frederick_lau1

What is the difference between linear polarizing filter and circular polarizing

filter in terms of effects ? Are they identical ?

For my F3P, should I use a linear polarizing filter or a circular polarizing

filter ? What is the reason behind it ?

I have once played with different circular polarizing filters (different brands

and different size). I noticed one thing : when I overlap 2 circular

polarizing filters and view throught them, there was a difference in colours

(colour shift) if I swap the order of the filters or if i turn one of the

filter. What I expected was a reduction in brightness and not colour shift ?

Is there any reason behind it ?

Thanks guys. Since I have both the 135mm f4.5 and the 80mm f4 with the 65-116 tube, I am just thinking of whether the 80mm f4 will work with some extension ring (which is useful in macro anyway) so make is as a reserve short tele when I need it.

By the way, the 135mm f4.5 with the 65-116 tube perform quite well for long distance. The only down side is that it has max f4.5 and the focussing grip area is not as broad.

Has anyone try other extension ring on 80mm f4 and still able to focus to infinity (the OM brand's 25mm may be costly) ?

Since the OM Zuiko 80mm f4 Auto has helicord focussing (though limited), has

anyone tried using a suitable extension ring (I don't have one, but I have the

65-116 tube) so that it can focus to infinity ?

If there is one such extension ring exists, what is the nearest focussing

distance ?

P.S. I enjoy using my Zuiko 135 f4.5 Auto with my 65-116 tube in its unextended

length. It allows me to focus from infinity to portrait distance using the

(limited) helicord focussing, It makes a handy tele when I travel light.

Thanks.

I have not used the Zuiko 135mm f3.5, so I cannot comment.

I owned a later (Made In Japan, i.e. multi-coated) version of Zuiko 100mm f2.8. This is a handy, sharp lens with just the right amount of contrast, esp. good for portraits. The colour rendition is excellent. It offer a different taste to Nikkor 105mm f2.5 (which I also owned) but equally good.

However, my feeling is that the earlier SC version of 100mm f2.8 may not be as good.

Thanks for all your responses.

A shop here (Sydney Australia) has a black F3/T (no paint loss at all) to offer. The owner (apparently an experienced camera repair technician for 20+ years) told me that the F3/T back is NOT titanium contrary to what I have heard from elsewhere.

He showed me the back of the black F3/T as well as a brand new F3 back (they did not come with the pressure plate). Visually I cannot see any difference. I have tried to look for something like serial number, but apart from the pressure plate (absence of), there was no visible difference.

Apart from destructive testing (e.g. scraping of paint) and weighing (I guess bringing a scale to weigh there looks a bit awkward), what else can I tell it is a genuine titanium back ?

Thanks, Frederick

How can we tell whether the back is a titanium back or just an ordinary back ?

Thanks, Frederick

Is the original camera back come with F3T made in titanium or just an

ordinary F3 back ? I have different opinions from even different

sellers.

Thanks.

Where will this Nikon Series E 36-72mm f3.5 stand among all other 35-

70mm Nikkors in terms of optical performance :

AI 35-70mm f3.5 (72mm filter)

AIS 35-70mm f3.5 (62mm filter)

AIS & AF 35-70mm f3.5/4.5 (52mm filter)

AF & AF-D 35-70mm f2.8 AF

Which is the best and which is the worst ?

Has anyone have experience in this H2 screen for F3 ?

Is there a "Red Dot" version for H2 ?

Thanks,

Frederick

I just obtain a used F3P and MD-4 but without manuals.

Could anyone suggest links where I can obtain/download manuals of F3P

and MD-4 for free ?

Also I would want to know you opinions on F3P as compared to other

versions of F3.

The serial number of my F3P starts with 901xxxx, what is the year of

its manufacture ?

Is there a way to use the AUTO TTL flash mode in OM-2S and OM-4T with

Olympus' T series flash (t32, T28, T10 etc) with speed lower than X

sync (ie 1/60) ?

Thanks,

Frederick

Thanks for all your valuable info & advice.

Jim, I will try your suggestion first and see how it goes.

Frederick

How should I set both my camera (I use FM3A & F4) and flash (SB-24)

if I want to use TTL fill flash using a sync speed (e.g. 1/8, 1/15,

etc) lower than the X-sync (1/250s in both cases). Also how should I

set both the camera and flash if I want 1:2 or 1:4 fill.

I would prefer to utilize the "auto" TTL function of my flash.

Could anyone comment or share his/her experience with this Zuiko 50-

250mm f5 ?

It seems to fetch quite a high price among Zuiko zooms.

How does it compare with Zuiko 85-250mm f5 and 65-200mm f4 ?

Could anyone share his/her photos using this zoom ?

I am eager to know the manufacturing date of Zuiko lenses in relation

to their dates of manufacture (similar to the Nikkors posted by

Roland Vink : http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon3.html).

Could any one know where can I find this information ?

Thanks for your response.

Lex, I will try your suggestion first, since it is the simplest and least 'destructive'.

I shall try Chuk Tang's method if the paint pens' results are not satisfactory.

