davidng

<p>I've seen it in the FL100/3.5, FL58/1.2 and FL35/2.5 (numerous examples) due to oily blades. I guess the complex aperture mechanism can also account for the number of stucked lenses, i.e. in the earlier FL lenses the manual/auto setting is done by turning the front ring of the lens (see FL50/1.8 I), while in most of the later designed FL lenses (last FL50/1.8 and FL50/1.4), the manual/auto setting ring has moved near the bayonet mount. Myself, I think there is as well a design flaw somewhere, because I also have a number of FD lenses (both BL and FDn) which are pristine, yet aperture stuck. My beautiful FDn 80-200/4L worked the day I bought it, the next day the aperture didn't move anymore... <br>

I have a number of Canonet QL17 G-III rangefinders, but not all working anymore. They are beautiful camera's as you can read from previous posts, but also very prone to mechanical failure. One of the reasons I found out was that the transmission of the shutter pressure was done by pushing down one rod with the other, with space left on either side of the receiving rod. I fixed that camera, but it only lasted for a short while. But I think of that as a "design flaw", while cost-cutting probably, prone to err in the long run. <br>

I guess most of the Canon FL and FD lenses work(ed) well. What you see now affordable in the market are the left-overs with issues, the nice and neat ones already have a nice home or are offered by (reputed) sellers. Be aware that all lenses of all brands have "issues", but it is nicer to talk about the strengths of the lenses you have...</p>

 

<p>A better and more expensive solution would be to Focusing Screen L for your AE-1 Program. The two-way splitscreen makes focusing accurately very easy. The downside for me was that I had only eyes for the splitscreen, it changed the way I looked through the viewfinder, and therefore I found it more 'difficult' to use.</p>

<p>The assessment of Patrick is a correct one, in my opinion. I had the AE-1 Program first, and later acquired an A-1 (among other camera's), and I found the AE-1 Program more straightforward to use. I wonder whether the observed market difference between these two models is not just related to the sales difference, i.e. I assume that the A-1 was sold in higher numbers, and nowadays the market is now flooded with A-1's (sort of). The AE-1 Program is much less abundant, while an AL-1 is much harder to find. That's from a collecter's pint of view. As a simple and plain user, I'd prefer the AE-1 Program over the A-1. The latter is a wonderful but sometimes complicated camera. </p>

<p>Since you are a photography student, I'd say: 'Take along that TLR'. Use your eyes during the strolls and capture the moments. Your set-up seems OK to me. These are short flights between London and Amsterdam, where little can go wrong. I guess more important are good shoes, since you will walk a lot in Amsterdam.<br>

Get up early for a couple of hours in the Van Gogh museum, catch the tram to the Noordermarkt and wander through the Jordaan (check out Cafe Thijssen). The neighbourhood of the Zoo (Artis, and the Plantagebuurt, Entrepodok) is also very lovely. Take the (free) ferry to the NDSM werf (at the backside of the Central Station, most left). Check the old threads for (more) suggestions and buy a Time Out Magazine Amsterdam (March) at the airport.<br>

What do you want to see? People, architecture or just a couple of days of and some pictures to take. As described above, you can concentrate on a number of sights. Or just enjoy the city. And the beer. Time is limited and the weather can be bad (check the weather!). Just prepare yourself. Sights outside Amsterdam are also wonderful, but it is only four days.<br>

In the city center are some (semi) professional shops which sell almost everything you need (Nivo Schweitzer at the end of the Haarlemmerstraat, Foto Amsterdam near the Dam and there's a shop too in the Spuistraat).<br>

Most of all, enjoy your stay. It's worthwhile to drop by for another time.</p>

<p>For pictures in the mosques a really, really wide-angle is very helpfull. The inside of the mosques have pillars where you can rest the camera, making it possible to use slower shutter speeds. Unlike churches, the room inside a mosque is more spatial (is this the right word?), you can capture more of the interior (churches have a design plan where a lot of pillars block the view of the interior. I used a 20mm on my analogue SLR, but I wished I had something real wide (17mm or less). I would start practicing by visiting some large churches and taking pictures inside (especially with slow shutter speeds AND positioning of the camera - on the floor, against a pillar). An other interesting indoor venue is the Bazaar, which has uneven light, but is something like a crowded shopping street in the evening/night (=praktice with shopping street photography in the evening with the 35/1.8). The Topkapi Palace (and similar buildings) is wonderful to stroll through, but photography-wise it is very challenging to get nice wide-angle shots (it is very cramped inside, and sometimes very dark).<br>

