conrad_smith

<p>I carry my 1200mm f/11 ED and attached AU-1 focusing unit in a Hakuba padded tripod bag -- fits just about perfectly. Like its 800mm ED & 600mm ED counterparts, the 1200mm ED covers the 6x6 Bronica frame (with the separate focusing unit made for Bronica S2 & EC series) on my EC-TL as well as working well with my Nikon F2 and D200. Very sharp but a poor choice on windy days.</p>

<p>I miss the tilts and swings on the back of the Press 23 I once owned -- and loved the the 2:3 aspect ratio of the 6x9 rollfilm back. Sure was easy to get perfect 8x10s with those large negatives. Traded mine in because it wasn't very well sealed against the dust I encountered backpcking with Press 23 & Tiltall tripod (too heavy a combo for long treks).</p>

<p>I routinely use my pre-Ai K-series extension tubes on my 20/3.5 Ai-S without problem.</p>

<p>Correction: Actually it was Penn Camera, not Grand Central Camera, that was forerunner of Nikon distributor EPOI (and the mail-order source in 1954 of my first adjustable camera). Back when Penn Station was as elegant as Grand Central Terminal, not just a maze of platforms under Madison Square Garden. That 1950s elegance on 34th Street is my excuse for using the wrong camera shop name in the MF post above.</p>

<p>It's so visceral and tangible compared to digital DX or even 35mm film. Maybe because my first adjustable camera (3 shutter speeds plus B) in 1954 was a $15 East German TLR from Grand Central Camera in NYC (forerunner of EPOI) -- much better images than the plastic 127 film camera obtained earlier for 50 cents and a Wheaties boxtop. Doesn't hurt that I recently found a used Cooolscan 9000 and its glass carrier for. Or that I fell in love with the ingenious design of focal-plane-shutter Bronicas -- such an efficient, economical lens system without shutters or focusing helicoids. With that satisfying thunderous clunk each time I release the shutter. And used MF gear is so inexpensive now. And looking for elusive four-decade-old accessories is like a treasure hunt. And those MF transparencies look so good on a light box. And so much image detail in scanned 250 meg jpegs. And so many fewer images to sort through than digital. MF is fun!</p>

<p>Turns out my Bronica focusing unit for the 400/600/8000/1200 Nikon-F lens heads was an early one, designed for pre-S2 Bronicas that lacked a removable focusing heliciod. Kohs Camera solved the problem by installing a Bronica adapter that was designed to allow long lenses for those early Bronica bodies to fit on the S2/EC series. </p>

<p>I now get good results with 400mm & 1200mm lens heads on both my EC-TL and Nikon SLR bodies, the latter with the Nikon AU-1 focusing unit.</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for the comments. I've downloaded a trial version of DxO Optics Pro, as D. B. suggests, and look forward to trying it out, wondering why it does not support any of my 17 MF Nikon lenses. Bob, the lens is the 1960s-era 400/4.5 Nikkor with TC-301 telextender, a lens that I use primarily with film on a Bronica EC-TL, where CA is not a problem (te 400/4.5 is one of four Nikon lens heads that fit a separate focusing unit that was made both for Nikon F and for the the Bronica 6x6 S & EC series). Patrick and Colin, I think your idea of desaturating the offending magenta fringe is probably the best approach -- works surprisingly well. Edward, this is by far the worst CA I've seen in more than 60 years of taking photographs. This lens was designed before Nikon started using ED glass to address CA issues. My 1970s 1200/8 ED on the same focusing unit shows no CA at all with the same subject.</p>

<p>nikon </p>

<p>The CA function of Photoshop CS4 does not remove the chromatic aberration in the attached 100% crop from a Nikon D200 raw file original. <br>

Does other software do a better job or is the CA here beyond what software can remove?</p><div></div>

<p>My experience is that Ebay "minty" grade is the same as KEH "bargain" grade. Some honest Ebay sellers misrepresent photo gear because they don't look closely at what they are selling (example: lens focusing unit missing the aperture mechanism) or don't know enough to correctly identify what they are selling.</p>

<p>My experience is that Ebay "minty" grade is the same as KEH "bargain" grade. Some honest Ebay sellers misrepresent photo gear because they don't look closely at what they are selling (example: lens focusing unit missing the aperture mechanism) or don't know enough to correctly identify what they are selling.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience using the 400, 600, 800 or 1200mm Nikkor on Bronica EC or S2A with the Nikon focusing unit attached to the lens heads?<br>

