funkag

<p>From the top of Cole Run Falls in Somerset County, PA.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's some monarch caterpillars for you - we planted some milkweed in the backyard this year and have about 7 or 8 caterpillars working their way through it. </p><div></div>

<p>A captive subject, but I was so proud - my Venus Fly Trap's very first kill! Just sorry I missed it in action... </p><div></div>

<p>Hungry Bumblebee - Soapwort Gentians make them work for it, too.</p><div></div>

<p>Not scanned film, but an old film lens - a Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 wide open on my Sony NEX5n. White Trout Lily is relatively rare in Pennsylvania - officially a "species of vulnerable concern"</p><div></div>

<p>Actually got a nice day in Western PA last week and got out to shoot Grass Pink Orchids blooming in a glacial bog.</p><div></div>

<p>I think it's awfully late for cutleaf toothwort - those bloom in early to mid-April. It does look like something from the mustard family, though.</p>

<p>Here's one from a few years ago - I had completely forgotten about it...</p><div></div>

<p>Let's try that picture again...</p> <p>Also, there is an interested video on the skunk cabbage's ability to create heat in the winter time as it pushes its way up through the frozen soil. Link here: <div></div>

<p>Yep - eastern skunk cabbage. Check out the location in late February / early March and you'll see it "blooming" with one of the ugliest flowers ever. Here's one:</p><div></div>

<p>Snow Trillium is sure sign of spring some parts of the Midwest - its relatively rare here in Pennsylvania, found only in the southwestern part of the state.</p><div></div>

<p>If you don't need in-body image stabilization, something like a Sony NEX-6 might work better for M42 lenses. You'll use stop-down metering on anything you get, and the EVF of the Sony will brighten up as you stop down. Plus, the ability to magnify the image at eye level for fine focusing has been a game changer for me (I have the NEX5n with the optional EVF).</p>

<p>Thanks guys - I tried AF-S and it flared up again. B&H has authorized an exchange. I'm sure I'll have other questions in the coming weeks, as Nikon products are fresh territory for me after a lifetime with Canon products.</p>

<p>I just received a new Nikon 18-35mm lens today, and the autofocus is intermittently getting jumpy and squeaky, and the camera (D610) and lens combo won't lock onto something when it jumps and squeaks. This is happening at different focus distances. </p> <p>I'm new to Nikon, but it doesn't seem to be working right (it certainly doesn't sound right). Do I have a bad af-s motor? Thanks for any info - I want to make sure there's a problem before I contact B&H about a return.</p>

<p>I almost forgot - here's a picture:</p><div></div>

<p>I picked up a 90mm f2.5 Vivitar Series I macro lens a couple of months ago, but it did not come with the 1:1 optical extender.</p> <p>Would I be better off optically to pick one up, or just to use extension tubes? I've not seen what impact the optics in the extender have on overall image quality. </p> <p>Thanks! </p>

<p>Thanks so much Jim - I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>Or Ukrainian, I'm not sure...</p> <p>My brother picked up a Zorki 4 for me in Prague (with just about the nicest Jupiter 8 I've ever seen - it's clean, smooth, completely unSoviet...). The camera has an inscription engraved in the back - can anyone translate it? I've attached a large jpeg, which will hopefully be easier for someone to read.</p> <p>Thanks!!! </p><div></div>

<p>I'm looking at building basic wide-normal-short telephoto kits from different eras (prewar uncoated, 1950's/early 1960's single-coated, modern multi-coated stuff) for the Sony A7II I'm going to buy in the next few months. </p> <p>I'm set on the first group (bunch of 1930's Leica/Zeiss glass, some odd telephotos), and the modern stuff will be a given.</p> <p>I've gotten really lucky with the 1950's/early 1960's stuff so far - a steal a few years ago on a 58mm f1.4 Nikkor (it was attached to a Nikkormat and never mentioned in the auction description!) and a really good price on a really nice early Nikkor 105mm f2.5. Where I'm a little lost is on a wide angle from the period. Here are the options that I've found so far:</p> <p>1. A host of Biogon-based designs, but there seems to be a consensus on the design's problematic relationship with digital cameras</p> <p>2. The Schneider 28mm f4 for the Kodak Retina. Not too expensive - any experiences with it?</p> <p>3. Canon Serenar 28mm f3.5. It doesn't look like its rear element intrudes too far into the camera - a gauss design? Kind of expensive...</p> <p>4. A Nikkor 28mm f3.5, along with Canon FL and Pentax Super Takumar 28's. All really cheap, but a little more modern than other options.</p> <p>Anything I'm missing or any experience with the stuff above? Thanks.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Maybe an Argus C44? The lens looks more like my 100mm f3.5 with its hood on. Too bad you can't focus by twisting the barrel...only in the movies!</p>

<p>Tokina made a 35mm f2.8 macro lens in Canon and Nikon mount. It focuses 1:1. I have it for my Canon and it works pretty well. <a href="/photo/17584211">Here</a> is a shot I took with it - I like it to show a little more of the plant sometimes when working in macro. Some of the ultrawide zooms also focus pretty darn close - <a href="/photo/17790153">Here</a> is a shot at my Tokina 11-16mm's closest limit.<br> Some companies did make super thin (8mm or so) extension rings back in the day that worked with wide angle lenses. I know there is a Nikon version that was meant to be used with their Ai and Ais 20mm f3.5. I don't know if you can use it on the D7000, though. </p>

<p>I'm guessing Sony has been forced to compensate for how close the rear of the lens is to the sensor (18mm, I think - the "thinnest interchangeable lens camera ever" according to Sony) - it seems to need more correction, especially for wide lenses. The physics of film and digital are just different - look at the problems people have with a lot of wide angle rangefinder lenses on digital cameras. I think it's one or the other: a thicker heavier camera or bigger lenses. Sony chose the latter. <br> I'm hoping the size is a commitment to optical correction as opposed to digital correction, though - that would make the extra size worth it. </p>