john_narsuitus

<blockquote> <p>"If you know something about this, would you please share your knowledge? I welcome any comment, caution, and recommendation."</p> </blockquote> <p><br />A few years ago, I purchased an inexpensive adapter that allowed me to mount my Nikon lenses on my micro 4/3 Olympus camera bodies. After I used it the first time, I was unable to remove the adapter from the lens. I ended up damaging the adapter beyond repair because I had to use screw driver and pliers to remove it.</p> <p>I ordered a higher priced Nikon to m4/3 adapter from a different provider (Fotodiox). The adapter from Fotodiox worked perfectly.</p> <p>In this photo, I have mounted my E-p1 to a tripod mounted Nikon 1000mm mirror lens with a 2X teleconverter. This combination gives me an angle-of-view that is equivalent to a 4000mm lens on a 35mm camera. This focal length is something that I cannot easily duplicate on the 35mm and DX Nikon systems that I still use.</p> <p> </div>

<p>I own and use the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 lens and the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro lens. Both are excellent lenses.</p> <p>The Nikon 105mm f/2.5 has a well-deserved reputation for being an exceptional portrait lens. I love using it for head & shoulder shots and headshots on a 35mm film camera.</p> <p>On a 35mm film camera, the 105mm f/2.8 macro can capture a reproduction ratio of 1:1 with a Nikon PN-11 extension tube and a 1:2 ratio without the tube.</p> <p>If I had to use only one of these two 105mm lenses for food photography and portraiture, I would select the macro. The macro can easily shoot food close-ups and to handle portraits, all I have to do is attach a soft focus filter to reduce its sharpness.</p> <p>The 105mm f/2.5 can easily shoot portraits but to shoot food close-ups and macro, I would have to use cumbersome accessories such as close-up lenses, bellows, or extension tubes.<br> <br /> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm interested in Food photography and portraiture."</p> </blockquote> <p>For food photography and other close-up work under studio conditions, I use the Nikon 105mm f/4 macro lens. This lens does not have its own focusing mechanism because it was designed to be used with bellows or extension tubes. I use it on a Nikon PB-4 bellows in order to use its swinging and shifting features to control perspective.<br> <br /> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I wonder if anyone has regretted leaving Pentax for Nikon or Canon?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I never regretted leaving Pentax for Nikon or Canon because I never really left. I still use Pentax 35mm film cameras (Spotmatic and ME); but I now use Nikon digital SLRs and Canon digital compacts.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"... I want a fast lens."</p> </blockquote> <p>If speed is what you need, you should also consider one of the 35mm f/1.4 lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Thanks much for any advice."</p> </blockquote> <p>In my case, I needed faster lenses; therefore, I use the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 prime lenses.</p> <p>When I received the Olympus 14-43mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 zoom lens on a body I purchased, I thought I would never use it because it was so slow. However, when I tried it, I discovered that under bright light situations, it performed very well.</p> <p>Therefore, instead of exchanging one zoom for another, you might also consider supplementing the zoom lens you have with some faster prime lenses.</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"I currently have a Nikon 18-200 on my Nikon D90 SLR and am looking for a replacement lens or lenses that provide better sharpness, IQ and speed than my current lens but with about the same range of coverage."