I wonder whether that individual ever used a Nikon before?
> 
> I've just submitted an Ask Nikon a Question form.  They said they'll get 
> back to me within one business day.  I'm not expecting anything definitive.
> 
> --
> www.mattclara.com 

Nikon says my 28mm f4 PC of my serial number cannot
be mounted either, but I say, "Nonsense!" ;-) The bellows
units and early (non-AI) PC lenses may nudge the body 
meter tab a bit, but if there is no serious deformation of
the ring it is attached to, and if the rear of the bayonette
itself cannot contact the electrical contacts, I don't see what
the problem could be (other than misplacing the tab a bit,
giving an incorrect exposure, but making sure that the tab
is back in its normal rest location around the mount after
the lens/bellows is mounted takes care of this).
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message news:AtCdnXoW0pj193jYnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com...
 
> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message 
>> Nikon says my 28mm f4 PC of my serial number cannot
>> be mounted either, but I say, "Nonsense!" ;-) The bellows
>> units and early (non-AI) PC lenses may nudge the body
>> meter tab a bit, but if there is no serious deformation of
>> the ring it is attached to, and if the rear of the bayonette
>> itself cannot contact the electrical contacts, I don't see what
>> the problem could be (other than misplacing the tab a bit,
>> giving an incorrect exposure, but making sure that the tab
>> is back in its normal rest location around the mount after
>> the lens/bellows is mounted takes care of this).

> Thanks David--mind if I quote you on my website?  In context, of course. 
> --
> www.mattclara.com 

Sorry, the above has too many "ifs" and I no longer have my 
PB-4 - and my memory is too poor to be sure the above is
correct with the bellows if the "ifs" are removed...;-( 
BTW, all my web pages have new addresses - you may want
to change mine on yours by adding a "don" in front of the
"ferrario" on all pages (they then are updated...). Thanks.
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"eddie rukidding" <eddie@rukidding.com> wrote in message news:9tijv25s4vl16afarna5nfi6p6ph4p724f@4ax.com...> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:28:55 -0500, "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off>
> wrote:

>>I use the word "definitive" loosely, as  you shall see.  Thanks to David 
>>Ruether and John White for their assistance on this quick page (I say quick, 
>>but it took all damn day, plus a couple days of research--hey, it's what God 
>>intended the flu for, right?).  If either should care for me to adapt or 
>>withdraw your quotes, by all means, let me know.
>>
>>http://www.mattclara.com/misc/nikonbellows/
>>
>>Regards,
>>Matt Clara  ( www.mattclara.com )
 
I know what you mean - I just spent a solid week of frustrating,
annoying, upsetting, etc. work on my web page ( at new address -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ) - why does web work take so 
long??? ;-(  Your site looks great, though!
 
> As I wrote previously, I sent my PB-4 bellows to John White, asking
> him to take a look at it and let me know if there were any issues with
> mounting a D100 or D200 on it and would there be any chance of damage
> to the electronic contacts on the cameras.
> 
> His response was as follows:
> 
> "I have been working with your PB-4 bellows.
> There will be no problem with damage to the electronic contacts inside
> the mirror box or with metering tabs on the outside of the lens mount.
> The trick is mounting the unit on a body. 
> Although I don't have a D100 or D200 here right now, I do have a N4004
> that has a similar protruding handgrip. Using the rotating lens mount
> on the bellows unit. I was able to mount it on the N4004. I suspect it
> will work fine on your bodies as well. For bodies like the D2 series
> that have two protrusions, e.g., grip on the side and battery pack on
> the bottom, you will need to use an extension tube like the M, M2 or
> PK-13 to move the bellows away from the body."
> 
> When I got the bellows back from John, I found he was correct.  In
> order to mount both the D100 and D200, I needed to rotate the bellows
> mount to the vertical position otherwise the handgrip on the cameras
> would interfere.  Once mounted, the cameras could be easily rotated to
> the horizontal position or left vertical for use.
> 
> He said you are welcome to use his findings on your web page.
> 
> Thank you John!     ----  A small plug = Anyone wanting to convert
> older Nikon lenses for use on newer cameras, including DSLRs, I can
> recommend his services as he has worked on 3-4 of my lenses with great
> results.