There are much more vistas outside, where the longer reach of the 18-105 is beneficial. Besides, you'll be there in summertime with longer daylight. The difference in starting aperture for both lenses at 18mm is of course 'negligible', although I would assume that the 18-50/2.8 would be better at 2.8. But in either case, as stated before, neither is wide enough. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>A 'generic' 35mm viewfinder would help a lot. The viewfinder which accompanied the auxilliary wide and tele lenses (for instance for the Petri 7) is the 'easiest'and probably cheapest solution. With my Perkeo 1 I noticed that the viewfinder on the camera was not reallly aligned with the lens, close by pictures were 0.5 m off (to the left). Working with a Kontur is an acquired taste (at least for me it doesn't really works), and they are not readily available. Good luck with your quest.</p>

I do have one in Exakta mount. It is a pre-set lens, in a typical tele-lens construction, all three glass elements in front. Single coated, and an odd filter size (haven't figured it out yet, no 40.5 nor 43 mm, but somewhere in between = no correct hood for it yet). It is better than all the stories about it (Ivor Mantanle rated it a * = "barely acceptable"), so I would rate it between OK and Good (although I have not shot many pics with it). It is slow to use, and I guess one has to be aware for flare, but it is a 100mm lens (lenses in the 90 - 105 mmm range are more difficult and surely more expensive to obtain). I hardly use it, but then, I haven't used my "Exakta section" (VX1000 w/ lenses from 30 mm Lydith to 200 mm Travelon, 35 mm Flektogon & 50 mm Pancolar included) for quite a while. Should do it again.

Check for fungus & just enjoy it.

A couple of years ago the prism of my girlfriend's OM-1 contained something moving inside the viewfinder. It was a small green caterpillar. Don't ask how it hot there. In my own Canon FTb viewfinder I occasionally saw small mites strolling up and down. Things happen sometimes.

The early Canon 135/3.5 lenses (FL and FD BL) were Sonnar designs (4 elements/3 groups), just like the Nikon 135/3.5 AI(s) and the early 105mm AI(s) lenses. All lenses with this kind of design are reknown for their goot to excellent "bokeh". The later Canon FD(n) 135/3.5 has 4 elements in 4 groups, just like the majority of all other 135mm lenses in the market (I guess cheaper to produce, while equally sharp or even sharper). The Canon FL and FD 135/2.5 proves that one can design a lens with good "bokeh" with more elements (6 elements/5 groups), and Canon has elevated this in the reknowned FD and EF 135/2.

So, a number of inexpensive lenses have a wonderful "bokeh", and knowing the lens construction, you can almost predict it.

I mostly use my FD 55/1.2 Aspherical for portraiture, and have no complains about its "bokeh" (as opposed to some other comments), but as you can find in some previous postings (not mines), the Canon FL 55/1.2 (and hence the optical identical FD 55/1.2 SSC) is a wonderful tool for pictures with wonderful "bokeh". One of my first e**y investments in 1999 for an incredible $65, it has served me for many, many years, together with my father's Canon FT.

So "bokeh"-wise I can recommend the FD 35/2, 55/1.2, 135/2.5, 135/3.5 and 200/2.8 (I've never used the 100/2 and 135/2). At a camera fair I used a seller's FDn 85/1.2L for a few shots, and the sharpness and "bokeh" on the pictures was indeed amazing (at 600 Euro "a steal" I could not afford, still can't..). Macro lenses like the 90/2.5 (Tamron, Tokina and Vivitar) can also be found in FD mount, and both the Tamron and Vivitar are "bokeh"-wise excellent.

Without wanting to start a war, one can read in numerous postings and users comments that the Nikon 50mm lenses are very sharp, but are under par "bokeh"-wise (hence the interest for the die-hard fans for the Zeiss ZF 50/1.4). Nikon's 105 and 180 mm lenses are appraised for their sharpness and "bokeh".

So each manufacturer has its winners and "losers".

Thus far I found the Nikon HR-4 collapsible hood the best solution for the Canon EF 50/1.8 lens. It gives the proper coverage, and collapsed, it has almost the same diameter as the lens. The original Canon hoods are a bit cumbersome to use (screwing a hood onto an adapter which fits the bajonet), and also much larger in diameter than the proposed HR-4 hood. Just a thought.

The set-up is good, a N80 w/ 50mm and 28mm. An allround zoom like the 28-105 would be the ideal lens, but actually all zooms make your set-up so much larger and heavier, dangling heavily next to you. It is easy to take a lot photo equipment with you (especially when you own a lot), but it is no necessity, to take nice pictures. My Cartier-Bresson experience was in St. Petersburg, Russia (October, darker days), when I had 3 camera's and more lenses with me. I only used one body and one lens, my standard lens! In a week time I only saw the sun twice or three times, the longest for two hours. Dark clouds and rain, very much rain. And wonderful pictures.