</p> </blockquote> <p>I have never owned or used the 18-200mm but I know a number of photographers who do and love it. When I need a one-lens solution I usually rely on a compact camera with a fixed zoom lens that is similar in coverage to an 18-200mm.</p> <p>If I needed a two-lens solution, I would consider a 55-200mm to use with my 18-55mm. I can vouch for the image quality of the 18-55 but I have never used the 55-200.</p> <p>However, if I really wanted faster lenses with better image quality, I would rely on the so called "Holy Trinity:"<br /> 14-24mm f/2.8<br /> 24-70mm f/2.8<br /> 70-200mm f/2.8</p> <p>I own and use the 14-24mm but have older versions of the other two lenses (35-70mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8). The size, weight, and cost of these lenses do not concern me because they give me the image quality, focal length coverage, and lens speed that I need for my shooting style.</p> <p>The fourth lens in the photo is a 20-35mm f/2.8.</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>Which filter will not compromise the quality of the image?</p> </blockquote> <p>I own and use the following filter brands:<br /> Arona<br />Asanuma<br />B+W<br />Cokin<br />Kenko<br />Nikon<br />Promaster<br />Tiffen<br />Vivitar<br />Quantaray<br /> <br />They range in quality from bargain quality to high quality. All provided some degree of lens protection and all degrade the image quality to some degree.<br /> <br />The only times I use a UV/Haze filter is when I actually need it to reduce UV light (such as when shooting at high altitudes or in snow) or when I need to protect my lens from damage while shooting in a hostile environment (such as when shooting mud wrestling or food fights, in storms or industrial plants, or dirt bike and horse races).<br /> <br />The filter shown here did not survive the fall on concrete – the camera, lens, and lens hood did.<br /> <br /> /> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm willing to shove a screw in a stick if all else fails."</p> </blockquote> <p>Here are the factors I considered when I needed a monopod:</p> <p>Weight (heavy vs. light)</p> <p>Material (aluminum vs. carbon fiber)</p> <p>Rigidity (does not bend)</p> <p>Durability</p> <p>Intended use<br /> ·for light-weight compact cameras<br /> ·for heavy-weight cameras</p> <p>Tubular leg design vs. Channel leg design</p> <p>Leg locks<br /> ·twist locks<br /> ·clamping lever locks<br /> ·wing nuts</p> <p>Number of leg sections (no more than three)</p> <p>Height (at least 5 1/2 feet for my height)</p> <p>Compactness (collapses to smaller size)</p> <p>Head<br /> ·fixed<br /> ·removable<br /> ·none</p> <p>Feet<br /> ·fixed non-slip rubber<br /> ·fixed spike feet<br /> ·retractable spike feet<br /> ·suction cups<br /> ·snow feet</p> <p>Screw<br /> ·3/8 inch (European Standard)<br /> ·¼ inch (American Standard)</p> <p>Quick Release Feature</p> <p>Price</p> <p>Reputation of Manufacturer (I avoided manufacturers with no history of producing high quality tripods)</p> <p>Maximum load (I wanted 2x weight of my heaviest camera)</p> <p><br />I ended up buying two monopods – one for my heavy cameras and one for my lightweight compact cameras.</p> <p>My heaviest lens/camera combination weighs about 10 pounds (500mm f/4 telephoto lens mounted on a Nikon F2 with action finder, motor drive, and battery pack). The Manfrotto 681, with a maximum load rating of 26 pounds, and an attached Wimberley Arca-Swiss quick release clamp is what I bought to meet my needs.</p> <p>For my compact cameras, I selected a lightweight inexpensive 7-pound maximum load monopod with an attached quick release tilt head. <br /> <br> I could have used my Manfrotto for my compact cameras but I needed a lightweight disposable monopod to use with my lightweight disposable compacts.</p> <p>Also, when I need a longer monopod for pole aerial photography, I stuck a screw in an 8-foot pole and a 12-foot pole.</p> <p> </div>

