ben_hutcherson

I still want to really play with all of them. The 2.1cm is a bit rough around the edges, and unfortunately too I didn't get the finder with it(I did with my fisheye). I've been meaning to track down an aftermarket one, as supposedly Voigtlander in particular makes a decent one. It's amazing how compact it is mounted on the camera, though. It's the slimmest, lowest profile lens I've ever seen mounted on an F mount camera(and yes I do have both the 45mm lenses). Mine is the earliest variation of it, and part of me is curious to look at it on my Fuji X-T5(I have done that with the Fisheye) but part of me is afraid to. There's some discussion about the mount "fork" and i've not studied the lens closely enough yet to really understand how it interplays with the lens mount, but IIRC it will only actually mount on F and F2s because of this. It's REALLY close to the film plane, and I think there was some concern even on F4/F5 bodies about the lens interfering with the shutter. Even getting around that, I've seen photos from some who have used them on Z cameras and they vignette and give some wonky artifacts-the whole phenomenon of the rear element getting too close to the sensor really is a thing. I don't notice it with the Fisheye, but then it sets out a bit further and the edges already vignette anyway. I hope I can play with both 5cms I have soon. The guy I bought them from was reluctant to sell the 9 blade version and said he much preferred its rendering to the newer 6 blade , but I'll see...

I freely admit to not being the biggest fan of the Nikkormat range,. I don't get along with it for two reasons. The first is a general dislike of the shutter speed dial around the lens mount, something I never could get use to on the OM-1 as much as I wanted to like that lovely little jewel of a camera. The second is maybe not a big deal to a lot, but it's something that really bugs me-I don't like lenses must be set to f/5.6 before mounting. If you only ever use non-AI Nikons it's probably not that big of a deal since the coupling pin on the camera will tend to set the lens there when dismounting. With that said, considering that on the various F and F2 finders you can "grab" the coupling pin by twisting to minimum aperture regardless of where it was set prior to mounting, it's a bit of a different workflow/mindset. I need to post some photos in this thread, as I've been on a bit of an early F mount buying binge lately. It started a few months ago when I bought an 8mm fisheye from the local camera store. A month or so back, following a discussion on here(so I blame you @orsetto 🙂 ) I went hunting for a 35mm f/1.4 thorium and found a nice one on Ebay. I ended up chatting with the seller a bit, one thing led to another, and I bought an early 5cm f/2 and 2.1cm f/4 along with an early 64-block F. A bit more discussion led me to getting a 9-blade 5cm(non-tick-mark, which seems actually less common than the tick mark version but a lot less expensive), an early 35mm f/2(or is it a 3.5cm? I'd have to look) a super clean 50mm f/1.4 AI that will be a perfect match for my boxed Photomic T, and finally all capped off with a black F2AS. The latter is a bit rougher than the chrome 80 SN F2AS I've had for several years, but I'm also less afraid to use it. At the end of the day I still think I like my F2SB better, but the F2AS is hard to dislike. The one I keep trying to use but can't really seem to take to use the F2S, the DP-2 prism with the two LED read-out. I think these are CdS, so I'm also afraid that they're prone to the same sort of meter drift as the Photomic finders.

Out of curiosity, have you stuck a voltmeter on the capacitors to see what voltage they are charging to? I agree that I can't imagine them going all the way to the rated voltage. 350 even sounds high to me-330V is common for a lot of shoe mount flashes, although I realize monolights are a different beast. Just playing around with the equation a bit, I get 240J exactly if I plug in 500V, but I can't imagine that they'd go over the rated voltage of the caps. Alternatively, could there possibly be a few more caps hiding in there? 8 total 480µF caps at 350V gives 235J, which sounds close enough to 240 for marketing purposes for me. Just playing with some other numbers, those are what I come up with to get in the range of 240...

I just looked and at least the blowers on the flash heads I had readily accessible are R9111. They are the older model variable speed blower, and given the way they operate I'd always just assumed that they piggyback on the modeling light circuit and couldn't be activated separate of them. You can also hear them speed up and slow down as you change the brightness of the modeling lights. I've used my Norman lights a decent bit-to the point that I have some semi-permanently set-up, so the fans running at all without the modeling lights being on is news to me. My main Norman kit-the initial 8 lights along with 3 power packs I bought-came from a deceased local pro. They'd been donated to the camera club of which he was a long time member, and two club members who had used those specific lights a lot(on club photo shoots) walked me through operation of them when I bought them. Their advice was switch on the modeling lights if you anticipate firing them enough for heat to be an issue. For my use it often isn't, especially considering that I mostly use umbrellas.

All my Norman blowers on my LH2000 lamp heads are tied to the modeling lights..no lights on, no blower. Ramp the lights up, blowers speed up. BTW, this is with the P800. P1250, and P2000 power packs, all of which I have.

