arnabdas

August 23, 2014

The E-PL1 was my first ever mirrorless body. I had tons of fun with adapted lenses!

September 9, 2013

Those two are very different lenses with different personalities, and neither can substitute 100% for the other.

The 200/4 AFD can reward with excellent results, but it's application is restricted to closeups/macro and that too off a tripod. It is impractical to handhold for it's primary intended use. For general photography there are better options at this FL.

The 105/2.8 is lighter (though not by much) and possible to handhold. Good for handheld aquarium photography with overhead flash though it can feel heavy after some time.

Background blur is a combined effect of AoV and aperture, and comparative results between the two lenses may be a tossup.

April 12, 2011

Carl, thnaks a lot! Inputs based on first-hand experience are always great to have. You said "On my copies" and I do understand the subtle nuances of sample variation.

Though you speak from D700 experience, as I understand it -- FF digital vs 35mm film performance with regard to corner sharpness should be comparable (if not the film being more forgiving). It is vignetting that FF digitals seem to be more sensitive to compared to 35mm film.

"considered the 28-70mm f2.8 Nikkor" -- yes, I did, for a fleeting moment! Then I also considered the cost and acknowledged the financial infeasibility in me buying that one. Given that it would be used exclusively for family shots while my serious "thing" is closeups -- I'm not ready for that kind of investment yet, unfortunately.

April 12, 2011

Looking for a "normal" FL zoom lens to use on my N80 35mm SLR for family and toddler shots, I have narrowed my choices down to just the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or the Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5.

Now to round things out -- corner sharpness is very important to me since I blow-up my film shots rather large and I also have a scanner capable of doing that. I can live with the limited zoom range of Tamron if it has the better corner/edge sharpness of the two. Likewise, I can live with the moderate max. aperutre of the Nikon 28-105 if that happens to be the one with the better corner sharpness.

So, between the Tamron 28-75 and the Nikon 28-105 -- which has better corner sharpness on 35mm film/FX?

.

April 12, 2011

First of all, thanks everyone for all the inputs, very insightful. I have narrowed my choices down to just the Tamron 28-75 or the Nikon 28-105. I left VR / superzooms out of final consideration, because VR is of not much use for restless kids, and as for superzooms -- I'd rather have very high-qualily shots of only certain kinds than above-average shots of all kinds, if you know what I mean.

Now to round things out -- corner sharpness is very important to me since I blow-up my film shots rather large and I also have a scanner capable of doing that.

So, between the Tamron 28-75 and the Nikon 28-105 -- which has better corner sharpness on 35mm film/FX? I can live with the limited zoom range of Tamron if it has the better corner/edge sharpness of the two. Likewise, I can live with the moderate speed of the Nikon 28-105 if that happens to be the one with the better corner sharpness.

Thoughts?

April 6, 2011

Additional titbits

- I used to happily own the N80 + 28-105/3.5-4.5 once but that was 10 years ago and lens choices were different then

- really looking for only one lesn to stay more or less always mounted

- Not meaning to spend a lot of money if I don't need to.

- Since I'll be shooting only film and that too for family shots, flare/ghosting/vignetting control, good OOF rendition/bokeh, nice color rendition, decent focusing speed are more important attributes (compared to CA, critical sharpness, distorttion etc. which I can live with if not too much).

April 6, 2011

Being a complete noob for non-macro gear I have to ask. I ironically ended up buying another Nikon body (N80, F80 outside US) even after I sold off my DSLRs and believed I had switched completely to m4/3 for my main body of work.

This time the purpose is vacations / family (complete with a hyperactive toddler who my FM3A bodies are no use for). I'm mostly using Kodak Ektar 100 and need a zoom lens (ideally but not necessarily one with vibration control) that focuses quick enough.

My brain is now numbed from fretting over the choices, much harder than selecting macro gear. Primary purpose is family and vacation snapshots but would not mind a "do-it-all" superzoom if the results can stand up to Ektar 100 film + KM Dimage Scan Elite 5400/II scanner standards.

These are the ones I am considering. Budget < $800ish.

<ul>

<li>28-80/3.3-5.6 AF G Nikkor (or the AF-D at the same FL range) </li>

<li>24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-G Nikkor </li>

<li>28-85/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor </li>

<li>28-75/2.8 Tamron </li>

<li>28-105/3.5-4.5 Nikkor </li>

<li>28-200/3.5-5.6 AF-G Nikkor </li>

<li>28-300/3.5-5.6 VR Nikkor </li>

<li>Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [iF] etc.</li>

</ul>

Which one(s) do you think I should shortlist?

