george_rhodes

I have an old inherited Rolleicord with a Schneider-Kreuznach Xenar 3.5 75mm. What is the quality of this lens, compared to the Xenotar and Planar?

A second vote for the 45mm. I shoot scenics and use the 45mm, 75mm and 90-180mm zoom. The 45mm is sharp and well corrected. I personally think the 55mm is too close to the 75mm. The 45mm would give you those nice, super wide angle shots. I have personally never noticed any distortion when using the 45mm.

Thanks to everyone for your excellent shooting tips.

 

George

I have no personal experience with either of the lenses you're asking about. Having stated that, the 300 is twice the focal length of the 160. They're probably both optically very good, but which focal length do you prefer? Would you want only one of the two focal lengths? Why limit yourself? I use the 90-180 zoom and the 300 ED Pentax lenses, in order to cover that whole range. Also, how much will the Zeiss 300 cost you? The Pentax 300mm f4 ED is optically superb, but expensive at roughly $2,200.00 at B&H. Depending on the price of the Zeiss lens, if given the choice, I'd prefer the Pentax 300 ED over the Zeiss. If the Zeiss 300 is considerably less expensive than the Pentax 300 ED, then it sounds as though it would probably be a pretty good deal.

Thanks, John. I appreciate your very helpful information.

I'll be traveling to Nashville, Tennessee for a week in June. I

shoot primarily nature scenics, a good deal of rustic architecture

and occasionally wildlife. Along with the "regular" locations that

everyone usually knows about, I'd like suggestions on out-of-the-

way, not well traveled or well known spots. I'll appreciate any

suggestions.

Popular Photography tested the lens, along with the new SSM 300mm f2.8, a while back and gave it very good results. They gave it better scores than they gave the new Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens. Surprisingly, the KM SSM 300mm received quite disappointing results. If you check the Popular Photography archives, you should be able to find the test results.

I have a Maxwell bright screen with grid lines in my Pentax 67 and it is everything I had hoped it would be - a great improvement. I have no experience with Beattie screens.

There is no Contax 6X7. The agent must have gotten confused. He probably means Pentax 67.

I strongly discourage you from buying a TLR for landscapes. It is very difficult to use graduated neutral density filters or a polarizer when you can't see through the lens. The SLR that I would recommend is the Pentax 67 or Pentax 67II. It is a great field camera for landscapes. The older, non-electronic Pentax 67 (latest model with mirror lockup, which is a must) is the most economical way to go and I think it is almost as nice as the later 67II, except that it is lacking the dioptor adjustment, aperture priority automation and a few other minor features, that are rather insignifigant for shooting landscapes. Used bodies and lenses are abundant on ebay, at extremely reasonable prices and the optics are optically outstanding. I think Pentax 67 lenses are the best bargain in medium format photography.

It seems only logical that 67 lenses will be able to be used with this new digital body, via the 67 to 645 adaptor. You would still get focus confirmation, but no autofocus, of course.

I use the 4.5 and it is a wonderful lens. I use it for scenics and never use it wide open anyway, so I find the f4.5 to be perfectly adequate for my needs. There is no distortion issue with my lens. I bought the lens used, about two years ago, at KEH in Atlanta.

I shoot scenics with a Pentax 67 system. It's a great field camera for nature photography. Several of my friends are commercial photographers and use The RB67 in their studios. It's a bit bulkier than the Pentax, so I don't consider it a good field camera, but the interchangeable backs are great for studio work. Both cameras are best used on a tripod. Optics of both systems are excellent, so optical quality shouldn't be a determining factor. The Pentax 67 has more telephoto lenses and wide angles available, as well as a 75mm persective control, several macros, several zooms and several leaf shutter lenses, which synch at something around 1/500th for use with flash. The RB has a nice selection of lenses also, although not as extensive as the Pentax. Since you say you'll be using the camera for nature work and "some" studio work, I'd go with the pentax 67 if I were you.

I prefer glossy, because it pops the image more than mat.

I shoot 120 film with a Pentax 67 system. I get to many of my shooting locations in my Ford Econoline van. I bought both the camera system and the van, in order to use them. I paid a lot more for the van than I did for my Pentax 67 camera system. I expect that in another few years, when I have 200,000 miles on the van, it won't be worth as much as my Pentax system, no matter what happens to the camera market. I couldn't care less. I bought both the van and the camera to use them and that's what I do with them. Some day, if I live long enough, I'll need to buy another van and another camera. Meanwhile, I'll have gotten good use out of both.