Perhaps I can used this experience to touch up my other cameras too !

I appreciate your contributions. Perhaps I need to clarify more. There is no problem with the titanium parts (in black). The problem area is the area adjacent to the lens mount (external, not inside mirror box). I got this camera used. The paintwork is worn to the metal in this area while the other areas remain acceptable.

The wearing is quite unsighting compare to the general wear & tear condition of the camera.

The camera is intended for use, not for collection purpose. However, I would like to have this part restored to black.

As I said, I do not like the idea of dissebling the camera to get this part out and do the (perhaps the proper way) paintwork. The cost and risk (the camera working as before after the dissebling and re-assebling) is just too great to justify it.

I am looking for a less dramatic way of doing it. Perhaps the right materials and method/procedure. I can accept the result may be not up to the original pristine condition. But I am looking for a lasting smooth black finish.

How good (optical & mechanical) is Kiron's 24mm f2 compared with

Nikon's, and also Kiron's 105mm f2.8 macro compared with Nikon's ?

How much should I expect to pay for them ?

Have you consider the new Voigtlander SL lens series(http://www.cosina.co.jp/sllenses/) and (http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt%20SL.htm) ?

Voigtlander was bought by Cosina and now Cosina is reviving the Voigtlander name through their new rangefinder Bessa, and now this 'luxury' SLR lens series.

The 90mm, 125mm & 180mm are APO designs.

The 125mm f2.5 can focus down to 1:1 (for MTF pursuers, check out the 4 sets of MTF curves in the Japanese site).

The 180mm f4 is an exceptional compact design (79mm length and 485g weight).

The 75mm f2.8 is a compact portrait lens (see the excellent showcase photos in the Japanese site).

The 40mm f2 will make every OM Zuiko enthusiast envy : latest design using 2 aspherical surfaces and very high refractive index glasses. It is claimed to have very useable performance at f2.

All are quality metal constructions with 9 aperture blades. The price are quite reasonable too.

I have seen very good reviews (non-English) of their RF cousins (e.g. 50mm f1.5 Nikton compare favourably with Leica-M).

Assuming the SL series is of similar calibre, they should perform well. Hopefully someone will share their experience of these lenses.

The current Camera Lens News No. 19 by Carl Zeiss mentioned that

their Tessar® T* 45 mm f/2.8 MM lens showed the best overall

performance in as the conclusion of fotoMAGAZIN, one of the two big

monthly German photo magazines :

"....fotoMAGAZIN, in their Jan. 2003 issue, compared four compact

standard lenses for 35 mm SLR cameras: the Nikkor 45 mm f/2.8 P, the

Pentax SMC-FA 43 mm f/1.9 Limited, the Voigtlaender Ultron 40 mm f/2

SL Aspherical, and the Carl Zeiss Tessar® T* 45 mm f/2.8 MM

lens....."

Has anyone came across this article and could anyone please tell us

what the article says in details ?

Could anyone share with us their experience with this AI-P Nikkor

45mm f2.8, preferrably with sample photos ?

Leon,

Roland Vink's website (http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/nikon3.html) listed 9 different versions of this lens (including 2 series E).The first verison of Nikkor 50 f/1.8 was Nikon's improvement on their famous 50 f/2.

Nikon's official web magazine artile series 1001 Nights (tales about milestone or legendary Nikkors) Tale 2 (http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n02_e.htm)

told the story. The authors of this series are retired designers of Nikon lenses. So they are more trustworthy than many Nikkor "authorities".

This is from the article :

"The spherical aberration (of 50 f/2) is somewhat large when compared with a shorter lens barrel design model called "AI Nikkor 50mm F1.8S"(1980~) in Japan, which was a further improvement on the AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8(1978~) and therefore the contrast (of 50 f/2) is somewhat reduced at full aperture."

This hinted that the 50/1.8S is the best MF version.

The "AI Nikkor 50mm F1.8S" (named 50/1.8S in Roland Vink's site) looks similar to the numerous 'pancake' (named 50/1.8N in Roland Vink's site) with these differences :

The 50/1.8S was sold in Japan ONLY for a very short period of time. It has Nikkor's traditional RUBBER focussing ring (not plastic, as in 50/1.8N). Also the minimum focus is 0.45m, not 0.6m (where all other 'pancake' versions have).

I have only seen this lens twice.

Japan's Nikomat Club author has done test on 3 versions of this lens (http://nikomat.homeip.net/lens/5018/index.html) and the 50/1.8S sample came out the best of the 3, in terms of flare & ghost control and mechanical construction.

I have used the MF long barrel version for years and I do not have any issues with its quality.

Personally, I found Nikkor 50 f/1.8 to be an excellent lens. Of course there are areas that you can say it can be better. But I think you do not find many lenses that can out-perfrom it in many (or even all) aspects.

When you say "it has never been brilliant". There are a lot of parameters/variables involved in the testing procedure -- and abvoe all, your subjective expectation, given that you believe this is a brilliant lens.

Having said that, I do admit that there may be variance in samples.