alan_wilder1
-
Posts
1,394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by alan_wilder1
-
-
<p>What Keith said is spot on. Comparing camera A to B or C only gives you just a ballpark guess at best. It's better to sent it to a Nikon expert to adjust to proper specs. I've had excellent results from Nikon Authorized Service (APS in Morton Grove, IL). They are quite frankly, the best in the USA. Very fast and reasonably priced especially if parts are not needed. Results are top notch. My recently serviced F2A is now probably better adjusted from them than when new from the factory in 1978. </p>
-
<p>The main reason I like my 45/2.8 Ai-P is image quality and bokeh. The bokeh is way better than any 50 Nikkor or 40/2 Ultron. If not that important, than the Ultron is best due to edge to edge sharpness, but the 45/2.8 comes closest in IQ to the last 50/2.8 Elmar-M or late Zeiss Tessar designs. The chipped design means no fuss metering with my D700 although one can manually input the information with an Ai lens too. </p>
-
<p>I use to own the 90 AA and found it to be extremely sharp but only if the camera and lens RF coupling is properly (perfectly) adjusted as this lens has the least lattitude for error due to it's speed, focal length and high degree of correction. My guess is that something is off in the RF adjustment or cam coupling and sholud be re-adjusted. Unless the lens suffered from significant impact, it's unlikely a lens element issue. A 28 or 50 will tolerate minor focusing errors but not the 90 AA.</p>
-
<p>Chris, thanks for the correction. It's been a while but I do recall the finder being on the small side.</p>
-
<p>I remember playing with one over 20 years ago at a local repair shop when I was well aware of it's many features and shortcomings from reading a review by Jason Schneider. I was very impressed with the split field RF, basically like a large split image RF aid in an SLR with a short tele attached. It provides accurate focus for a 10" lens that was never produced for sale to the public. The zoom finder had to be manually dialed in for the desired focal length. The framed field of view varied with a fixed magnification resulting in a tiny field if viewing at the extreme end rather than the other way around like an SLR with a fixed frame area and variable image size with change in focal length. While a Leica M works in a similar way to the Ektra WRT fixed magnification and variable framing, at least with the Leica you can see what's happening outside the frame. Not so with the Ektra.</p>
-
<p>I just noticed that the sliding latch that locks the film back door in place when closed has lost it's spring tension requiring me to push the latch up to lock the film door shut rather than it automatically going up from spring tension. This works OK but requires 2 hands to lock the door shut rather than having it self lock by just shutting he door. I assume the internal spring has come loose inside the housing. Anyone ever have this problem and is it something I can easily fix? There are 2 screws on the latch panel but removing them doesn't seem to allow me to pull the panel off and I don't want to muck anything up.</p>
-
<p>Would you consider a 5 ft minimum focus with a 50 mm lens "up close"? Basically the same repro ratio. Nothing wrong with it as long as you are aware of the limitations. A 300/4 AFS with a TC-14 E will work far better in size, speed, bokeh, sharpness and minimum focus. </p>
-
<p>I assume the OP is aware of the lens' minimum focus of 50 ft!</p>
-
<p>The most important selling point of any Contarex is proper working condition as repairs can be an expensive and time consuming undertaking and as a result many repair shops will not touch them. These cameras were over-engineered and tedious to to tear down for repair. I doubt the selenium meter is still accurate but if everything else works okay, you may have some luck in selling it as a platform for the lenses.</p>
-
<p>Try this, it's the best and most comprehensive review: <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/70210.html">http://www.dantestella.com/technical/70210.html</a><br />I own a 80-200 AF-S version. Very sharp, but check the serial # to make sure it a later one as their electronics are more compatable with the D700. The easiest thing to do in this respect is to call Nikon service and ask if compatable. Apparently the earlier versions of the AF-S do not work as well on the D700 and might require an upgrade costing $350. The serial # range is easy to check by doing a Google seach on Nikkor serial #'s.</p>
-
<p>I purchased the 80-400 VR Nikkor for my F100 when it originally came out several years ago and eventually returned it after trying two different samples due to poor edge performance at 400mm. The test review of the lens in Popular Photography at 400mm also confirmed mediocre performance in the outer zone although they define it as acceptable. However, I found that performance on film up to 300mm was excellent out to the edge. Given that it will be used by you on a DX format camera, the crop factor will eliminate much of the offending outer zone at 400mm that was soft for film or digital FX. I suspect Nikon had this in mind anyway when they introduced this lens several years ago as they were starting to produce some serious DX digital SLRs. </p>