When looking for a manual for the finder, note that this is the "Photomic FTN" finder. It was the last version of meter finder for the F. On the T and Tn finders, you have to set the lens maximum aperture manually on the ISO dial. The FTN has what's sometimes called "Semi-auto indexing"-after mounting a lens, rotate the aperture ring to minimum to "grab" the coupling pin, then rotate to minimum aperture. When you do the latter for the first time, you should hear a sort of ratching noise from the finder, and the little red pointer inside the window should indicate the minimum aperture of the lens mounted. BTW, mounting at f/5.6 will usually grab the metering pin automatically, but I just got in the habit of going minimum-maximum as you don't have to worry about where it is. Note too that when you remove the lens, it should come off the body set to f/5.6. This meter is functionally identical to the F2 Photomic finder, although the latter is more refined(and doesn't care about battery voltage). Note that sometimes the coupling pin gets "sticky". If you were to take the front of the finder off, you'd see that it slides in a groove and is spring loaded, and then rides along an arched rail that keeps it at the correct height for the aperture ring as it goes side to side. Sometimes it will get sticky and not want to move up and down, so you will lose it as you move more than one or two stops past f/5.6. Unless you just have to have a plain prism, I'd suggest using it with the metering prism. Plain prisms are pricey, and aside from the bulk the metering prisms work just fine even if you don't use the meter. Fs are great cameras and fundamentally were the start of the reputation Nikon has spent 60+ years continuing to build. The F2 builds on the F and is in nearly every imaginable way a better camera with things like a swinging film back, mirror lock up that doesn't require wasting a frame to raise and then another to lower it, and meters that integrate better into the body. You can also bolt a motor drive right on and off without needing to calibrate it to the body. The one advantage I can think of that the F has is that it has multiple flash sync modes should you wish to use bulbs, but that's a pretty niche use these days. Still, though, the F is still a very capable camera. BTW, the 50mm f/1.4 is great and getting a 50mm f/1.4 SLR lens was quite an achievement at the time(Nikon's first attempt was 58mm, and this was true of a lot of other early fast SLR lenses). Still though, as a fast single coated 7 element lens(fun side note-Nikon lenses indicate their number of elements in the name. Nikkor-S means Septa, or 7) and is prone to flare and low contrast, especially wide open. The Nikkor-H(H=hexa, 6 elements) 50mm f/2 is in almost every way optically a better lens, although the f/1.4 is not bad when stopped down to f/2. The 55mm f/3.5 Micro is IMO the real prize here for sharpness-I still consider this one of the sharpest Micro-Nikkors ever made when used as an actual macro lens, and I've owned most of the F mount ones.

I have a Canon 7 on the shelf that I've been seriously considering selling-actually I should but just haven't gotten around to it. I don't currently have any LTM lenses. The last I had with the 35mm and 50mm pair that I sold as a kit with my IIIc. Yes maybe I could have broken them up, butat that point was ready to just let it go to someone who wanted it. I kind of wish I had kept the 35mm, and it would be a nice pairing on the Canon 7. I think whether or not to sell a complete kit depends on the specific camera and the likely buyer, as well as whether you want to sell quickly or maximize profit. As a prime example, if you put a Hassy 500C/M with a waist level, 80mm, and A12 back on Ebay and priced it reasonably, you'd probably sell it in a week. If you parted it out, you might get an extra $100 or $200, but you'd potentially be dealing with 4 separate buyers, 4 separate transactions, and shipping 4 separate items as well as possibly waiting weeks to sell everything. I'm going to be listing a Canon AE-1 on Ebay later today, and I will sell it with a 50mm f/1.8. Why? The 50mm likely wouldn't bring enough to list by itself, and probably 75% of prospective Canon AE-1 buyers on Ebay want a camera they can unbox and use. The Canon 7 I feel like is a niche enough camera that many people who would be interested in it likely already have lenses. The only lens I'd potentially pair with it would be the f/.95, but in that case the body would more or less fade into the background as the real attraction there would be the lens. As fond as I am of the 7 as an LTM rangefinder(IMO the best made, although it's definitely big and bulky by rangefinder standards) it doesn't really seem to get the attention of the Canon Barnack clones. In more general terms, though, I feel like higher end cameras tend to sell well without lenses. It's pretty rare that I would sell a Nikon F2 or Canon F-1 with a lens unless it's a situation where I have a boxed kit and the lens SN matches the tag. Someone buying one of these to use more than likely has plenty of lenses already.

As a general comment on these lens discussions- Buried on Nikon's website you will find the "One Thousand and one Nights" series of articles. These basically take detailed looks at lenses. There are 80-some-odd of them, including both historic and more recent lenses(nothing SUPER recent, but early AF era), but they are well worth a read. They go into some analysis of the element design, including the history and why it was selected, an overall view of how the lens fits into the 35mm photography/SLR "Landscape", and discuss a lot of the performance character of the lenses. Here's one on the 35mm f/1.4. The article seems to primarily talk about the AI-s version, but also essentially treats the original thorium pre-AI to the AI-s version as a continuous evolution of the same basic design(These article do note-in general-when there are major changes in seemingly similar lenses, such as the one on the 105mm f/2.5 talking about the Sonnar and Gauss formulas). It makes for an interesting read... https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0027/ BTW, does anyone know if this lens is still in production? I know it was a few years ago(say 2018-2019 range) but I know there's also been a lot of shake-up and Nikon at least discontinued some lingering halo products like the F6 along in there. I haven't heard if the handful of remaining AI-s lenses like the 35mm f/1.4 and 55mm f/2.8 Micro were casualties too. Even though I'm quite happy with my example of the 35mm f/1.4, I would also love the experience of buying a new one, although it's not exactly an inexpensive lens...