<p >This Pentax ME I bought had a dented prism when I purchased it.</p> <p > </p> <p >I asked the seller what happened and he told that he had purchased the camera for his sister-in-law. She, however, found it too complicated and never used it. Fifteen years after she received it, she had completely forgotten about it. She was cleaning her junk closet when she accidentally knocked it off the shelf. It crashed to the floor and completely shattered the attached filter. The lens was undamaged but the prism and hot shoe were dented.</p> <p > </p> <p >I was really surprised that after having received so much damage, it not only functioned but the light meter was still accurate.</p> <p > </p> <p >I have known for a long time that Pentax cameras were tough but I had no idea they were that tough. This camera became my favorite “beater” camera.</p> <p > </p> <p ><a href=" <p > </p><div></div>

<p>Years ago, I used a stationary 11x14 inch vacuum-back sheet-film camera owned by a reproductive service to shoot original artwork.<br> <br> Since then, I have used the following to shoot original artwork:<br> </p> <ol start="1"> <li>Canon flatbed scanner for shooting subjects 8x10 inches or smaller</li> <li>Copy stand for shooting subjects 16x20 inches or smaller</li> <li>Tripod for shooting subjects larger than 16x20 inches</li> <li>Nikon 35mm SLR film camera with 100% viewfinder and view screen with gridlines</li> <li>Nikon digital SLR camera with 100% viewfinder and gridlines on command</li> <li>Macro lenses for Nikon cameras (55mm and 105mm)</li> <li>Canon G-series digital compact camera with fixed zoom lens</li> <li>Tungsten light source at 45° to subject (such as 3200° Kelvin GE Revel 100W light bulbs)</li> <li>Heat resistant light diffusers (2)</li> <li>Polarizing filter to reduce glare on subject</li> <li>White card and/or gray card for white balance</li> <li>Kodak color scale card for white balance</li> <li>Spirit leveler to aid aligning camera and subject</li> <li>Grid lines to aid aligning camera and subject</li> <li>Remote shutter release to reduce camera shake when shutter is released</li> <li>Black backdrop as background for subject</li> <li>Black backdrop to reduce reflection of camera on shiny surface of subject</li> <li>Hand light meter to read 4 corners and center of large subject to assure even illumination</li> </ol> <p><strong> </strong><br> <strong><a href=" <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"How long do you keep your equipment?"</p> </blockquote> <p>It depends! I keep my equipment until...</p> <p > </p> <p >1. It proves to be unreliable. for example, when my first SLR (a Miranda Sensorex) broke three times within the first two years of its 3-year warranty, I sold it and replaced it with a Nikon F.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >2. It is replaced by a significantly improved model. For example, when the Nikon F2 was introduced in 1971, I replaced my Nikon F with the F2.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >3. It does not fulfill its purpose. For example, when I discovered that my bad weather camera (the Nikon EM) stopped working in the rain, I replaced it with the Nikon Nikonos underwater camera.</p> <p > </p> <p > </p> <p >4. It appreciates so much that I am afraid to use it. For example, when my two Nikon F2 Titanium cameras doubled in price, I sold them and purchased two lower priced Nikons that I was not afraid to use and abuse.</p> <p > </p>

<blockquote> <p>"I'm looking ahead to adding to my kit and keep reading about the 35-70 zoom that apparently was quite popular fifteen years ago. My question is, does it hold up to a current 24 mp sensor and produce good, sharp images capable of being printed, say, 20"x30"? I value optics over any weight or size concerns. What do you think?"</p> </blockquote> <p>The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus had been my primary wedding zoom lens when shooting film. I also used a Nikon 20-35mm f/2.8 when the 35-70mm f/2.8 was not wide enough.</p> <p>When I started shooting weddings with a DX digital SLR, I kept my two film lenses. However, my 20-35mm became my primary wedding zoom lens and I only used my 35-70mm when I needed more reach.</p> <p>These two lenses, along with the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8, are the four zooms I routinely use to shoot weddings.</p> <p>I cannot comment on the 35-70mm image quality with a 24mp sensor because my DX dSLR does not have a 24mp sensor. Plus, I shoot with prime lenses when I know I will be making large prints.<br> <br /> </div>

<p>Listed in descending order:</p> <p>Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 -- this is my favorite of the four listed lenses and is the one I use the most; love its image quality</p> <p>Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 -- second favorite; use it when 20mm is not wide enough; would have bought the 12mm f/2 if it had been available when I bought this lens</p> <p>Olympus 45mm f/1.8 -- like the focal length for portraits but rarely use it because I prefer to use my SLR for portraits</p> <p>Olympus 17mm f/2.8 -- love this focal length but compared to the 20mm f/1.7 this lens is too slow for me; I keep it as a backup lens</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I am divesting myself of all my Nikon stuff... it's slowly but surely being sold, and I'm using some (all?) of that money to bolster my new little µ43 rig."<br> <br />"What would YOU do?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I already did it!<br> <br />For my micro 4/3 system, I have the following zoom lenses:<br />Olympus 14-43mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 (came with a body)<br />Panasonic 45-200mm f/4 to f/5.6<br> <br />...and the following prime lenses:<br />Panasonic 20mm f/1.7<br />Panasonic 14mm f/2.5<br />Olympus 17mm f/2.8 (came with a body)<br />Olympus 45mm f/1.8<br> <br />... and two bodies:<br />Olympus E-p1<br />Olympus E-p3<br> <br />However, I am keeping my Nikon system.</p> <p> </div>