November 3, 2010

" I see film era lenses going up in price but not film bodies." -- Dave Lee

That's probably because those lenses are being quietly lapped up by micro 4/3rds users like myself.

I used to be heavily into the Nikon system in a past life. After selling both DSLRs I have completely switched to m4/3rds and now extensively use Nikon F, C/FD, P/K, OM, Konica mount legacy lenses on them via Novoflex, Voigtlander and other adapters. I am actively on the hunt for legacy gems these days and I notice prices of film-era MF lenses slowly yet noticeably increasing month-on-month.

I should mention I kept two FM3A bodies :-) As a collector? - Maybe. But those are for my kid to hold and marvel at when he grows up. I do use them every now and then to shoot Kodak Ektar 100.

To Ian, if you are serious about continuing to use the F3 bodies well into the future it probably makes sense to pick up another couple as parts bodies, because I don't think you get spares for them anymore.

May 17, 2010

Thanks everyone :)

May 15, 2010

I'm switching from Windows PC to Mac (and from reflex interchangeable lens cameras to mirrorless but that's another story).

I'm considering one of those new 20.5" iMac boxes with LED display. That particular size comes with two config options -- the lower priced one has 500GB HDD and GeForce 9400M graphics, while the higher priced one has 1TB HDD and Radeon HD 4670.

The larger 1TB storage is nice but not quite worth the upgrade cost by itself, considering I can add another USB HDD at much lower cost and with marginally compromised wiring/asthetics. What I don't know is if the Radeon HD 4670 graphics will offer any substantial benefits over GeForce 9400M.

I will mostly be working on RAW image processing and output for prints. The files will include raw files from various cameras and also 5400DPI linear TIFF scans of 35mm film that are typically 250+MB in size. I will also likely install Windows 7 via BootCamp.

I wonder if the Radeon HD 4670 will offer any significant benefit for above type of work -- significant enough to justify the cost differential. Your thoughts?

May 7, 2010

I suggest don't give up on your DSLR, but get something alongside that will be convenient to carry.

After nearly 2 decades of SLR photography I found liberation in a "big sensor point and shoot" -- a Fuji S100fs. I does not replace my DSLR but complements it, the mirrorless design, live view and articulating LCD is a big plus especially for handheld shots with fill flash, with the small sensor adding value on the DoF front. Unfortunately it is discontinued and similar follow up models from Fuji are presently struggling to match up. Results at ISO 100 raw are shockingly close to my D200 and print nicely up to 12x16. At anything above ISO 100, it is no match for DSLRs though. All said -- this has enabled me to get shots I could never get with my DSLRs for certain given situations.

Some shots with the S100fs below. I am approaching a number of about 500 keepers in 12 months, curiously higher than my exclusively DSLR days. Usability advantages notwithstanding, the sole reason for that is I am more motivated to grab this piece of equipment, go out and shoot all day.

PS: My D200 is currently on sale as I am poised to switch to a Panasonic M4/3 system. After months of deliberation, I decided the M4/3 is the optimal system for my type of photography -- excellent portability with image quality a few notches higher than the S100fs.

For low light and action and for huge enlargements, you still need to keep the DSLR around. My decision of a complete switch was easy because my niche is closeups, but nature photographers may have diverse needs. Ok, perhaps not a "complete switch" because I still have and use my film SLRs.

May 7, 2010

Joseph -- no problems, thanks for confirming, I kind of guessed as much that you have the 105 AI/AIS Micro (either f4 or f2.8 variants) in mind.

The PN-11 is a great accessory and that is why I have three of them :). TC 300/301 with the 200/4 AIS Micro is a little beyond impractical.

BTW, I should mention that any achromat put in front of the 200mm/f4 AIS Nikkor should be reverse-mounted to retain corner sharpness..

May 7, 2010

"Another alternative is to buy the manual focus version of the Nikon 200mm f 4.0. It does macro at .5 to 1, focuses thru infinity and comes with a tripod collar mount that is detachable. If you buy the mf version, get the PN 11 tube too then you can get to 1:1. If you get the mf version make sure it comes with the the tripod collar mount." -- J Smith

Joseph, I am not aware of any 200mm/4.0 AI/AIS Nikkor (the 200mm/f4 AIS Micro included) that would get you to 1:1 just by adding a PN-11. Am curious which lens is this one that you are speaking of here?