If I may be permitted to ramble a bit- Back in high school(2005) I wanted to get a "real" camera and decided that the A-1 was the camera for me. I searched Ebay for a while and finally thought I'd ended up with the "right" one, only to get it and realize that the LEDs didn't work. This bothered me quite a bit, and honestly I should have probably returned it. At the same time, Ebay wasn't as buyer-friendly then, and I was so thrilled to have the camera in the first place that I overlooked it. Despite not having the LED read-out, I used that camera a lot. I used it in shutter priority mode, and mostly just parked the shutter at a speed that was supposed to prevent motion blur. Back then film and processing were cheap-I'd buy a box of 5 rolls of 24 exposure film at Wal-Mart for $5 or so, and could have send-off processing with 3x5 prints done for $3 each and back two days later. I learned my way around that camera pretty quickly despite shooting it "blind". That summer, the camera went with me on a 2 week school trip to France. I shot a grand total of 26 rolls of film(two rolls most days, albeit most of them 24 exposure rolls that I could usually get 26 or 27 on). There were a few occasions on that trip, though, where the display randomly started working. It would generally work for a few hours then quit again. There was no rhyme or reason to it, and it's not worked since then. At times, I've spent long periods of time aimlessly working the viewfinder on-off switch back and forth. I've never been brave enough to actually go into and look, but old cameras are sometimes susceptible to corrosion on electrical contacts and in a lot of other situations I've found the mechanical "scrubbing" of the switch contacts that working it provides can at least provide a temporary fix. I've never seen it make a difference on my A-1. Still, though, I continued using that camera A LOT. I did get a T90 for Christmas that year and bought a T70 somewhere along the way, but continued to use the A-1 frequently. Over the next few years I built up a much larger kit and came to like the New F-1 best of all of the FD bodies(and I owned most of them at various points) but the A-1 was still there, and still without its display. I would guess in what's now closing in on two decades of ownership of the camera(which is hard to believe considering that I'm in my mid-30s and at this point may have well owned it longer than its original owner, or if I haven't yet will have in a few years) I've shot several hundred rolls of film in it, and just accepted the non-working display. I always said I'd have it fixed. Mr. Ken Oikawa serviced a few F-1s for me in that time(does anyone know if he is still working on cameras, or even still alive? I'd love to have him service my F-1s again, especially considering that it's now been nearly a decade and a half since he did them). I never thought about even asking Mr. Oikawa if he would work on A-series cameras. There's enough of a...communication gap...to put it lightly anyway that I've never broached the topic. More recently, I decided that I wanted an A-1 with a working viewfinder display, so I bought one. I figured it was the easiest way there, and honestly I ended up buying a nice kit for less than the likely cost of an overhaul. I actually ended up with two of them so sold kept the nicer and sold the other, plus started building out all the other A series cameras(I've found I really like the often-ignored AT-1, and still don't have an AV-1 but am not in too much of a hurry to get one). I still wouldn't mind getting my old faithful A-1 fixed and treating it to what is probably a much-deserved overhaul. It has always had a broken battery door(the loose piece is just now familar under my fingers when I pick it up-enough so that an A-1 without a broken door feels strange to me)and of course the mirror has always squealed. Maybe I'll do that one of these days, and if Mr. Oikawa is still in the business and works on the A-1, maybe now is the time to do it.