-
<p>I once tried the CV 40/2 Ultron. Sharpness was excellent across the frame but bokeh was terrible with very distracting OOF highlights. The Nikkor pancake 45/2.8 AI-P was far better in it's bokeh rendering with decent edge sharpness stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. Of course it's a little longer and a stop slower but bokeh is better than the current 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 Nikkors. </p>
-
<p>Ian, the crop samples shown look perfectly consistent with my expectations with this lens. The edge looked fairly sharp but not quite as sharp as the center and this is normal, even at f/8. When I once owned this lens and tested it on film, it measured 88 lp/mm centrally and 50 lp/mm at the edge at f/8. Typically with prime Nikkors at peak performance, edge resolution only approaches center resolution with focal lengths of 50 mm and longer.</p>
-
<p>Certain Contarex lens designs were good enough to be carried over to the Contax RTS system like the 18/4 and 25/2.8.</p>
-
<p>APS says I need a new motor, $450 to replace and put the lens in GWO. Bummer! I guess it's better to spend $450 than to live without AF on such a heavy beast or sell it for a big loss without AF function and buy a 70-200 VRII for over $2K. While I like the idea of VR, the added complexity with additional motors increases the chance of malfunction once the lens is out of warranty based on my experience with this lens.</p>
-
<p>Try Ken Ruth, I'm sure they could do it: <a href="http://www.baldmtn.com/index.html">http://www.baldmtn.com/index.html</a></p>
-
<p>Just tried the lens on my F100 and the AF doesn't work on that too. Also, the serial # on the lens is well over halfway into the production range so I doubt the problem is as the APS tech mentioned. Hopefully the AF fix is reasonable and not over the $350 price mentioned. This is a bit of a letdown for me regarding Nikon quality on the longevity of their Silent Wave motors. </p>
-
<p>I spoke to Nikon Repair Service out of Chicago (APS). They said early versions of this lens (likely mine) don't work well with the D700 and prone to these issues. Later versions of the lens had some electronic modifications to fix the problem. They said I could send the lens for modification and adjustment for $350. Anyone able to confirm this from experience?</p>
-
<p>I also cleaned the lens and body contacts but no help.</p>
-
<p>I was trying to use my 80-200/2.8 AFS on my D700 and found it won't autofocus. It worked a few minutes earlier but unexpectedly stopped and nothing seems to help by playing with it's switches or 3 AF lock buttons. My 300/4 AFS and other AF lenses seem fine on the body. Are the silent wave motors prone to sudden malfunction? It's been a while since I've used this lens but it's always been well cared for with no signs of hard use or abuse. Manual focus is still possible.</p>
-
<p>I recently picked up a Rollei 35SE and after installing a new silver oxide V27PX battery, the meter lasted only less than a day, before the battery voltage dropped too low for the LEDs to light. I figure maybe 50 to 70 actuations of the meter switch. When fresh, the meter reading is fairly accurate and linear despite it's voltage of 6V instead of a 5.6V mercury cell. Could I have had a bad battery despite buying it new from an online battery supplier for about $4-5 a battery or is the camera's electronics deffective with excessive battery drain?</p>
-
<p>This is not an interchangable lens. The Rollei 35SE is a fixed lens, scale focus camera.</p>
-
<p>I'll be taking delivery on a late Rollei 35SE (the one with the aperture wheel lock) and I noticed that the lens serial number starts with 22xxxxx instead of 27xxxxx like others I've seen in ebay ads for this camera. The number 22xxxxx does appear on early 35S cameras that predates the SE by several years. I doubt it's a switched id ring since I've seen a picture of a 35 Classic Platin from 1986 with a lens serial # starting with 23xxxxx. These cameras were made by Rollei in Germany after the Singapore plant closed in 1981. Could this be a German lens on a late Singapore body? Anyone have a clue on this one?</p>
-
<p>I have a Rollei 35S and the meter range officially goes down to EV 7 with ISO 100 film, not 8 as previously mentioned. Actually, it can accurately read as low as EV6 by simply lining up the "lollypop pointer" arm with the white needle. You can no longer see the little circle that's bisected by the white needle but if the arm is directly over the needle, it's the same thing. Also the meter range is the same EV 7 in the SE as the S.</p>
Possible upgrade from Nikon 35-70 F2.8D to Nikon 28-70 F2.8
in Nikon
Posted