Ah, I forgot in my comments about accommodating the "bump" - I 
used to need to rotate the mount on the PB-4 to mount that bellows 
on my F3. Thanks for finally tracking down the real answer from the
expert, John White!
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:12uhdar4b6ah72b@news.supernews.com...
 
> The totally amazing and legendary 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor is going to set the
> bar up another notch.  For anyone that wants to see what a real lens looks
> like.
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ150097142036
>
> Rita

Guess I shouldn't have sold mine so cheap...;-)
I was not very impressed with my Noct wider 
than f5.6 (and any of my cheaper Nikon 50s were 
better 2-3 stops wider). The photo in the eBay 
sale points out another of its problems - the lens 
front or something else in the lens is too small for 
its speed, FL, and optical design, resulting in 
off-axis light cut-off until the lens is stopped down.
All of the above make me wonder why anyone 
would want this only slightly faster lens than the
excellent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (really nice at f2)
enough to pay a small fortune for it. Now, the
6mm retrofocus, that I can see - though even 
with that, it is so impractically large and heavy 
that the older non-retro 6mm may be worth 
having for the $3k I sold that one for...;-)
--
 David Ruether


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:12uinu8riddh934@news.supernews.com...
> RichA wrote:

>>> The totally amazing and legendary 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor is going to
>>> set the bar up another notch.  For anyone that wants to see what a
>>> real lens looks like.
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ150097142036
>>>
>>> Rita

>> Sometimes on these things if you look at the buyer's other purchases,
>> you'll figure out they own a FF Canon.
 
> No joking!  Bringing into the fold another group of people fighting over 
> this limited quantity lens is what is driving the prices so high.
> 
> Rita

Guess I shouldn't have sold mine so cheap...;-)
I was not very impressed with my Noct wider 
than f5.6 (and any of my much cheaper Nikon 
50s were better at 2 to 3 stops wider). The 
photo in the eBay sale points out another of the
Nocts problems - the lens front or something 
else in the lens is too small for its speed, FL, 
and optical design, resulting in off-axis light 
cut-off until the lens is stopped down. All of 
the above make me wonder why anyone would 
want this very expensive lens (in a not very 
interesting FL), which is only slightly faster than 
the excellent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (which is really 
nice at f2), enough to pay a small fortune for it. 
--
 David Ruether
  d_ruether@hotmail.com
  www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:12ul9osk5vrug7d@news.supernews.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
 
>>> And takes the 5D along for the ride.
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fodder/

>> Hmm, still gets some crazy cat's eye OOF:
>> < http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=408617754&size=l&context=photostream >
>> I'd be curious to see some comparison shots with other lenses to see
>> what the big diff is for this lens.
 
> Considering how terrible the lighting is in these shots I'm not sure most
> other lenses would have tamed the distracting light as well and given this
> pleasing of an image.
>  
> Rita

I agree. This sample looks better than what I remember of my 58mm
Noct, though the focus distance may have something to do with it. My
50mm f1.2 was excellent fairly close in but not very good near infinity
at f1.2 - but the 50mm's coma made distant lights near the image edges 
and corners look horrible (like sea gulls) and your 58mm doesn't 
(though the off-axis out of focus point light sources are rendered as 
"cats eyes" rotationally placed around the image center as I would 
expect from the len off-axis clear-aperture cut off shown in the photo 
of the lens in the eBay sale). I never used my 58mm Noct much, so 
it is interesting to see your photos shot with it, which appear to be 
quite sharp at f1.2 (maybe it is worth the price! ;-). The 50mm f1.4
Nikkor is sharp over most of the full frame at f1.4, but the contrast is
lower than it is at f2 (where only the far corners in FF are a bit soft),
so the 58 may actually offer a 1 and 1/2 stop advantage, which it 
should for the price! ;-)  Have fun shooting with yours!
 --
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:K6qGh.5881$jx3.1217@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

( http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ150097142036)
>> I was not very impressed with my Noct wider
>> than f5.6 (and any of my much cheaper Nikon
>> 50s were better at 2 to 3 stops wider). The
>> photo in the eBay sale points out another of the
>> Nocts problems - the lens front or something
>> else in the lens is too small for its speed, FL,
>> and optical design, resulting in off-axis light
>> cut-off until the lens is stopped down. All of
>> the above make me wonder why anyone would
>> want this very expensive lens (in a not very
>> interesting FL), which is only slightly faster than
>> the excellent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (which is really
>> nice at f2), enough to pay a small fortune for it.
 