I've never used the 55-100mm, but I"ve been using the 90-180mm since its introduction into the country and it is absolutely as sharp as the fixed focal length primes of the same focal ranges. A stunning performer at an amazingly reasonable price for such a medium format zoom, although the f5.6 maximum aperture might be a bit slow for some. The 55-100mm is reputed to be another outstanding performer. However, once again, the zoom will be slower than the 105mm prime, if that matters.

I own the most recent 67, prior to the electronic 67II. The 67II has an adjustable diopter, which is helpful, if you need glasses. It has an electronic aperture priority meter, with spot metering capability. It has a built-in right hand grip. Some say the 67II has a quieter and smoother shutter and produces less mirror slap. It also has a brighter viewfinder and user-interchangeable screens. It has electronically controlled shutter speeds, up to 4 seconds. The longest shutter speed on the 67 is 1 second. I've installed a Maxwell Brightscreen with grid lines in my Pentax 67, as well as a corrective diopter. It cost me approximately $200.00 for both enhancements combined. I've never had problems with mirror slap or shutter-induced vibration. I find the TTL meter for the 67 to be quite accurate. Therefore, I'm perfectly happy to keep using my 67 and I don't think there is anything that the 67II offers that would improve my photography. However, since I plan to get a second body fairly soon, it will be the 67II. It's just a little nicer than the older model, but my photography will certainly not improve.

The Pentax 67 has the largest selection of superb lenses, including fast, long telephotos, a perspective control lens and outstanding zooms at exceptionally reasonable prices. Most of these lenses can be found used on ebay. By the way, I have never found mirror slap to be the problem some claim it is and, if it is, the mirror locks up.

Thanks Andrew,

 

I'm not sure, but I think that's a female Grackle. The males are bigger and black.

Anyone been to Wakodahatchee Wetlands lately? What kind of wildlife

did you see/photograph? Any nesting going on? If so, who is

nesting?

You should find the rare Great White Heron on Big Pine. The best time and place to find Key Deer is on No Name Key on Big Pine just before sunset. The deer come out of the woods to eat the fresh grass along the side of the road at that time. That gator hole is one of only two sources of fresh water on Big Pine. Some find it interesting. You might also find scenic opportunities in the area. You might find some interesting wading bird opportunities south of Big Pine, in the wetlands along the road to Key West. Key West is about an hour south of Big Pine. If you like rustic architecture, you'll find plenty of photographic opportunities for that in Key West. Along the shore in Key West, you can find beaches with plenty of coconut palms and lots of mangroves. You may also see shrimp boast with their nets out.

As an old school fine art photographer, I personally greatly prefer the look of a photograph printed on photographic paper. However, some of my patrons are asking for prints on canvas, which my competitors are providing to their clients. It is a matter of staying in business, that I provide my clients with what they want, rather than sending them to my competitors. Therefor, I will continue to print my work on photographic paper, but will also offer prints on canvas. This will help to keep me from having to get a REAL job.

Has anyone on this forum ever had a photograph printed onto canvas

by Canvas Printers .com? If so, what kind of experience did you

have? Thanks in advance for any rsponses to my question.

I have been working with someone locally, who prints my work onto

Fuji Crystal Archive paper with his Lightjet. He always operates

the Lightjet at 200 DPI and says the human eye cannot differentiate

the difference between the maximum 300 DPI capability of the

Lightjet and the 200 DPI that he prints at. My prints are very

sharp, with good tonal range. I will be working with another

person, who will use an Inkjet printer, to print some of my images

onto canvas. He prints with his Inkjet at 600 DPI. How does the

DPI translate between the two systems. Will my Imacon scans that

produced very sharp images on the Lightjet printer at 200 DPI, be

adequate for the 600 DPI pattern of the Inkjet printer? Thanks in

advance to any who reply.

Thanks for the information, Steve. The great thing about going to a place like that to shoot is that you can't be sure if you're on a job, disguised as a vacation, or a vacation, disguised as a job. Either way, I'm sure it's great.