What cameras have you used? I think modern auto-loading cameras are a different beast(where you pull the film across to the mark and shut the back), but on most manual loading camera I've used you would need to cut the tail to yourself if it wasn't there. Just thinking of cameras I've used in the past month-a Nikon F2, Nikon FM2, and a Canon A-1-on all of them the take up spool is cut about halfway up and has a hook molded into it. You stick the narrow end into this, the hook connects to one of the sprocket holes, and the film is attached. On a lot of cameras, the slot in the take up spool goes all the way through(just like the slot on a 120 spool) so that you can feed it all the way through and make extra sure it catches. There are a few older cameras where you might get away without it. I recall seeing a metal tab you tuck the film behind on some. The "QL" system that Canon used on a couple of cameras(FT, FTb, and Pellix to my recollection) could probably do fine without it, as it works similar to a modern auto-loader with a grippy take-up spool. If you really want crazy, get some older(say 70s or earlier) 35mm film and look at how the leader is cut. Chances are you'll find that the skinny part is quite long-like a couple of inches. If you ever have the urge to use a Barnack-model Leica(IIIc and IIIf are the common ones you'll run into) or a clone like a Canon IV you'll find why it use to be made this way, and find that you need to modify the leader yourself. On these cameras, you load by removing the bottom plate, dropping out the take-up spool, hooking the leader onto it, and then separating the spool and canister exactly the correct distance and feeding them up into the camera through the bottom. If you don't have the extra-long leader, the film will foul somewhere in the area of the shutter/film gate and you'll either pull it off the take-up spool or just won't be able to load it. When I went through a phase of using these cameras a lot, I got pretty adept at hand-cutting the leaders, although if you want to be fancy there's a metal template you can use. BTW, out of habit, when I finish a roll of film, I generally leave the leader out but tear it off so the end of the film is straight. This is a great way to communicate "exposed film" if you do prefer leader out(if you use a commercial lab, most minilabs now in use pull the film through the light trap, and leaving the leader out saves the chance of the scratching your film or getting crud in the light trap that can scratch, plus I find that leaving leader out leaves the trap on the whole less susceptible to dust/crud that can scratch when pulling through. Modern Tri-X is difficult enough IME to open with a Church Key in the changing bag that I find it easier to pull it out too rather than opening the can and pushing out).

Never seen, touched, or handled a 6D in my life, but what does the the $350 quote include? If it's just for the dial replacement, maybe looking at another is viable. When I've had digitals in for major repairs/parts replacement on an already well used camera, the repair has generally included a general CLA/overhaul as part of the price. When I had my Nikon D800 stop down tab repaired a few years ago, it was about $275 for CLA+shutter+the actual repair. Granted the math was a bit different as D800s were still $1K cameras then(it was a few months before the D850 was announced, so the D800 was technically only a generation old at that point) but still I thought it more than reasonable. Here's my point in that-if you are at least getting some overhaul with the repair, you'll get the camera back knowing it's probably going to be good to go for a long time. Your KEH $350 camera may well last you a decade or more, or maybe not. I'm ASSUMING that's a BGN grade camera. 10-15 years ago, BGN grade from KEH was Ebay "excellent." My more recent KEH "BGN" purchases have been more along the lines of guaranteed to works as it should and not be TOO beat up. There was a time where KEH was giving shutter counts, but I don't remember the last camera I bought from them(a D4) listing one.

Philip was most certainly still active in the operation of this site in 2007, as that was when he reached out to me to ask me to become a moderator(a role I gladly accepted and enjoyed for the time I did it). Shortly after that, however, I recall dealing mostly with Josh Root, who I believe was with NameMedia. In fact, I shipped Josh lenses to use for reviews on a few occasions, and that was the name I recall being on the Fed-Ex account he told me to use...

For all "light" (meaning anything in the electromagnetic spectrum in this context, not just visible light), energy increases as wavelength decreases. Higher wavelengths of UV are higher energy. I really need to look up the chemistry of what's going on when thorium glass yellows, and why UV reverses it. I'm a bit embarrased that I don't know...

I might be inclined to go with something a bit stronger like a anti-bacterial UV lamp. https://www.amazon.com/UV-Germicidal-Basement-Storehouse-Sterilization/dp/B0B2D7LQGG/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=antibacterial%2Blight&qid=1701346855&sr=8-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.18ed3cb5-28d5-4975-8bc7-93deae8f9840&th=1 Using one of these, I'd be inclined to wrap everything but the glass in foil to avoid any potential paint/marker fading or other issues, but I also expect it would work a lot faster than sunlight...

On the F4, N8008, N90(s), and a few others(maybe the N75 too and N6006?), G lenses will function in program and shutter priority. Note though that most, if not all, G lenses are AF-S or AF-P. I know AF-S lenses will focus fine on the F4 and N90(s), but definitely NOT on the N8008 and most other first generation AF bodies. As best as I can tell, AF-S and AF-I use the same or at least similar enough communication protocols, and the first AF-I lenses would have shipped right around the same time as the F4(it's late and I don't feel like looking up dates). As a side note too, I recall seeing in literature that the F4 can use F3AF lenses, but I've never had any of those to try! If used on a non-electronic body like an FM2, G lenses will shoot at their smallest aperture. These bodies simply drop the stop-down tab all the way down and rely on the aperture ring to control how much the aperture opens. On an electronic body when fitted with a G lens(or an electronic lens set to minimum aperture), the stop down lever moves down to stop the lens down an appropriate amount, which allows aperture control on G lenses(or, there again in the normal operating mode on a modern body for an electronic lens with an aperture ring, the lens is set to minimum aperture and this operation is the same). Of small note, too, "E" aperture lenses are actually, IMO, more useful on non-electronic bodies than "G" lenses. The "E" means electronic aperture(or at least that's often stated). They remain wide open until the camera electrically closes the aperture through the contacts, and then open again. If you put these lenses on a camera that does not have electronic communication with the lens(i.e. FM2, F2, etc) you will find that they will remain wide open. The only E lens I have is a 24-70 f/2.8E, and given the choice I'd rather it be stuck at f/2.8 than f/22. I THINK the ability to control E aperture lenses came around 2008 with the D3/D300 series bodies(I've heard CMOS sensor as a rule, but I don't think the D2X can control them) and no film cameras, not even the F6, can control them. I think it sort of interesting, though, that if you put an E lens on an electronic film body-even an F4-the camera recognizes that it can't change the aperture. That actually makes for an interesting situation in the F4, since it effectively forces it into aperture priority mode but without the ability to change the aperture. Oh, by the way, if you want to do crazy things like stick lenses on your F4 that technically shouldn't work on there, stick at least to Nikon lenses. No matter how new the lens, the F4 seems to recognize just what it can and can't do with it as long as it's a Nikon lens. I sold my Tamrom 35mm f/1.8 VC a long time ago, but I remember when I did try it on the F4, the camera acted crazy and was basically unuseable. I seem to remember something like it kept jumping between modes regardless of what I did with the mode selector-it's been a long time and of course I can't try it now.

