zeitguy

I considered several upgrades to my

D90 including a D800 and finally

bought a D700. I had 6 non-ai lenses

adapted and find myself using the

24mm 2.8, 55mm 2.8 manual lenses

the most. I use the 70-300 VR for

wildlife and the 85mm 1.8 for people

but mostly i shoot landscapes.

<p>Thanks for all the responses! I have read up on this and talked to a few more people, and am satisfied that the thunk is VR as described here, and the focus problem is becoming resolved with practice. I have used AF-S mode almost exclusively and now I am trying AF-C, and learning from experience.</p>

<p>Josh, I have a D90 but bought this version because I still shoot with a few F4s film cameras, and hope to buy a full frame digital Nikon someday.<br>

Bob, I tried your experiment, and after I turned off the VR and turned it back on again, the thunking was diminished in both states. That might be even more disturbing!<br>

Hans, Mike and Elliot, I am reading up on the fine points, so to speak, of focusing and am switching to AF-C now when I use this lens.<br>

I find ViewNX quite satisfactory for preliminary review and quick prep of photos. I use PhotoShop CS for final post-processing.</p>

<p>Thanks again to all the responses.</p>

<p>I have been able to use the lens and noted two things:<br>

1. A slight "clunk" when the shutter button is pressed, and again when released, in AF mode. If I wiggle the lens nothing seems loose, so it seems to be a result of the servo or whatever in the lens and might be normal for all I know, but I would like to verify this with some people who own and use the lens.<br>

2. ViewNX 2 has a feature that paints a red box on the focus point of the NEF photo file in review and edit. I have checked a few dozen photos and many of the close-focus images show a discrepancy between the object in the red focus point indicator and the actual focus zone in the photo itself. This isn't apparent in "scene" shots including items more than 20 feet away. But flowers, bugs leaves etc the issue seems significant. For example, I have a photo of a dragon fly on a culvert. The red focus point box surrounds the body of the fly, but the fly is blurred, while the receding surface of the culvert behind the bug for a few inches is in good focus. My impression is that the actual focus is out beyond the focus point a bit, and this seems to indicated a mis-communication between the lens and the camera body.<br>

Now, I don't have that much experience using the focus point indicator in ViewNX to feel very confident about the latter observation. <br>

The clunking sound might be a deal breaker if it isn't typical of this particular lens. The focus thing I could probably work with if the consensus is that the focus point indicator isn't that reliable a test of performance.<br>

Any help from owner/users of this lens is greatly appreciated. These aren't the kind of questions you can just google, unfortunately.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have the revolving back, spring-loaded CC-401 and wonder if there is a binocular/reflex viewer that I can use on this camera? I don't think I can do modifications on my own unless they are very simple.</p>

<p>Sarah, thanks for concrete information.</p>

<p>I am 63 and close to retirement. I am also within a few credits of a degree at the U of Minnesota. But I would prefer to finish my degree as a BFA in photography at a school that supports the love and appreciation of film, not as a "dying medium" which is ridiculous, but as a self-sufficient art form. BFA means "fine arts" not "vocational training." Sarah has cut through the understandable sociological issues of vocation and addressed the original question. I would like to reinforce the original question and add "and what program is receptive to older, independent (not wealthy) art students who want to finesse their craft in a pressure cooker/alembic of academia for a year or so?"</p>

<p>It's funny. If I came across this cold I might have a little difficulty knowing how to respond too. <br>

Anyway, I expected the decision between the S2 and M3 to be easier...a no brainer as they say. Instead I am finding beauties in the S2 that I had taken for granted before, while I am totally in love with the Leica too. For example, in the shot of the tree in the snowbank, the Nikkor seems to have an expanded middle range of tones that is significant in this setting. In the shadow of the cafe table and chairs that looks like an eagle graphic, the Elmar handles the wood grain of the floor and over all feel of the scene noticeably better. To me.<br>

The immediate issue is how to proceed with purchasing a moderate wide and moderate portrait lens...which system to invest in for a planned trip abroad. When I was thinking about buying the Leica I wished I could find a site that compared the two lenses in field settings, so I thought this might be of interest to others too.<br>

The Nikon had no advantage in speed as all aperture settings were f2.8 or smaller, and the aperture was the same for both lenses in each pair.<br>

Thanks for your interest.</p>

<p>It's funny. If I came across this cold I might have a little difficulty knowing how to respond too. <br>