FWIW, Nikon recommends adding a 2x TC (namely the TC-30X) for getting to life size with the 200/4 AIS micro. A better way is to add a Olympus MCON-35/Nikon 4T/Marumi 330 Achromat in the front to get up to nearabout life-size.

Clive: Coming back to your original question -- Pol's can be very useful for closeups of insects and such, but it is also unlikely you will be using them all the time. If possible, perhaps you can borrow from someone and see how it works out for you and how often you find yourself reaching out for it -- before you decide to purchase.

As ever, the more you try things out first hand, the less there will be myths/assumptions to inhibit your photography!

May 6, 2010

I happen to do that fairly regularly -- especially when shooting dewy damselflies in the morning just after sunrise.

before sunrise dewdrops don't tend to blow out as much. Also, given the low light, additional loss due to polarization is usually unaffordable.

However, after the morning sun starts shining directly on the subjects -- using a polarizer really helps reducing blown highlights. Colors tend to get a bit more saturated too -- sometimes (undesirably) resulting in darkening of the background.

May 3, 2010

around 55mm/60mm is fine for flowers but for most live bugs you need a 90mm (minimum) or longer focal length lens -- even on a APS-C DSLR like D3000. Possible candidates for you would be the Nikon 85mm Micro, the Tamron 90 SP AF macro or the Tokina 100mm ATX Pro D.

Of these three only the Nikon 85mm will autofocus on the D3000 so that is the one I would recommend if you plan on using AF for your closeups. it should be good for the occassional portraits too. remember that it is a DX lens so can't really be used on FX bodies.

If you can live without AF, the Tamron 90mm is a great buy. Image quality from the older non-Di version is virtually indistinguishable from the latest Di version, and good deals can be had on the used lenses market for the non-Di one.

May 2, 2010

"Arnab, I think the Metz could be the way to go. Just to confirm, it will work on a Nikon in iTTL as well as the R1 giving correct exposures and control over balance with daylight and modelling, compensation etc."

Ian, I had a very brief experience with the R1 so I cannot provide an in-depth comparison. Suffice it to say that the Metz has been very accurate for me in various ambient lighting situations and compensation modes. If it is possible for you to try out either system before buying -- I would encourage you to do so.

"Does it use pre flash and does the pop up interfere with the lighting?"

It does use pre-flash in iTTL, I have never seen the pop-up flash interfere with the lighting but the flash comes with an IR clip that you can clip on to the pop-up flash to block out visible light.

May 2, 2010

"Which of the 2.... Metz or Nikon R1 set would be ready out the bag first? If your in the field or forest shooting landscapes and spot a close up opportunity which would be ready to go first. I am concerned that if either is too slow to set up you wouldn't bother." Ian -- if you carry your R1 kit as assembled (could be a bit bulky/fragile) it should be pretty quick. The Metz will likely still be quicker if you keep your adapter screwed on like I do -- it is just a quesion of clipping on the unit and popping up your built-in flash.

The key advantages of the R1 kit is the ability to move (radially) the flash heads independent of each other and a bit more leeway in setting up lighting angles for each head -- which I don't miss much for my type of shooting. The light weight, compactness and portability of 15 MS-1 have more appeal for me.

May 2, 2010

Shun, the clip on system is a spring loaded mechanism with two push buttons on either side and 4 "teeth" to clip on to the grove on the adapter.

I think to make it compatible from 52mm all the way up to 77mm would introduce a lot of slack in the tolerences for smaller diameters and increase the risk of the flash being easily snapped off when using smaller adapters -- hope I am able to explain right ...

May 2, 2010

Nope Shun -- 77mm isn't supported :( I think this flash is primarily targeted to most common macro lenses from major Brands where 72mm is about the biggest it gets.

To that end, this Metz is NOT the ringlight you'd want to use for fashion/glamour -- something like the RayFlash or Orbis fiber-optic based attachments for SB-800/900 would be more suitable for that purpose. I also tried a Sunpak 16R Pro "true-ring" flash but in addition to being bulky/wired I heard a couple horror stories regarding it's reliability so I backed out.