At least when it comes to the Canon FD 35mm f/2 concave, I've been hearing of window sill bleaching for decades now and never have seen a report of separation when doing it. This of course is a different lens that I've not researched that much, so really don't know. If it's a 70s lens, though, I'd expect it to not have balsam but of course don't know that for sure. I wouldn't expect the temperatures-if inside-to be any higher than if the lens were left in a hot car, or especially if it were left uncapped on a camera uncased in a hot car(neither of which is great, but something which a lot of us have probably done). I make a point not to do the second, but definitely have left my bags in the car in the summer. I've not seen separation in a Nikkor from doing this(and I'm far from the first owner of any of these). Of course I'm also speculating on a lens that I honestly don't know much about, even if I now own one(or at least one that I have paid for will soon be shipped to me) so can't say...

Do we know what Nikon was using for lens cement at the time these would have been made? Were they still using balsam or had they moved to something else?

Apologies for triggering the flare up of GAS! Misery loves company, my friend: gotta keep you involved in the chase along with the rest of us! 😉 In my post above I mis-named the early thorium pre-AI 35mm f/1.4: like its immediate predecessor (24mm f/2.8) in Nikon's groundbreaking floating element series, the filter ring reads "Auto-Nikkor-N" (single coated) or "Auo-Nikkor-N-C" (multicoated). Having started my post with a description of the 35mm Nikkor-O and -OC, it slipped my mind that the f/1.4 was -N/-NC. D'oh! The first version 35/1.4 N/NC is an even more imposing hunk of optics than the later, more common AI/AI-s. Instead of the somewhat clumsily retrofitted thinner AI-s focus ring with rubber grip, the N/NC has the thickest deepest "scalloped" solid-metal focus barrel of any pre-AI lens I've owned, even larger than the already-impressive scalloped barrel of the pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P/PC. The thorium-element 35/1.4 is a big, fat, heavy lens on par with the 55mm f/1.2 pre-AI. I found the handling and weight balance rather ridiculous on my petite Nikon FM: between that and the stubborn yellowing I decided to return it pretty quickly and stick to my trusty 35/2 Nikkor-O. Thanks! I did a bit of hunting and found a few possible candidates, so we'll see. BTW, to @hjoseph7 in looking this morning, I did not run across a single Nikon 35mm f/1.4 priced at $150. Most were $250-400... The closest I saw was a Nikkor-N for $160 that the seller really didn't pull any punches about that they basically thought they'd been scammed on it when they bought it and were just trying to recoup some money. It is a non-AI lens, so you're out of luck on digital unless you have a Df(you can use it on your F4, but will need to flip up the AI tab and use stop down metering). It was described as stinking of WD-40, as if the focus helicoil had been coated in it, plus has fungus and is badly yellowed. Since I just learned of the existence of this lens last night 🙂 , I haven't researched it extensively but people reverse yellowing on the Canon 35mm concave by leaving it in a windowsill for a few weeks, sometimes with foil wrapped around the back to increase reflection through the glass. Some also leave the yellowing as, depending on the degree, it is about the color of a Y2 filter so makes for great B&W images. BTW, if you go looking for that one, it's no longer there 🙂 (I shot a lowball best offer on it when started typing this post, the seller countered with something I thought reasonable, and I decided to buy it-issues aside it does have the hood and a nice case). I'm eying a few more nice 35mm Nikkor-N and NC lenses from Japan, but this one caught my interest and if nothing else can live in my office so that i can hold it up to a geiger counter in class a few times a year. The least expensive AI-s I saw was $225 in Japan, and it seems optically fine but has some bad cosmetic issues and I'd be afraid of the barrel damage that @orsettomentions. Most of the nicer ones are more like $275-350. BTW, @orsetto I really should put you on my ignore list 🙂 . It's nothing personal-I truly do love reading your post and the volumes of thorough information you provide and really love conversing with yiou, but all too often you've tempted me to buy something after reading or interacting with you 🙂 . I read about the thorium 35m f/1.4 shortly before going to bed last night, and not even 12 hours later I've bought one 🙂 (I hope you know I mean that all in jest). I know I haven't been around Pnet as much lately, and thanks to current PM limitations I can't carry on side conversations. Feel free to email me at bhutche0 AT gmail.com if you'd like to chat, as we use to often.