> It's supposed to have special performance with OOF highlights not 
> distorted in the corners wide open. I forget the terminology. If you 
> need to shoot wide open at night there probably are bright highlights 
> out of focus so this makes sense but yeah, that's a crazy price.
 
Rita's examples at www.flickr.com/photos/fodder 
show clean OOF highlight rendering near the picture 
edges/corners for the Noct-Nikkor, not the severe 
sea-gull like coma of the 50mm f1.2 Nikkor (and the
50mm f1.4 and f1.8 to a lesser extent), though it does
show strong "cats-eye" rendering of those points 
(instead of the proper circular results) due to internal 
cut-offs within the Noct, clearly visible in the photo 
of it in the eBay sale photo of it (its front and maybe 
rear should have been much larger...). The lens does 
also appear to be crisper than mine was at f1.2 (for
more on this, see my post on the Noct in another 
thread, below...).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~

"Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message news:12ukcam4v04bsdb@news.supernews.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
David Ruether wrote--
 
>>> I was not very impressed with my Noct wider
>>> than f5.6 (and any of my much cheaper Nikon
>>> 50s were better at 2 to 3 stops wider). The
>>> photo in the eBay sale points out another of the
>>> Nocts problems - the lens front or something
>>> else in the lens is too small for its speed, FL,
>>> and optical design, resulting in off-axis light
>>> cut-off until the lens is stopped down. All of
>>> the above make me wonder why anyone would
>>> want this very expensive lens (in a not very
>>> interesting FL), which is only slightly faster than
>>> the excellent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (which is really
>>> nice at f2), enough to pay a small fortune for it.

>> It's supposed to have special performance with OOF highlights not
>> distorted in the corners wide open. I forget the terminology. If you
>> need to shoot wide open at night there probably are bright highlights
>> out of focus so this makes sense but yeah, that's a crazy price.

> He knows that.  This is why I didn't even bother to call bullshit on this
> one.  Had he a Noct he wouldn't have sold it unless it was severely damaged.
> 
> Rita
 
The Noct I had had no damage (was LN). Samples 
can vary, probably especially with a lens with a hand
made aspheric element used. There is more on why 
we may have come up with different results with the
Noct in my post in another thread on the Noct, below. 
Mine wasn't soft, just not very impressive at infinity 
focus wider than f5.6, unlike the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 
Nikkors (though the coma was clearly better than 
other Nikkor normals, especially the 50mm f1.2 
which could be very sharp at f1.2 to the FF corners 
at focus distances at which it was "happiest" (many 
lenses vary considerably in sharpness at different 
focus distances).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> wrote in message news:ecudnboM4_g7OXfYnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Rita ─ Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message 
> news:12ukcam4v04bsdb@news.supernews.com...
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>David Ruether wrote:

>>>> I was not very impressed with my Noct wider
>>>> than f5.6 (and any of my much cheaper Nikon
>>>> 50s were better at 2 to 3 stops wider). The
>>>> photo in the eBay sale points out another of the
>>>> Nocts problems - the lens front or something
>>>> else in the lens is too small for its speed, FL,
>>>> and optical design, resulting in off-axis light
>>>> cut-off until the lens is stopped down. All of
>>>> the above make me wonder why anyone would
>>>> want this very expensive lens (in a not very
>>>> interesting FL), which is only slightly faster than
>>>> the excellent Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (which is really
>>>> nice at f2), enough to pay a small fortune for it.

>>> It's supposed to have special performance with OOF highlights not
>>> distorted in the corners wide open. I forget the terminology. If you
>>> need to shoot wide open at night there probably are bright highlights
>>> out of focus so this makes sense but yeah, that's a crazy price.
 