My 1200mm Nikkor attached to Nikon focusing unit #14577 for Bronica will not mount on an S2A or EC-TL because the male bayonet on the focusing unit is too far recessed to fit into the cameras' female bayonet mount.<br>

Any ideas about how to solve this problem?<br>

Conrad Smith cgsmith@uwyo.edu</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 85 1.8 AF (and 500 4/P MF) are my favorites among 19 AF and MF Nikkors for the D200 and D80. The 85 1.8 works well for portraits and under available light. Mine is sharp at all apertures and has demonstrated no problems -- so far -- with flare or ghosting. It costs much less and weighs much less than the 85 1.4 MF (which I sold after disappointing results) and is almost as fast. </p>

<p>The Gitzo weekend CF tripod with the smallest RRS ballhead is expensive, but the combo holds even long lenses (in my case, 400mm Nikkor) steady enough for time exposures at about two pounds. Also rock steady for my Bronica MF camera. If your stability needs are more modest, the cheaper tripod should be fine. </p>

<p>I've been using Lens Clens (the cleaning solution meant for coated optics -- there are others formulated for SLR mirrors, for plastic, etc.) for several years to clean 21 AF & MF zoom & prime Nikkors and have been happy with the results. For what it's worth, Moose Peterson recommends it. LensClens for coated optics streaks less than lens cleaning fluid from Nikon, Kodak, etc.</p>

<p>I've had nothing but good experience with Nikon USA service in California and New York -- prompt service and reasonable prices.</p>

<p >I’m new to posting photos in posts, seeking help understanding chromatic aberration. </p>

<p >In the images below (D200, Nikon 500/4 Ai-P, stacked TC16A & TC-301), CA is much more apparent in the bottom than top image (brownish-red fringe on left side of boundaries of trees with snow). Is this because of high contrast? Because of the different colors in the top and bottom images? Because of greater atmospheric interference in the more distant image?</p>

<p >

<p > </p>

Can any version of Photoshop or Nikon Capture NX fix the CA in the bottom image?</p>

<p >Will greatly appreciate any help other Photonetters can offer to increase my understanding of chromatic aberration, including references to web sites or books.</p><div></div>

<p>Expecting poor resolution, I stacked the TC-16A and TC-301 on my 500/4 AiP with a D200. The first image below, at 1005, depicts the center and corner of a cellular tower three miles from the camera, no sharpening used. CA is less than I expected and resolution, particularly in the corner, better than I anticipated.</p>

<p>CA is much greater, for some reason, in the image below of trees 40 miles from the camera, at 300% (in this case, each original pixel is one square foot). Can anyone tell me why CA is so much greater in one image than the other?</p><div></div>

Bjorn Rorslett's lens evaluations are dead on for each of the 15 or so Nikkor's I've owned (from 10.5mm DX to 800/5.6). For example, the 400/3.5 is superb on film but terrible with D200 (especially with teleconverters) because of greater CA. I like Bjorn's lens evaluations because his comments go beyond lab sharpness to address many of the user considerations referred to in this thread, including varying sharpness at different apertures, lens contrast, digital vs film performance, varying lens quality at different distances, flare, ghosting, etc.

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

I hope this means that Nikon will bring out an AF 800mm to compete with Canon's.

Has anybody used the TC-300 or 301 with the 500mm/4 Ai-P lens on a D200 or D80? This combo apparently works well

on film cameras but digital sensors seem more demanding. My 400/3.5 ED-IF, for example, was excellent with

TC-301 on the F100 but awful with TC-301 on the D200.

 

Conrad Smith

I've been quite happy with results from a 15mm/3.5 Nikkor (700 dollars on Ebay) that I've been using for a year on my D200. The 15/3.5 is almost as big and heavy as the 17-35/2.8, but I like the wider prime enough to take it on backpack trips. Digital white balance on the D200 does a nice with of color compensation, which would be difficult with this lens mounted on a film camera containing slide film. The 15/3.5 takes a narrow selection of rear-mount bayonet filters that are hard to find if they did not come with the lens. At 22.5mm full-frame equivalent on the D200, the 15/3.5 approximates the 24mm focal length that I loved on film cameras.<div></div>

Has anybody done a direct comparison of Velvia 100F and Velvia 50

skin tones? My impression after one roll is that 100F does better.