dougwebb

Yes, get a bay 1 to series 5 adapter and a series 5 to series 6 adapter and put them together. These are sometimes listed as series V and series VI. This will allow you to use your series 6 filters on a bay 1 yashica tlr lens mount.

 

Doug Webb

If your results pleased you with D76, then I would recommend that you try Ilford DDX developer for either film. In terms of comparing Delta 100, a very fine film, and Pan F, which in my opinion is one of the finest films ever made, I have found that Pan F is capable of producing, in studio lighting situations, the best portraits that I have made with 35mm, and with medium format, even better. I like the tonality of Pan F, no I should say, I love the tonality of Pan F when I have gotten the lighting right with an incident meter and a portrait subject, often my 6 year old daughter, to sit still long enough to photograph. I'm not sure that everyone agrees on the meaning of tonality, but if you get the exposure and development right with Pan F, you will see something about the tones of the print that you will really like. If you have the time, give Pan F a chance, develop it in DDX, try it with studio lighting so the contrast won't be too high, or use it for landscape and expose it at 25 instead of 50 and follow the Ilford recommendations for development at that speed. One of the problems that some people have with Pan F outdoors is the contrast, which can be high with Pan F. Good luck,

Doug Webb

Ilford PanF is the only film I have found in 35mm that came close to producing the quality I wanted. If you have enough light, go for it. Big softboxes, placed close to the subject or big softbox with reflector, both placed very close to the subject will help with the contrast problems. This film will produce beatiful negatives in Ilford's DDX developer, in Perceptol, or in ID11. Try it at 25 and 50 using Illford's recommended times. If you are interested I can send you a scan of a studio lighting PanF negative. Good luck.

Doug Webb

I like the wratten 89b for SFX and Konica. With a wratten 87 you will get results that are indistinguishable from unexposed film. It might be possible to record an image on these films with an 87 filter if you expose for several minutes. I have not tried the 88a but you are getting very close to the limits of the film with this filter. If you don't like the results you get with the 89b on SFX or Konica, try increasing the contrast by using the curves function in photoshop if you are scanning and printing on inkjet or going with a higher contast paper if you are using a wet darkroom, that will make a print that looks more like Kodak HIE. I like the wratten 87 for Kodak HIE and Macophot 820. Macophot is now available in a version labled "aura" which gives the images a somewhat dreamy quality with blown highlights like HIE. I have not tried a more extreme filter than wratten 87 on HIE but I think you would be running into a wall with Macophot if you go beyond the 87, just like trying to use SFX or Konica with an 87.

Good luck.

I have and use the 105. For nature work, I like the fact that you have a little greater working distance, but mostly I like the fact that there is less to worry about in terms of distracting elements appearing in the background. I sometimes find that I need to use a 1.4 or 2x extender to narrow the background with the 105 so that I can obtain a cleaner composition. The 200 would be nice but it's quite a bit more expensive. I sometimes find that it isn't possible to get my tripod close enough to the subject with a shorter working distance. I don't know what you are using the lens for but the 105 is not flat field and I believe the 60 is, so the 60 would probably be better for copy work. Good luck.

Doug

I don't think any developer will give you the results you are looking for if you shot Konica 750 with an infrared #87 filter. What you have is probably a roll of film with no images. An 87 filter filters out all of the wavelengths of light that Konica 750 can record. If you want an infrared effect (white foliage for example in a lanscape shot) with Konica 750 you need something more in the range of a red #25 filter which will allow the wavelengths that Konica 750 can record to pass through. Good luck.

Doug Webb

I have the newer version 45mm and the older version 75mm. I wouldn't be without either one and I don't know how I would select one over the other. I do think I would choose the 45 over the 55 if I were going to own the 75mm as well. There is no way that the 55 will substitute for both the 45 and 75mm lenses. I have never owned a Pentax 67 lens that wasn't sharp, old or new model. Good luck.

Gary, I assume you are talking about the 400 5.6. I don't understand why you would want to buy an expensive (Nikon TC14E), autofocus teleconverter for a 5.6 lens. You won't be able to autofocus with this lens or any 5.6 lens with any teleconverter. You can buy a used or less expensive 1.4 teleconverter that does not require modification.