"Coma", and the Noct has very little of this - but it can destroy 
the images of stars and distant street lights near the FF image
edge/corners...

>> He knows that.  This is why I didn't even bother to call bullshit on this
>> one.  Had he a Noct he wouldn't have sold it unless it was severely 
>> damaged.
 
(See my post above in this thread about this...)
 
> Oh?  Those football shaped highlights in your Miami shots are distracting, 
> even if the shots, overall, are very nice.  There is no reason the 1.4 
> couldn't have done just as well, and not had cats eye bokeh. 
> --
> www.mattclara.com 

As I point out in a post on the Noct in a later thread (below),
the "cats eyes" are due to internal lens cut-off of the clear 
aperture (visible in the eBay photo of it, with the lens tipped 
off-axis). They will form an unfortunate rotational orientation
around the image center due to the lens construction that has
internal obstruction of the aperture (viewed off-axis) causing 
the odd shape (the wide stop used increases their relative size, 
making the matter worse - but the freedom from coma is 
probably a good trade-off, and the resultant higher image 
contrast is desireable). BTW, you often see a similar effect 
(without the rotation, since the cause is external to the lens) 
in night movies with the OOF highlight circles cut off on top 
by the lens shading "flag".
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Joe" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message news:12umfs1ct1kdpc7@corp.supernews.com...
> OK, I'll forgo the Mercedes for the time being and put it all into the 
> computer. <G>
> 
> Joe
> PS: I don't ever think I'll get beyond rank amateur, so I don't really need 
> a super quality camera, computer and editing software, but I do have rather 
> high standards for my hobbies, so I'll go beyond what I really need- 
> besides, computers are cheap today- even the top of the line are cheap 
> compared to most other things.

The output quality in Mini-DV will be the same no matter how
fancy or simple the hardware or software. I prefer to stay with 
an old tried-and-true machine with Premiere 6 which runs well 
on it (see www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/premiere.htm for how 
I use it - though Windows Movie Maker can work fine also).
As mentioned by a poster above, if you are particular about
how the finished video will look (I'm surprised by how much
pro work goes out without at least color matching between 
clips), it is useful to put the camcorder in the loop and view
with its output what you are doing either on a calibrated TV 
or on one you know what its errors are (I apply the reverse 
errors on short clips for viewing on my TV, then restore the 
sampled footage). BTW, I have a spare copy of P-6 for $50 
and some excellent Mini-DV camcorders FS at -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173221079.027990.114060@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 12:06 am, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellnos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes, we now have a 55-200mm AF-S DX VR f/4-5.6 lens, another goody for the
>> D40x/D80 crowd. This makes, what, 4 or 5 lenses of the same basic type? Where
>> the heck is the fast glass? The superwide angles? The long VR lenses?
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle

> Don't they have a 70-200 f2.8?

I think he means digital equivalents of the 18/20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f1.4,
35mm f1.4/2, 50mm f1.4/2 in 35mm - or even the compact/light 105/135mm f2.8
(though the 85mm f1.8 AF is close enough, I guess...). These would be useful if as 
small/light/moderately-priced/good as their equivalents for FF 35mm. Then there is
the long VR glass...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"JohnR66" <nospam@att.net> wrote in message news:GTBHh.116672$5j1.66928@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <snapcount@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173283572.138471.33690@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 7, 4:43 pm, snapco...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> I have a Canon A640 and the bottom part of the image is always blurry,
>>> regardless of camera movement, shutter speed, etc. It's not blurry
>>> only when I zoom in. What could be the problem and what can I do about
>>> it?