Anyway, I expected the decision between the S2 and M3 to be easier...a no brainer as they say. Instead I am finding beauties in the S2 that I had taken for granted before, while I am totally in love with the Leica too. For example, in the shot of the tree in the snowbank, the Nikkor seems to have an expanded middle range of tones that is significant in this setting. In the shadow of the cafe table and chairs that looks like an eagle graphic, the Elmar handles the wood grain of the floor and over all feel of the scene noticeably better. To me.<br>

The immediate issue is how to proceed with purchasing a moderate wide and moderate portrait lens...which system to invest in for a planned trip abroad. When I was thinking about buying the Leica I wished I could find a site that compared the two lenses in field settings, so I thought this might be of interest to others too.<br>

The Nikon had no advantage in speed as all aperture settings were f2.8 or smaller, and the aperture was the same for both lenses in each pair.<br>

Thanks for your interest.</p>

<p>I am interested in responses to the photos as actual field shots, not controlled comparisons. And as I said in the intro, it is an informal effort to get impressions. Perhaps this isn't a place to gather informal impressions. If that is the case, I apologize for misusing the forum. There doesn't seem to be any way to unpost the request, however.</p>

<p>I put up a folder of comparison shots between my Leica M3 Elmar 50 2.8 and my Nikon S2 Nikkor 50 1.4. It is a highly spontaneous unscientific comparison of similar subjects with the same film, processing, and exposure. No effort was made to calibrate focus or framing exactly. It is slightly more than a goof, but of serious interest to me as I think of retiring my S2 after 40+ years and concentrate on the Leica. I intend to carry one or the other most of the time now.<br>

The URL is http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1002923. There might be a more elegant way to link but I don't know it.<br>

Observations welcome.</p>

<p>Checked my 7 and its rock solid. Some of my other same-era rangefinders do have a bit of play, but the Himatic, and the Ansco Autoset, its cousin, are tight. Is it the lens, or something internal?</p>

<p>The biggest surprise in acquiring the Maxxum 7 was that, in my view, it set a clear course for all significant camera body design in the following decade, including digital. This is just my impression of course, and someone closer to these issues could argue this. <br>

It feels great, if a bit on the lightweight side, in my hand and it works without issue at the eye and reflex level for capturing fleeting photo ops. I tend to shoot with the mindset of a street photographer, always aware of lighting conditions and always anticipating possibilities, so I narrow the range of my shooting choices considerably before I am in a situation that requires reaction...often it is simply a matter of compensating the exposure a stop or two in either direction, or manually focussing on an eyelash or particular flower petal the AF refuses to prefer over other points. The gap between manual and fully automated photography is not, thereby, as wide for me as it would be for many people.<br>

I can't afford to get a 9 at the moment for comparison purposes, as I am rebuilding a Nikon non-ai outfit that got decimated in the 90s due to theft. I have a 9xi, which is built like the 9000 with stainless steel body and environmental seals superior to the rest of the Maxxum line. It is also perfectly balanced, and not incidentally to me a magnificent piece of industrial design, a milestone in 20th century machine art...its lack of affordances (buttons, knobs, switches etc) on the sleek body detracts from use but enhances the Porsche-like silhouette. Maybe a little irony there. After the 9xi the Minolta engineers undertook a massive user survey among pros and reverted to the knobs and buttons.<br>

I doubt I will travel with my Nikons any more. I suspect the build quality and lightweight materials of the 7 will give it preference in the travel kit. I have absolute confidence in its auto exposure, and very little confidence in any auto focus scheme. The prime normal, 100-300 AF Minoltas I own and the Promaster 18-35 wide zoom provide a full range of excellent resolution and color for one shoulder bag in any shooting environment I am likely to encounter. I don't know what my advice is worth, since my synapses were formed in the 60s and tend to override my head when it comes to "loving" equipment. I love my 1920's 2.25"x2.75" Graflex reflex camera in a way I will never love a plastic coated camera, ever. I love the hand-built quality of the F2 in a way I will never love an automated production line 80s or later camera, no matter how much I admire the engineering genius behind the product. So there you go.</p><div></div>

<p>Serial # 122594</p>

<p>Here it is </p><div></div>

<p>Well Well! I do have a III, and it does take an AA battery. I posted from work yesterday and the logical conclusion from the posts here was that I had been sent a IV even though the ad said III. So I just looked closely, and it is a III, and the battery compartment is for an AA, and it says "1.5 V" inside the battery compartment, which clearly has not been hacked. So there must have been a late model III that made the transition to a low voltage, probably Si, circuit. Well, if anyone really cares about this I will post a photo. Otherwise, this has finally cleared up the mystery of internet recommendations versus taking a close look for yourself once and until the next time. %^)</p>