If you need an extra (prime) lens you could always look around in Austria or Germany (esp. via eBay, the prices seem reasonable). I'd invest more in taking pictures (for instance with a general photography course, at home or in Salzburg). Learn to see what you like to photograph (people, portraits, buildings, street photography). It took me years to develop "my style", and I still find myself barely beyond beginner.

Be aware that Austria can be covered with snow for a while in "springtime", but the late spring should be wonderful.

Learn to be aware of keeping your camera safe - strolling around with a camera always targets you as a tourist. Just be aware of that.

Already learn some German too, it makes things going smoother.

I guess the number of weekends within a 4 months span is limited, therefore your travel targets as well.

Enjoy your stay, and keep in mind that you can always return later in your life (-don't know when, but I'll return to St. Petersburg, to see the rest of it-). Therefore, the pictures you take will be memories as well reminders..

Does anyone know where the serial number is engraved in the Zeiss Ikonta M

(524/16). Mine is equipped with a 75/3.5 Novar, which is much better lens than I

ever imagined (certainly better then the 75/4.5 Vaskar on my Voigtlander Perkeo

I). Any indication how I can trace the age of the camera without tearing it

apart would be appreciated.

As stated above S-color is recommmended, actually S-color Singel at Singel 356 (tel. 5352255). Another is Kleurgamma BV (08:00-22:00) at Mauritskade 55 (6655301) and Hazenstraat 51-53 (4230503), see www.kleurgamma.nl. F-lab at the 1e Passeerdersdwarsstraat 104 (6228890) is also an option, see www.4color.nl (just for an impression). Maybe Lumino at Adm. de Ruyterweg 75 (4125523) is also something (haven't checked it yet).

S-color and Kleurgamma are the big boys in town, sort of.

I'll see if I can dig out some prices (S-color sends a PDF with their prices), but it ain't cheap.

How long will you be staying? Most adresses are in the city centre, only Mauritskade and Adm. de Ruyterweg are a bit off centre.

Well it's a beautiful lens, externally, but not very well constructed (it's not very rigid as you might have noticed). It has a triplet construction, optically. I assume that's (one of the reasons) why it is somewhat soft, even at middle apertures. On the other hand, it does have a kinda glow (y'know, from older lenses, probably due to the few lens elements), which makes it a great portrait lens, although it is a bit slow in use due to the stop down diaphragm.

If I attach this lens to my Canon FT or FTb camera (w/ adapter) the lightmeter shows a 1/2 to 1 stop difference, compared with my 50/1.4 (more elements, multiple coating) at the same aperture.

The other (later) Meyer 100/2.8 is a much sharper lens, but this one looks real cool (I like the attached sunhood) and is a wonderful portrait lens.

Well Kyo, most shops can have 120/220 processed (I guess all but 1-hour). Since Holland is not that big, all films are brought to a selected number of development centers. Shops which carry the "Presto Print" sign send their films to a Fuji dev centre, while other centres may use Kodak or Agfa development apparatus. This will take at least 3 days. For serious amateur or professional development of your films, a number of professional labs are present in Amsterdam. I'd have to look them up for you (they can be found in the "Yellow Pages". Opinions about them vary. Development and print can be done within 1 hour, but it ain't cheap. If you need to know some adresses from professional labs, let me know.

I recently acquired a Balda Baldamatic VF camera and have already

searched the net about it. Little can be found about this neat little

viewfinder camera with a small Selenium cell above the shutter

(similar to the Baldessa in many ways). It has a 45/2.8 Color-

Baldanar lens, a front focussing triplet (of mediocre/reasonable

quality?). The second ring on the lens has two ranges indicated; in

red (with a flash sign) the apertures 2.8 to 22, and when in the

yellow (a sun sign) range, the light meter becomes active, i.e. the

match needle of the light meter (on top of the camera) moves and the

ring should be adjusted to have a coupled red needle to be alligned

with the light meter's needle. The shutter is a Prontormat.

The camera is build in 1959. Can anyone comment about this camera

and/or confirm whether the text below is correct for the Baldamatic

too.

