User_2000406

<blockquote> <p>This is another one of Ken Rockwell's nonsense that he made up himself and spreads on his website as a fact. I suppose that's where you "learnt" this from. The truth is here:<br> https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/21761</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> You can't assume that's where I got this. I've certainly come to view KR's assertions with a jaundiced eye. Still, I have to thank you for the correction on the reason for the symbol. And despite that, the tin whisker problem is real: http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2011-kostic-pb-free.pdf.<br /></p>

<p>The lens is supposed to be usable for 10 years, after which it may fail due to aging electronics. I believe this has to do with the tin whisker issue caused by post 2005 lead-free solder, but I'm not really up on this issue.</p>

<blockquote> <p>There's two Micro Nikkors in 105mm: the f/4 and the f/2.8.</p> </blockquote> <p>The only 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkors were manual focus and have not been made for decades. They're still available used, but they're not comparable in use to any of the other lenses being discussed here which are all autofocus.</p>

<p>The key here is to stick with cameras that take 35mm film, which is still available and can still be processed, either or both by mail order if there are no local sources in your area. If you don't know what kind of film the camera takes you can always look it up online before making a purchase decision. </p> <p>Don't get confused between the essential film size of 35mm, and the lens which may be labeled 35mm or some other number (which is actually something called the focal length which you don't need to worry about in this case). The two are independent for your current purposes. </p>

<p>When it's clear that time of the year, there can be wonderful light in the late afternoon near sunset. The slight haze associated with the summer marine layer of air (usually present even in the absence of fog) is gone. The air can be crystal clear at the same time that the low light angle creates wonderful depth and vividness to the urban landscape. </p> <p>Try walking on the northeast waterfront or going up to Coit Tower an hour before sunset and watching the light change. I've seen amazing light from up in office buildings where I worked, where objects across the water were lit up with golden or reddish evening light while the bay is a dark steely blue color due to the low light angle and the usual waves. I've always wanted to catch Red Rock (an island several miles away, off the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge) from the SF waterfront under these conditions, as the evening light accentuates its red color against the dark bay. Even if the weather is not cooperating, be persistent and wait for that break in the weather even if it's just the sun peeking through. With the sun so low, any time of the day may have interesting light.</p>

<p>Compare to the working lens.</p><div></div>

<p>I recently purchased the 45mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/4 lenses with the intention of using them on a Sony A6000 via an available adapter. When the adapter came in, it fit the 135mm lens just fine but would not mount the 45mm lens. Closer inspection shows that the working lens has an aperture control tab that moves freely in a slot, while the same tab on the other lens is stuck in place and appears to be blocking mounting of the lens.</p> <p>Before I seek a refund, has anyone else had this problem and gotten it corrected? Is taking off the rear plate on the lens advisable (which ought to expose the relevant mechanism), or would this risk disturbing the alignment of the elements? Any advice would be appreciated!</p><div></div>

<p>That viscous hydrocarbon-based fluid that oozes out of conifers such as pines, which nearly everyone thinks of as sap, is actually a separate fluid known as pitch. True sap is always water-based, but you won't normally see it oozing out of conifers although it is present inside. It does ooze out of some hardwoods. Sap is the tree equivalent of blood in animals, while pitch is a non-circulating fluid that's in some trees for protection against insect pests.</p>

<p>Recent vitreous detachment here too, and floaters for decades. In my case the vitreous sac is pulling on the retina, causing weird flashes. The ophthalmologist says to keep a close eye (no pun intended) on it on the off chance I get a retinal detachment, but the odds are very good that I'll be fine.</p>

<p>There's a tutorial here on using lights like yours: http://photography.tutsplus.com/tutorials/getting-started-with-your-new-monolight-kit--photo-14128.</p> <p>Watch it with the light stands- the lights are quite heavy, and you can end up with a very top-heavy and even hazardous setup. Photographic sandbags to put on the legs of the light stands to hold them steady can be helpful with this problem. If you don't have light stands then you need to get or borrow some that are strong enough to hold the lights.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My understanding is that the Pentax67/II needs a strong support setup that prevents the shutter action from torquing the entire camera during the exposure. Based on that advice, I used the RRS B68 plate specifically for the P67/II, which cradles the body and (and if the plate, clamp, ballhead are properly tightened, and the tripod stable enough) prevents blurring due to shutter slap (http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00MBS9). I was able to make this work well with up to a 300mm lens with 1/4x teleconverter, the longest lens I tried. </p> <p>This plate is now out of production but it pops up used now and then. You can use the other plate you mentioned but you won't get this cradling action. I have no idea if either plate will work with your Kirk clamp, but RRS warns that some of their plates won't work with other Arca-Swiss compatible clamps.</p>