<p>Jose, I don't think you can map from a tiny lens flaw to a specific area of the photo. I am pretty sure you have a gradual degradation of the resolution and contrast of the whole image as the surface area and depth of the flaws increase. <br>

Michael, thanks for the tips. In fact I have just seen the first shooting tests of the lens visually focussed on infinity and manually focussed on infinity against the ring stop, and they look pretty indistinguishable..not a rigorous test, but satisfies me its not a problem. What is a problem is I have a screen in the F2 with no split image, just a few mm's of pebbled glass, and my eyes are going. Maybe the first step is to get split image focussing screens for the F's. The lens has a metal focussing barrel, btw.</p><div></div>

<p>I bought a "bargain" 1.8 85mm Nikkor which had a scratched and loose front element, which I can deal with. Not so sure about the focus ring that goes about 3mm past infinity...not just 1 mm which I gather is about par for older Nikkors.<br>

Has anyone here taken one of these apart, fixed something, and put it back together again? For what I paid, I can afford to risk a home repair, but I would like to know if anyone else has done this.</p>

<p>Well, I guess I must have a IV, then. I don't have it here with me at the moment, but the battery compartment is definitely large enough to accomodate an AA and it hasn't been hacked...so the mystery is probably solved. </p>

 

<p>When I got my III from a seller on ebay there was an AA battery in it, and it seemed to work. Recently I read it needs a px 6v battery! Which is right? I haven't lost any shots using the AA. Were there two different models?</p>

<p>I have quite a few manual and autofocus Minolta models, including the Maxxum 9xi and 7, if you have specific questions. I have comparable MF models of Canon, Nikon and Konica, and two AF Nikons. (I had to draw the line somewhere). <br>

I just emerged from a deep Minolta cycle, shooting all my 35mm film stuff on that brand for several months. I am just beginning a revisit of old Nikons, so catch me while the Minolta info is still fresh in my mind.<br>

A quick overview for me is I am amazed at the quality of the Minoltas, which my snobbery prevented me from even thinking about during their run as supported commodities. Now that they are history, literally, I am just discovering the intense commitment to engineering innovation and quality that the company showed, often well ahead of the Nikon and Canon curve. When I got my Maxxum 7 in the mail, it was one of the biggest surprises of my 40 year involvement in photography.<br>

Having said that though, I have to wonder if the Nikon "feel" isn't too deeply ingrained in my synapses for me to abandon it completely. I recently acquired an F2 Photomic to use with my non-ai lens collection, and putting the 85 1.8 on it and holding it to my eye brought deep, irrational pleasure. <br>

The whole year has been a challenge to my preconceptions.</p>

<p>I received a Watson Bulk Loader with no crank. Has anyone improvised a crank substitute on this unit? Appreciate any actual success stories. I see the problem as the light seal, not so much the shaft and handle.</p>

<p>I don't know what keh is.</p>

<p>Alan, Is there a difference in magnification between the 52B and 72B? Are they 1:1? <br>

Jeff, are the Vivitar 90 2.5s available? I have had great experience with my Vivitar fd zoom, but no one has raved about it the way they rave about the Tamron.</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff. I am looking at a 72B f2.8. One of the mid-series became the first true 1:1 macro mid tele made, but I can't find the website that made that claim. So I am trying to figure out what the designation of the series after it became 1:1 is.</p>

<p>I am ready to buy a Tamron 90mm Macro lens for use on my Canon A1 and Nikon F. I expect the adaptall on the FD lens will still provide auto exposure, and don't expect auto-exposure on the Nikon. <br>

I have heard references to two different lens apertures on this lens, both f 2.5 and f 2.8. In addition, I have seen series numbers in the 50s and 70s, and I think I have seen reference to both 1:1 magnification and 1:2 magnification in the older lenses. <br>

Help! I can't seem to find a source for the history of the lens that would help me identify the specific version I want to bid on or purchase.<br>

I don't want a Di lens, although I might use the manual focus on my D90 if it works. I am happy with the price/performance/retrofit combo of the manual.<br>

Thanks for any pointers to the right info.</p>

 

<p>Here is an image that made a believer out of me. This resolution is 1600 x 1200, which is about 1/5 the scanned resolution. </p><div></div>