I haven't looked closely lately, but I would be VERY suspicious of a 35mm f/1.4 AI-s lens for $150. If it's from a Japanese seller, read the description carefully-many of the Japanese sellers are incredibly thorough in their descriptions, both positive and negative. Vintage/collectible Nikons on Ebay that come from Japan are, as a general rule, a reliable source to get accurately described items that are priced fairly-it's unusual to find a bargain, but you'll also likely not overpay. For $150 on a 35mm f/1.4 AI-s, I'd expect extensive fungus or other major optical faults. I paid $250 a few years ago for mine from my local camera store, and considered it a good deal but not a bargain. These sort of lenses, as a general rule, have held steady if not increased in value in the last few years(as @orsetto sort of talked about). Manual focus Nikkors have become very popular in the mirrorless era, especially the somewhat more exotic ones like the 35mm f/1.4(calling it exotic might be a stretch, but back in the day if you'd looked in two dozen photographer's bags you might or might not have seen one). I love my 35mm f/1.4, and since getting mine it has never NOT been on a camera. It's mostly a film lens for me, and I've shot a lot of slides with it. With that said, I've used it a decent bit on digital, and in fact this past weekend had it on my D5 a few times. Wide open, the lens is very low contrast with a lot of spherical abberation. In the film days where you might have been fighting pushed Tri-X just to get the shot, it was perfectly acceptable and you might not have even noticed it in the sort of situation where you really NEED an f/1.4 lens to get acceptable shutter speeds in low light. Now. well, 12,800 on my D5 can compete with Tri-X at box speed(and if I crank the D5 up to 25,600 or 51,200 it runs circles around pushed Tri-X) and a manual focus f/1.4 lens is just touchy to focus. The optical flaws show terribly on digital. You use the lens wide open if you want to use them for artistic effects. Bokeh is somewhere between not great and ugly on the lens-if you want creamy backgrounds, wide angle lenses aren't where you go as a general rule. Stopping the 35mm f/1.4 AI-s down to f/2 transforms it. It's sharp and contrasty. @mike_halliwell 's posted chart shows that it's maybe not as clinically sharp as a more modern design, but for for a manual focus fast prime I consider it quite acceptable. I'm not paying that much attention to sharpness when I talk about a transformation, though-I really do mean that the lens has a totally different look at feel. With that said, there's not a lot of point in buying an f/1.4 lens to stop it down to f/2 all the time. It MIGHT be a tiny bit better than the 35mm f/2 AF-D, but might also be worse-I'd put that down to sample variation. If I gave you my 35mm f/1.4 AI-s and 35mm f/2 AF-D and asked you to go out and shoot a dozen photos with each at f/2, I doubt I'd be able to pick out which was which. I keep the f/1.4 for a few reasons. One of those is that 35mm is my preferred "normal" lens, and if I'm going out with a 3 or 4 lens manual focus kit(like say my F2SB in my FB-5 "Doctor's Bag", which I enjoy doing) it fills that slot so well that I typically carry the 35mm in lieu of a 50mm. It's a great lens for that(my usual additional lenses are the 20mm f/4 and 105mm f/2.5-if I carry a 4th lens it could be an 85mm, 135mm, or 200mm depending on what I plan on doing, or MAYBE a Micro lens, but whatever it is, in keeping with the spirit of the whole kit, it has to be a 52mm filter thread lens, which limits some options at some of those FLs a bit). I also do sometimes like the look of it wide open, but usually do try to avoid. In fact I usually use the lens in the f/4-f/8 range. I mentioned liking the f/2 AF-D lens because it's small and light. That is NOT true of the 35mm f/1.4 AI-s. It's built to the same standards/quality as the 50mm f/1.4 AI/AI-s, but is a larger and heavier lens. The barrel is actually kind of "chunky." It feels good to me in hand, but the focusing ring bulges out some(it's not more or less flush with the aperture ring like on a 50mm) and it's long. To me it balances nicely on something like an F2, but can make a lighter camera like an FM2 a bit front heavy. Also, @orsetto, why did you have to mention that the Nikkor-O 35mm f/1.4 has throrium glass? I have actually been sort of shopping for a Canon FD 35mm f/2 concave the past couple of months, and among other things want it as another of my "radioactive consumer products" for when I teach about radioactivity. I hadn't realized Nikon made a Thorium lens. The FD mount version still interests me, given my FD mount roots, but I might have to shift my focus to a Nikkor-O!