I was considering the Sigma 140 DG or the Metz 15 MS-1 and I opted for the Metz because it will also work with the Panasonic m4/3 system that I am about to switch (at least for the most part) to.

May 2, 2010

I agree with Shun's observations re. Metz price. However -- for some strange reason I noticed price of Mecablitz gear in Singapore were markedly less than that in US. I paid all of 320 SG$ for my 15 MS-1 in Singapore early 2009.

Couple tips and tricks -- in addition to supporting iTTL this flash has a learn mode so it can be used even with digital compacts/bridge cams/superzooms that use propreitary preflash schemes. It comes with lens adapters for 52mm, 55mm and 58mm. Up to 72 mm dia lenses can be used. Adapters are available to 62mm, 67mm and 72mm but the OEM adapters are expensive. Here's what I do -- buy a cheap generic rubber lens hood at 5-6$ each and take off the rubber to leave the metal stub screwed on to the lens. The flash neatly clips on to the groove around the metal stub that used to hold the rubber.

May 2, 2010

"Arnab will the Metz be triggered by infrared? Or more precise. Does the SB800 trigger it like using it on a D3." Walter, I have been able to successfully trigger it with the popup flash and with the SB-800. I believe the SU commander unit can trigger it as well. The Metz 15 MS-1 is a smart piece of device, it supports wireless TTL for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Alpha, Olympus and Panasonic and has an USB port for firmware upgrades to support possible future updates. "Did you ever compare the illumination to a true ringflash? I believe the Metzt uses no ring but 2 light sources?" Compared to the Dine ring flash and the SB29 -- the lighting of 15 MS-1 is not totally flat (as in case of true rings of the SB21/Dine) and I like it better that way. You can vary the light ooutput ratios from 1:1 to 1:16 and that gives you a lot of flexibility. I always use the diffuser. Remember that for subjects where the background is quiet a bit away you are more likely to get black backgrounds with about any ringflash/equivalent gear. That is the reason why I use a second flash on a bracket to light the background. Walter you may have seen this pic before but this was shot using a twin flash approach, However here both the bracket mounted flash and the 15 MS-1 were on manual since the camera I used does not have any kind of TTL flash. This is about as close to available light as you could get for this particular shot under deep shade of a tree.

May 2, 2010

BTW, the PF 20 XD works wirelessly and has an "ignore preflash" mode. The Metz ring flash supports wireless iTTL.

May 2, 2010

There are multiple methods for handheld flash work and different folks seem to prefer different methods -- to each his own.

I have tried the following methods and they have all worked well for me

<ul>

<li>Small flash on butterfly bracket</li>

<li>Shoe mounted SB-26/80/600/800 with sto-fen diffuser</li>

<li>dual flash on brackets</li>

</ul>

That said -- there's one setup that has really worked well for me -- I use a small flash on a bracket in manual mode (a Sunpak PF 20 XD - there's nothing else quite like this) to light the background and I use a wireless ring flash Metz 15 MS-1 (again, there's nothng else quite like it) -- in iTTL mode to light the subject. The whole setup balances beautifully and works flawlessly.

April 30, 2010

A Razer Salmosa and/or a Wacom tablet gets my job done.

April 28, 2010

"whats a reasonable (price and quality) macro lens I can get for the D90"

The Tamron 90/2.8 SP AF macro comes to mind. One of the more versatile macro lenses in the medium tele category. Very lightweight (I am about to switch to m4/3 and lightweight macro lenses are of special value to me now) and doesn't not need a lens hood. Exceptionally nice background renditions.

Ok -- what's most exciting about this lens is that it mates beautifully with the Tamron SP AF 1.4x teleconverter to give some impressive max-mag/working distance. For all practical purposes -- no optical degradation is observed at f5.6 and less.

The following photo was shot using Tamron 90mm/f2.8 + Tamron SP AF 1.4x -- straight from raw, no color manipulation or sharpening anywhere. D200 @ ISO100 raw

And here is the 100% crop -- again, unmanipulated

The new 85mm micro nikkor looks good too but I do not have first hand experience with it -- if you get it remember that it isn't really usable on FF DSLRs. The Sigma 105/2.8 is sharp but has harsh OOF renditions sometimes. Tokina M100 ATX Pro D is good but has relatively more CA compared to other macro lenses in similar FLs.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by arnabdas