>> [examples deleted - URLs no longer work]

> It is possible your bottom part of the subject is not in the same plane of focus. I can't 
> tell if the camera was parallel to the 
> surface in the first shot. Anyhow, if it is soft, it will show if you shoot a flat object 
> and be sure the camera is parallel to 
> the surface.
>
> I bought (and since gotten rid of) an A540 that the bottom third of the image was 
> soft. I confirmed by carfully testing on a lens 
> test chart. Likely caused by a decenterend and/or tilted lens element(s). This 
> seems to be a problem on some Canon compacts. I'm 
> hearing more about it. It is sad that Canon's QC is falling into the toilet.
> John

A friend bought a Canon compact and it was VERY unsharp, more
on the left than the right edge, with horrendous amounts of chromatic
shift also evident (all evident in tiny prints) - and Canon pronounced it
"within spec" and refused to repair/replace it under warranty. Another
friend bought one and it was quite good except for the lower left
corner at WA (not bad though, so he kept it), though about one in 10
frames was totally soft, as if the AF had failed. I have often in the past
recommended buying all gear from a dealer who will accept returns/
exchanges, and then TEST IT while you can still return it! Do not
assume that new gear is perfect, 'cuz it often isn't...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"beowulf@ancients.net" <r.oelerich@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173483779.362000.293810@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 9, 5:32 pm, "Joseph Meehan" <sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>     A scratch or chip out of a lens sounds like it is the end of the useful
>> life of the lens.  In reality chips and scratches look a lot worse than they
>> are and are far less likely that most people think.  A little non-reflective
>> ink will take care of the problem.  A lens repaired that way is likely to
>> perform better than a pristine lens with a nice new UV filter on it.  Either
>> way it is unlikely anyone is going to notice the difference in the results.

I have never been able to detect ANY negative effect from using
a good UV filter (for protection only...), or even two (experimentally)
on lenses that would most show their effects, fast very long teles...
With the very short lenses used in compact digital cameras (particularly
at WA and used with smallish stops), blackened spots can begin to
come into focus and show as blobs.

>>     I suggest you just make sure you use the lens cap (Usually free with the
>> lens) and don't worry.

Much of the time this is good advice, especially if you add a lens 
shade to it  - but then there can be that unforseen accident, like the 
time someone grabbed at my camera and scratched the UV filter on it,
even with the shade. It does require, though, that someone who does
not know how to clean a lens safely is not always scrubbing the lens
(I used to see the effects of this, with used lenses with "zillions" of
fine scratches on the front element - we used to call them "neck-tie 
cleaned lenses"...).

> I was also going to buy a warming filter, and a polarizing filter. So
> I guess the question sort of still remains, viz does brand name
> matter, is Canon better than Hoya/Tiffen when buying a filter kit?
 
Skip the warming filter - it does nothing that auto white balance won't
remove, or that color correction in the photo editor won't modify. As 
for brands, I recommend Hoya as more than adequate, and do not
recommend Hoya in the multicoated version (it is too hard to clean,
and the cheaper version is single coated, which is good enough for
a filter - remember all the great photos made with uncoated lenses, 
then with lenses in which all the elements were only single-coated?). 
I avoid Tiffen filters when I can since they are uncoated - but what is 
worse, they tend to "self fog", giving nice diffuse images after a few 
months if you forget to clean them. Bleah! ;-(  BTW, once in a while
a Hoya filter retaining ring is not fully seated (the rims are pleasantly
thin, good for wide angles). It is not hard to press it into its groove.
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"MAL" <mikaellaursen @ bpanet.dk> wrote in message news:b9252$45f3f2bb$55185a44$3967@news.arrownet.dk...
 
> What would you choose if quality and photographic possibilities are 
> important: Nikon 10.5mm/2.8 DX, Nikon 14mm/2.8, Nikon 16mm/2.8, Sigma 
> 8mm/3.5 og Sigma 15mm/2.8?
> 
> MAL 