Just to pile on a bit, there IS both an FX and DX version of the 35mm f/1.8G. The DX version had a retail price of $200-it was inexpensive enough that I actually bought one new(well, store demo that they knocked $10 off of because I asked...). I buy new in box cameras and lenses so infrequently that it was memorable for me 🙂 I was shopping for a full frame 35mm AF lens in the fall of 2018, and from what remember at the time MSRP on the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S FX around $600. The 35mm f/2 was less expensive, but not by a lot. The G version was maybe $400 second hand, and the AF-D around $300(what I call "normal user condition" or something like KEH BGN-basically fully functional stuff that shows obvious signs of use but not abuse). I cross shopped the two pretty seriously, along with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. I ruled out the latter for cost, size/weight, and reports of focus accuracy on the D800 I was using at the time. The G version was objectively a better lens, but was bigger and heavier. I should mention too at the time that I did not have a 35mm manual focus prime, only a few consumer-level slow zooms that covered that range. I ended up finding an inexpensive 35mm f/2 AF-D(piece missing from the filter ring, otherwise fine) from the KEH outlet on Ebay. It was SIGNIFICANTLY less than other options, and the optics were perfect. I liked the size and weight, plus at the time I was ostenibly trying, wherever possible, to have lenses that would also work on my manual focus AI cameras and early AF cameras like the F4. The AF-D version is the choice there as it has an aperture ring(yes the G will work on the F4 in P and S modes, but it's pretty limited on other cameras of that age and very limited on MF cameras). Around that time I also found myself with a Df, and found the small and light lens wonderful on that camera. A little later I did buy the Tamron 35mm f/1.8VC, which appealed to me because so few short prime lenses offer any form of stabilization. Ultimately I didn't keep that one as it was heavy and not that much better-for me-than the AF-D lens. BTW, I bought the DX version when I had a D500, although still have it despite selling the camera. It's definitely a different class of lens than the FX version of the f/1.8G, which I have handled but not owned. The DX version is very much built like what it's intended to be-a DX version of the classic 50mm f/1.8. There's nothing wrong with that and they are optically excellent, but if you've handled it and/or the 50mm f/1.8G next to something like the 50mm f/1.4G or really any other "pro" mid-range primes(or zooms) you would understand what I mean. There's just a different feel to the construction and things like how the focus ring feel. That's part of the price difference. I'm not sure that the FX version ever sold in big numbers, so it may not show up that often on the secondary market. I'd expect it to still bring a decent price, and would be shocked if it was not still more expensive than the 35mm f/2 AF-D. (BTW, if looking for a 35mm prime, don't forget to at least consider the ART in the discussion...).

Yeah, guessing it's long gone given the listing is 5 years old as I'd definitely be interested in it now if still available!

Yes it is AFAIK. If the scanner itself is branded "ICE" on it, as my Nikon scanners are and I'm 99.9% sure my V700 does, there is a very good chance that the manufacturer's software will use ICE. They had to pay to put that badge there in the first place 🙂 , and even if the software is still being actively updated(don't know the status of Epson software or its compatibility) more than likely they still have the ICE algorithms integrated into their processing. I doubt there's any current development of ICE, but the most recent versions I've used(such as in Nikon Scan 4) are pretty darn good. My first film capable scanner was a Canon flatbed that I bought 2006/2007ish. I wish I'd gone for an Epson then, but was a freshman in college on a tight budge, and the $250 or so I paid for this scanner was already a stretch and it was the most affordable medium format capable scanner I was aware of. It actually served me well and I liked the film holders better than the Epson(especially the MF one). It had Canon's implementation of IR cleaning that they called FARE. it actually worked decently-about as well as Vuescan's version, but not as good as ICE.