"These models have a built-in photo-electric exposure meter which is

coupled to the aperture and shutter speed controls. This features an

automatic setting system which selects aperture-speed combinations

according to the available light. The selection is continuous from

1/30 sec. at f2.8 to 1/300 sec. at f22, apertures and speeds being

interlaced. The actual combination is not indicated, and there is no

shutter speed or aperture (except for flash and time exposures)

scale. The camera has no rangefinder. The shutter is a Prontormat and

is X-synchronized for flash. FOR FLASH SHOTS turn the main shutter

ring until the red aperture scale on the shutter ring (marked with a

flash symbol) is on top. The shutter now remains set to 1/30 sec (for

shots with flash bulbs or electronic flash) and you can set

individual apertures as required. For this purpose, simply turn the

main setting ring until the appropriate aperture figure is opposite

the dot just below the finder window. No other setting is required.

(data from the Kodak Retina Automatic I, also equipped with

Prontormat shutter)"

Hi John, Have you already found some filters? They tend to be quite expensive when they have the Olympus nametag. If you still haven't found anything contact me. I know an adress here in Amsterdam where they're not that expensive (2nd hand).

No offense Gregory. I mentioned the flash sync as a factor because it sometimes does matter to have a faster shutterspeed than 1/60 s. In circumstances where the subject is moving (flowers in the wind, insects) it is difficult to have a workable shutterspeed and enough DOF. With a flash you can alter the conditions to have your picture taken; rather a black background than no picture at all. That is if you don't bother to take a number of windscreens or a light tent with you. I don't know what Louis main subjects for 1:1 photography are, but if it's within a confined area (f.i. in a studio), this all is not that important. BTW I have the Vivitar 90/2.5 S-1, the Canon FL 50/3.5, the Konica AR 100/4 (bellows) and AR 50/3.5. I have handled but not used the Canon FD 100/4 (BL) and the Kiron 105/2.8. The lightest lens is the Canon 100/4, whereas the Kiron is quite heavy (just like the Vivitar actually). The Konica AR 100/4 is a macro lens that can only be used with a bellows (or Konica's auto-helicoid), and has an optical construction similar to the Canon 100/4. Pictures taken from flowers from a "portrait" distance do have something which I attribute to the "heliar" design (5 elements/ 3groups). That was the reason why I doubted about the Canon 100/4. Louis, you describe that you were looking for that 3-D effect. When closing to 1:1, I guess that all good macro lenses have that effect. Good luck.

Both the Vivitar 90/2.5 S-1 and the Canon 100/4 are only 1:2 lenses. For me it's fine, since I don't work that often with tripod. Since you want to use it for 1:1 photography, working with a tripod is essential! The Canon 100/4 is less heavy than the Vivitar 90/2.5 (the BL version of the 100/4 consist of 5 lenses in 3 groups, "Heliar" design which should have a nice "signature" - I almost bought this lens for that purpose - whereas the 100/4 FDn has a different construction), but when used in the 1:1 region (with their adapter), each of these lenses will have become almost twice of the original length. Another important factor is the speed of the lenses. These lenses act as a bellow when you use it near the 1:2 (thus also 1:1) magnification; the lens(es) is(/are) extended from the film plane. This is certainly the case with the Canon 100/4 (be aware: it could be that the 100/4 FDn retains it's speed). Using the 50mm extension tube for the Canon to reach 1:1 magnification will cost you speed too. Thus when using a macro lens around 1:1, the working diaphragm for (old fashioned) macro lenses (50, 90-100 or 200 mm) will be around 5.6 or dimmer rather than the advertised 2.5, 2.8, 3.5 or 4.

I never checked how much stops I lost when using the Vivitar near 1:2 or 1:1, less than when I use my FL 50/3.5 (with extender).

I guess most macro lenses are quite good, but some are just very good (Vivitar 90/2.5, Kiron 102/2.8 - Heavy), and some are easy to use too!

Be aware that most manual focus macro lenses from that era were primarily made for macro photography - the Vivitar 90/2.5 is also a wonderful portrait lens, albeit a bit heavy - thus making pictures from topics further away than say 8 meters will result in not so brilliant pictures (that's what I found out, a 50mm macro can not substitute a 50mm normal lens, and the Vivitar 90/2.5 does have a flare problem!).

When photographing 1:1 other factors will be important too: MLU, flash sync (you use Canon FD, too bad. Only the Canon EF and the Canon T-90 have "neat" flash sync's), tripod, windscreen(s), patience ..

I'd say: choose the Vivitar, but only if the 1:1 converter is included. The Canon 100/4 can be used with any empty tube (50 mm) to get to 1:1. Be aware that using FD tubes made by Soligor, Vivitar, etc. can cause damage to the lens (I used a Vivitar 20mm FD tube on a lens, but it got stuck and I could only remove it by force, luckily only damaging the tube, i.e. I tore a part of the FD coupling from the tube ...).

Best of luck, and if you have any questions left ..