<blockquote> <p>>>> THE LAW states clearly that it is LEGAL for The Police to lie to YOU, ...<br> Please cite that law where it is so clearly stated.</p> </blockquote> <p>Supreme Court decision, U.S.A.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frazier_v._Cupp</p> <p> </p>

<p>The discussion of legacy lenses reminds me of the film-era Nikkor Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 lenses I tested a few years ago. This lens had been highly rated and recommended by some in the past despite being a Series E lens.</p> <p>I have two copies and I decided to see how well they did on my D7000 with 16MP. Both lenses were carefully focused in live view on a fence about 2400 feet (~730m) away in a neighborhood of trees and houses viewed from a higher vantage point.</p> <p>Both copies were wonderfully sharp and clear in the center, but their sharpness severely deteriorated out towards the edges even though they were being used on a crop-sensor camera. I searched in vain for evidence of field curvature, but could not find any distance where the lenses were sharp at a pixel level towards the edges. They just were not sharp away from the center at that degree of magnification. The lenses would probably have done fine on 35mm film enlarged to 8" x 12" (~20cm x 30cm), but could not hack it on a sensor that's low resolution by today's standards.</p>

<p>B&H is usually good about packing, but I've had a couple of shipments in the last year where the minimal bubble wrap was loose and not protecting anything. Expensive items (Zeiss lens, for instance) were loose in the box. Nothing was damaged, but I was concerned and checked the items carefully including testing the lens.</p>

<p>Just a caution about personal deliveries at work. I work for a large organization and this is expressly forbidden. Better check with your employer's mailroom before assuming you can do this or trying to do it.</p>

<p>Andrew, you're correct - I spaced on that one. Yes, the issue with the first version of the 70-200/2.8 is poor performance on FX. I actually considered getting that lens used for my D7000 but ended up getting the 70-200 f/4 instead.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I would be really sad to buy something more affordable and end up never being very pleased with what it puts out once I get good.</p> </blockquote> <p>Michelle, that applies to lenses as well. As others have noted, the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk. I is not a good lens on today's high-resolution cameras. Conversely, the D7100 and D7200 are not cheap cameras in terms of quality output and you would not regret using them for your kind of photography. I think you are best off following Shun's advice and trading up to new lenses better suited to nature photography.</p>

<p>I carried an FG around in my daily backpack for a couple of years and it started to fall apart! It's just not durable. Sure, they are cheap to replace but a camera that costs 2X or 3X as much will last far longer and will be more reliable. My FE went on hundreds of miles of backpacking and hiking trips and never failed me except through user error. The FE2 will probably be more reliable than an FE at this point due to not being as old.</p>

<p>Thanks, David. When I came back to the thread to post a second time I should have re-read the OP to make sure I had all relevant information again. Yes, you are correct for early May, and potentially for the entire month. After especially snowy winters the pass may not open until sometime in June.</p> <p>Matthew, I specifically stated that Lee Vining was too far for good access to the valley (quite aside from the issue of seasonal closures). My previous post related to exploring other parts of the park, and places near the park, from an alternate base location after first seeing the valley.</p>

<p>Another option, for those with more time to explore around California, is to exit the park on the east after seeing Yosemite Valley and stay at Lee Vining. This is too far away for exploring the valley, but is a reasonable base for exploring the Tuolumne Meadows, Lee Vining Canyon, and Mono Lake areas which get only a fraction of the crowds of the valley. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Last year, we stayed at Tenaya Lodge. $345 a night (we were only there 2 nights). Very nice, maybe 1/2 hour drive to the valley.</p> </blockquote> <p>Tenaya Lodge is farther from the valley than Wawona! Figure an hour drive.</p>

<p>Same here. I hope he's doing well.</p>

<p>Thanks for the informative discussion!</p> <p>Minor point of terminology:</p> <p>Aerial means having to do with being in the air</p> <p>Areal means having to do with area.</p> <p>The resolution in question was areal, not aerial.</p>

<p>I returned a 355/9 G-Claron for fungus recently. The element in question was nasty looking, kinda crusty. Maybe it was something other than fungus, like leaked Canada balsam?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I would turn that money into time. Because the lack of time is the biggest photographic problem I have.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hear, hear. Oh, I'd buy a few specialty lenses that I can't currently justify, but mainly I'd retire earlier (maybe not quite yet, but in a couple of years or so) than I otherwise would. Time to take photography classes, time to practice a lot, time to go on leisurely photography trips of my own.</p>