See my Nikkor lens evaluation list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
The quick answer - no short FL lens equals the superb Nikkor 16mm ***f3.5***
fisheye (available only used, only in MF - make sure is AI, AI'd, or that you are 
willing to have it AI'd) - it is sharp wide open, very contrasty, and free of flare and 
ghosting (it is an amazing lens, and quite sharp on digital where it is kinda [with
the curvature] equal in coverage to a pleasant-perspective FF 21mm or so). Next
is a toss-up between the huge Nikkor 8mm f2.8 (excellent stopped down a bit)
and the Sigma much more compact and cheap (and still available new) 8mm *f4*.
The Sigma is better wide open, though it is not as wide, but by f8-11, the Nikkor
pulls ahead a bit, and it is a true 180 degrees in coverage. I would avoid the Nikkor
14mm f2.8(?) and 15mm f5.6 for digital, but the 15mm f3.5, which has poor FF 
corners, may serve well on digital if stopped down some. From what I've seen of
photos taken with the 10.5mm, it appears the corners on digital don't quite get 
"snappy" even at smaller stops (not bad, just not great, unlike the 16mm f3.5 on 
FF). I have never tried the Sigma. Bottom line - if you don't need the CPU in the 
lens, look for a nice 16mm f3.5 Nikkor. The 16mm f2.8 (available in AF) stopped
down some is also excellent, but not quite up to the f3.5, especially at wider stops.
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message news:et1dqn$nl0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "MAL" <mikaellaursen @ bpanet.dk> wrote in message news:b9252$45f3f2bb$55185a44$3967@news.arrownet.dk...
 
>> What would you choose if quality and photographic possibilities are important: 
>> Nikon 10.5mm/2.8 DX, Nikon 14mm/2.8, Nikon  16mm/2.8, Sigma 8mm/3.5 
>> og Sigma 15mm/2.8?
>> 
>> MAL
 
> See my Nikkor lens evaluation list, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
> The quick answer - no short FL lens equals the superb Nikkor 16mm ***f3.5***
> fisheye (available only used, only in MF - make sure is AI, AI'd, or that you are
> willing to have it AI'd) - it is sharp wide open, very contrasty, and free of flare and
> ghosting (it is an amazing lens, and quite sharp on digital where it is kinda [with
> the curvature] equal in coverage to a pleasant-perspective FF 21mm or so). Next
> is a toss-up between the huge Nikkor 8mm f2.8 (excellent stopped down a bit)
> and the Sigma much more compact and cheap (and still available new) 8mm *f4*.
> The Sigma is better wide open, though it is not as wide, but by f8-11, the Nikkor
> pulls ahead a bit, and it is a true 180 degrees in coverage. I would avoid the Nikkor
> 14mm f2.8(?) and 15mm f5.6 for digital, but the 15mm f3.5, which has poor FF
> corners, may serve well on digital if stopped down some. From what I've seen of
> photos taken with the 10.5mm, it appears the corners on digital don't quite get
> "snappy" even at smaller stops (not bad, just not great, unlike the 16mm f3.5 on
> FF). I have never tried the Sigma. Bottom line - if you don't need the CPU in the
> lens, look for a nice 16mm f3.5 Nikkor. The 16mm f2.8 (available in AF) stopped
> down some is also excellent, but not quite up to the f3.5, especially at wider stops.
> --
> David Ruether

'Course I missed the word "fisheye" in the above, eliminating the 14mm and 
15mm Nikkors. Also, I should have pointed out that only the 10.5mm would 
cover full frame in digital and also 180 degrees on the diagonal. The Nikkor 
8mm f2.8 (only in MF, and used - and VERY expensive) covers 180 degrees 
horizontally, but with circularly cropped frame edges. The Sigma framing is 
similar, but its coverage is a tad less wide in practice than the Nikkor. Both 
can be used on a 1.4X converter to cover more of the digital frame, but at 
some cost in sharpness. So, there are 8mm, 10.5mm, and 15-16mm options
for fisheyes for digital, with varying frame crops and coverage angles...
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Smith" <shotbred@sneiorglobe.com> wrote in message news:db626$45f381b8$4018506f$24559@DIALUPUSA.NET...
 
> Anyone have any experience with this lens on digital cameras? Is it a viable 
> option to the Pentax pancake?