<p>When I shoot black & white film, I usually use the Sunny 16 Exposure Guideline. When I shoot color slide and print film, I may use two battery-independent selenium light meters. I use a Gossen Pilot Scout 2 with my large format pinhole cameras and my Fuji medium format rangefinders. I use a Sekonic Auto-Lumi model L-158 with my Argus C3, Pentax Spotmatics, and Fuji ST705 (note: the light meters in my Spotmatic and ST705 cameras do not work).</p> <p>However, I am more likely to use my more accurate and more light sensitive battery-operated Gossen Super Pilot and/or my Wein 500 flash meter.</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>"... I know guys who spend a week shooting charts and brick walls. I plan to shoot real world stuff and see how it goes."</p> </blockquote> <p>I normally spend a lot of time shooting charts and brick walls because I do not like to be surprised while I am shooting real world stuff.</p> <p>One lens I tested, a Tamron zoom, produced images that were warmer and one-stop darker than my Nikons lenses. However, I was surprised when I discovered that the real world images shot at the 200mm focal length were actually comparable to images shot at 150mm with my Nikon lenses.</p> <p>Now, I have added a focal length test to my brick wall and chart tests.</p> <p> </div>

<p>I would buy some GoPro stock.</p>

<p>My first Nikon lens to micro 4/3 camera body adapter was a $30 Chinese version. It jammed on my lens. I had to use pliers to peel it off.</p> <p>My second adapter was a $40 Fotolox version. I had no problems with it.</p>

<p>A few years ago, I bought two fast prime lenses and a used Olympus E-p1 body for shooting available light wedding candids. The body came with any Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 zoom lens that I did not need. However, after trying the lens, I learned to love it. It is great performer when shooting general subjects under adequate lighting.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"Hope you have a story to share with your Takumar. I am on the lookout to find the 8-element version of the Takumar 50mm f/1.4. I am undecided if the Takumar is a better fit for me compared to Pentax A 50mm f/1.4. Please share your thoughts on the 8-element version of 50mm f/1.4."</p> </blockquote> <p>Years ago when I worked for a newspaper, I carried a Pentax with a 50mm f/1.4 lens as a backup to my main cameras (35mm Nikon and medium format Mamiya).<br> <br />As much as I loved my Nikon system, I could never get my 50mm f/1.4 Nikon lens to duplicate the image quality of my 50mm f/1.4 8-element Takumar lens.</p> <p> <div></div>

<p>As others have said, Pentax makes some fine 50mm lenses. The 8-element version (as opposed to the excellent 7-element version) of the m42 Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens has a reputation for being one of the best 50mm f/1.4 lenses ever made.</p> <p> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"28 f1.8 or 35 f1.8 for street photography?"<br> "... 28 or 35, is one more advantageous over the other?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Either works on an FX body for street photography. Which is more advantageous depends on your shooting style and your personal preferrence.<br> <br />On a full-frame (35mm equivalent) body, I have used 24, 35, 40, 45, and 50mm lenses for street photography. However, the 35mm is my personal favorite.<br> <br /> </div>

<blockquote> <p>"I want to be able to photgraph the details of an object (ie the point of a ball point pen or images in a water droplet). Can anyone suggest a good lens for this type of photography?"</p> </blockquote> <p>When I need to take photos of subjects as small as those you described, I use a 28mm wide-angle lens mounted in reverse position on a bellows. This allows me to obtain photos with a reproduction ratio of 8:1.</p> <p>However, as others have said, I also recommend that you first practice with subjects that are not so small.</p> <p> <div></div>

<blockquote> <p>“…I'm thinking about getting a fast, wide to normal prime, for use inside cathedrals and museums where flash photography isn't allowed.”<br> <br> “I probably didn't phrase the question well. What I was hoping for was some input from actual users.”</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I actually use the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 on an Olympus E-p3 and E-p1. I am very pleased with their performance on the E-p3 but the auto focus is too slow in dim light on the E-p1.</p> <p><a href=" </div>