The SB800 should nominally work on 4.8V, 6V, or 7.5V. With Li-ion I'd probably target 4.8V. Honestly, though, if you're already going to an external pack anyway my inclination would be to use the high voltage input on the front of the SB800. The Nikon SD8a takes 6 AA sized cells(7.2V or 9V depending on whether you're using alkaline or rechargeable-I've used both in it) and contains and inverter/transformer that feeds the flash capacitor directly with ~330V. 8.4V fed into this would PROBABLY work fine. If you really want to risk not blowing something up, though, first of all both Quantum and Lumedyne make their own external battery options that feed the high voltage input(Quantum uses the "Turbo" branding for HV packs, and there are about a dozen different ones). Lumedyne, which is a newer company than Quantum in this area, was smart enough to make their battery packs work with Quantum cables, although they sell their own also. Both use a DIN-type plug on the battery pack end. There are a few Quantum PNs I'm aware of that are SB800 compatible-the CKE, CKE2, and CCKE are all compatible. Lumedyne's set-up with the Megacycler(HV supply) is a bit clunkier than Quantum's, as the battery is a separate unit in the Lumedyne system. They offer 3 different sizes(small, medium, and large) in 3 different chemistries-NiCd, NiMH, and Li-ion(the latter is something Quantum still AFAIK won't do). Where this is relevant to you, though, is that Lumedyne actually sells empty battery boxes so that you can build your own battery packs if you're so inclined. So, a Lumedyne Megacycler+an external battery box that you add your own cells into would probably be the best solution. I don't have a TON of experience with Lumedyne other than having a Megacycler and a single small NiCd pack(that needs a rebuild). The small Ni-Cd pack contains 9 Sub-C cells, or 10.8V. You MIGHT get away with 8.4V of Li-ion in one, or you might be able to go to 12.6V. Given that Lumedyne sells the empty boxes, I'd guess that they would probably be forthcoming with information on what the Megacycler can handle and how to configure it if you wanted to ask. I've not had a reason yet to interact with Lumedyne-I quite literally have had my Megacycler just a few days now and it just happened to be a chance purchase that came with a Metz 45 CL-4 Digital and I was mostly buying for a good price on the rest of the stuff. Just as another off-the-wall thought that occured to me-the original Quantum Turbo(which I LOVE, BTW, even though they're heavy) is designed for a type PS-832 8V gel cell(lead acid) battery. Even though lead acid is often stated at 2V/cell, the "real world" accepted voltage for a fully charged one is 2.2V/cell(and gel cells often want to be charged at more like 2.3-2.4V/cell-I normally don't consider a 6V lead acid gel cell fully charged until it draws .01C connected to a 7.2V PSU). I say all of that to say that an original Quantum Turbo would probably work great on 8.4V, and a couple of 18650 cells should fit nicely in place of a PS-832 battery. You'd want to run an external charger for it since the charger is definitely designed for an 8V lead acid-it's been a little while since I've played with the charger in one, but IIRC it is constant current at around 250mA until batttery voltage hits 9.4V, will sit there a little while until current drops to ~30mA at 9.4V(this can take ~16 hours depending on just how dead the battery was when you started), and then drops to a float voltage of 9.2V for as long as you leave it plugged in content to be plugged in for literally days at a time supplying(I think Quantum says up to 72 hours). If you do this, you'd want to run a pigtail outside the case for an external Li-ion charger. The original Turbo with a dead battery(assume it's dead unless the seller has tested and/or recently replaced-find one that already has the battery removed to save on shipping) is dirt cheap. I've bought them in bulk for like $10. A PS-832 battery has a capacity of 3.2Ah(the batteries Quantum fitted when they first introduced it were 2.5Ah-technology has improved and the Powersonic PS832 is now their service replacement-I sometimes fit those or other less expensive brands since the PowerSonics are now $40 each and I can buy equivalent in bulk for ~$18-20 each). I'm happy to test one with a bench PSU if you want to go this route but I bet it would work fine on 8.4V without any issue other than the built-in power gauge maybe being inaccurate and artificially reading low. The PS-832 is a snug fit in the case, but definitely fits. Without measuring but just visualizing in my head, 2x 18650s should fit end-to-end in the space of it, and you could probably stack at least sets of 18650s and run in parallel if not 3 or 4 in the available space-that would give you a LOT of power on tap-potentially 2-3x what the lead acid offers.

I can think of a few screwdriver lenses that AFAIK have no AF-S or Z equivalent. The two DC lenses(105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2) come to mind. The other I can think of is the 200 f/4 Micro-a lens that apparently enough people like that even average condition examples still bring strong prices, and like-new ones often sell for as much if not more than what they sold for at NYC discount when they were still available new. Of course losing AF isn't AS big of a deal for a Micro lens, but it's a fantastic lens and having working AF is nice on it.

I don't use Windows so can't comment, but do have a Vuescan license and have used it a lot with a wide variety of different scanners going back to when I first bought a license in 2007 or so. I've also used Nikon Scan a lot with a Coolscan III, V, and 8000. The short answer is, first of all, the Nikon software is not "basic" by any means. It's not fancy, but there's a lot buried in it. Vuescan is much easier to use. If you're a Mac user, of course you can also run Vuescan on current OSs, where the absolute newest version of OS X that will support Nikon Scan 4.x is 10.6.8, which(practically, and with a very few exceptions) needs a computer introduced before roughly the middle of 2011. Even then, I've had stability issues with some 2011 computers running Nikon Scan. You can run Nikon Scan in a virtual machine, but note that you can only do this for USB scanners(which means the V/5000)-there's no way to "patch through" a Firewire connection as used on the IV/4000/8000/9000 to a virtual machine(at least on Macs). If you're trying to use a SCSI scanner(Coolscan III and earlier), heaven help you if you're connecting it to anything other than a PowerMac G4-finding a SCSI card that will work in a G5(much less an Intel Mac) and has a connector that you can have a hope of being able to attach your scanner to...well if you can do it I'll be impressed. That said, I bother with doing all of this because I think Nikon Scan gives better results at the end of the day. It REALLY gives better results if you're trying to use infrared dust and scratch removal. Note that this is often called "Digital ICE." Digital ICE has two components-the infrared scanning channel(which is on the scanner hardware side) and the algorithm to make use of it(which is the scanning software). Digital ICE was developed by a company called Applied Science Fiction, and I think the patent ended up with Kodak somewhere or another along the way. Who knows where it is now. Nikon Scan includes Digital ICE. Vuescan's Infrared Cleaning is better now than it use to be, but it's still nowhere as good as ICE.