I have not, though I've heard good things about it (maybe not in the corners in
FF at f2.8 ???). If you do not need the CPU, Nikon made a fairly rare pancake
50mm f1.8 AIS in metal-barrel, and a later much more common plastic-barreled
version, along with the E series 50mm f1.8. While not quite as tiny as the 45mm,
they are very compact and excellent optically (my metal-barreled version will
probably always remain in my collection...).
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike" <huntm@worldwide.net> wrote in message news:huntm-591301.08163418032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
 
>I have been reading reviews of lenses.  There are many comments that the 
> newer ones are "plastic" and of dubious optical quality.  but when I 
> read the reviews say from Adorama most people are pleased with the 
> lenses and some of those reviewers list themselves as advanced users and 
> even professionals.  
> 
> Is there some elitist thing here by the people who just do not like the 
> plastic or is there some validity to their objection?  I have even heard 
> about the "Canonization" of Nikon. 
> 
> I am sure that the better the lens the better the image, sorta like when 
> choosing a music system spend the big bucks on the speakers.  But where 
> is the line crossed for lenses.
 
Read "Yoshi's" post, above, to which I would add the URL for my 
Nikkor evaluation list at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
and the "closing comments" section, at 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html#closing. The early 
Nikkor AF lenses did feel cheap, with very loose focus and 
low quality finish compared with Nikkor MF lenses (even the 
bargain-priced "E" series), but the optics were generally 
excellent. Later, the plastic barrels improved in both feel and 
appearance, but Nikon also then chose to introduce several 
cheap optically so-so lenses (presumably for marketing 
reasons). It is true that most people will not see the differences 
between a poor (unless it is TERRIBLE!) and a middling lens 
in small prints, or between a middling and an excellent lens 
in medium sized prints (or even larger), but for those who 
know what to look for and who care about the quality 
of their tools, the best lenses (not necessarily the most 
expensive...) are worth having (though it may be necessary
to buy the most expensive to be fairly sure of getting the best).
In all of this, remember that there are no perfect lenses - so
chose lenses that serve your needs the best... (Just as with 
audio, where with careful selection, excellent sound can be 
had on a tight budget. ;-)
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1174239875.906026.214650@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 11:59 am, "nsag" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> Being human posters to this newsgroup write some things that are true, a lot
>> that is dubious and more that comes out of a dark and foul place.
>> Unfortunately so-called objective review sources, including magazines and
>> web sites, are not necessarily always reliable either.
 
> Two things work against accuracy.  One, as you said is the pressure
> from advertisers not to slag lens performance.
> The other, that plagues personal reviews is that Johnny just spend
> $1000+ for his new Nikon lens and is unlikely to criticize it because
> to him, it seems like a challenge to his judgement and his pride.
> Best bet, go where people spend thousands all the time, on multiple
> identical lenses to get just the perfect one.
> 
> Fredmiranda.com  Example:
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/519163
 
In my "Subjective Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)", at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html (note new address)
I have no advertising, no problem with declaring a cheap lens
excellent or an expensive lens not worth the money, an older 
lens better than a newer, a competitor's lens better than a 
Nikkor, and I emphasize the reality of sample variation even
in the Nikkor line (and I include the number of samples tried 
and the range of performance with each lens). My list comes 
from years of  buying to optimize my lens samples, using them, 
selling all at a point when I was broke, then spending years 
buying lenses to optimize my collection again (and sometimes 
borrowing lenses out of curiosity). As a result, I went through 
*many* lenses (an understatement!). It is this experience that 
I offer for free (and without advertising revenue) on my web 
page. Nutty, I know...;-)
--
David Ruether
 d_ruether@hotmail.com
 www.David-Ruether-Photography.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"davidof" <david.george@g-dumpthisbit-mail.com> wrote in message news:45ffbf7a$0$21145$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr...
> I've recently purchased a cheap MiniDV camcorder. I've noticed that when 
> loading captures into VegasVideo there is a 1 pixel wide black margin on 
> the upper and lower borders and a 2 pixel wide margin on the left 
> border. I don't see this on my more expensive Sony camcorder.
> 
> Anyone know what is causing this?
 
Not all Mini-DV camcorders record image in the full 640x720
pixel area (NTSC). This is not only a problem for stills (minor - you
can crop) but also when using some transitions and effects in video 
editing that reveal frame edges. The Canons were among the worst for
this among those I compared in my camcorder reviews a few years
ago (at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm). 
All Sony camcorders but the VX1000 had image to the frame edges...
--David Ruether
 
Go to:  More Posts - Five
Go to:  More Posts Index
Go to:  Articles Index
Go to:  David Ruether Photography