nathan_wong2

<p>A lot of people do not like the super zooms. However, I purchased one when it became available (full price too!) and it is definitely one of my most used lenses. It's heavy, but in essence I'm carrying a bunch of lenses with me when using it. The lens exhibits a hot spot and really bad corner sharpness (if you even want to call it sharpness) when shot wide open. In other words it sucks. However, stop it down one or two stops and I feel it's a pretty good lens. I own a few f/1.4G lenses from Nikon so I'm comparing the lens to those. I think it's a good lens and will continue using it regularly on my D700 and D810. Here are some photos on my flickr page if you're interested: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjvZBbr6 (I think flickr really messed up since all the photos will look terrible since they're enlarged further than the screen resolution and not all photos showed up (sigh))<br /> I wouldn't get a Tamron. I've heard even worse things about that lens, though, what do I know since I never used it.</p>

<p>I've used the 35mm f/2 AIS and 24mm f/2.8 AF (non-D) for decades. The 35mm f/2 was nice. It took fantastic people pictures, but if you're into bokeh it was "nervous" meaning it just wasn't smooth and kinda weird looking. However, I still used it up until last year when it got stolen. Since I had newer digital Nikons I purchased the 35mm f/1.8G to replace it. I miss the aperture dial a lot and the G-version is so much bigger than the AIS version. It's pretty sharp wide open and the out of focus areas are a lot smoother than the AIS version. Here are a few photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157629604290307<br> <br /> The 24mm lens was the most used lens on any of my cameras. In fact during one stretch it was probably used 90% of the time. I ended up getting that lens repaired 3 times because of how much I used it. I personally thought it was a great lens and was pretty sharp, especially when stopped down a couple stops from f/2.8. At f/2.8 at night it exhibited a lot of coma (bat wings) in the corners when photographing city lights. I loved that lens, but ended up getting a replacement a few years ago, though that lens is heavier than I could imagine. The f/2.8 was great because it was so lightweight and small that I was able to carry it everywhere. Here are some photos with that lens: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627518303579<br> <br /> That said, it appears you're on a budget to be considering those lenses. I'm not a big fan of the 28mm focal length I'm biased. If you're going to be photographing people a lot and want to include a little bit of the background (environmental portraits) then get the 35mm. If you want to include everything in your photos with minimal distortion at the corners (though it still exists) get the 24mm lens. As others have pointed out, though, there are numerous modern lenses made by other companies. You might want to look at those choices since they might be the same prices as the lenses you're looking at. Good luck!</p>

<p>Oh, sorry, Rob, I didn't read your message closer. I'm not taping the negatives onto the wet mount. I'm actually using a cover sheet and mounting fluid, which apparently is Coleman stove fluid. I do need to test that out on a negative I don't care about. </p>

<p>Thank you about the Yosemite photo. It's actually a flatbed scan of a print I made in the darkroom.<br> As for the Epson medium format dry mount, it's actually quite tricky to put the negatives in, especially if there's a little curl, but it's doable. I don't use any tape, though I never thought of that. It would make life simpler. LOL.<br> The wet mount is actually pretty good. However, you do need to make sure you get all the air bubbles out or that will show up on your scan. I normally wipe the wet mount cover sheet with a cloth to move the bubbles out. After that the glass appears to be the correct height for the lens to focus onto the negative because everything is relatively sharp (post sharpening is a requirement). <br> A word about the Epson wet mount frame -- it sucks. You'll find cracks in the plastic after a year or two. Then suddenly the entire thing will disintegrate. The wet mount fluid is so strong that it just destroys the plastic. I purchased a new one from Epson (pretty inexpensive) and taped the corners so that liquid won't get onto the plastic frame. I doubt that will help though. We'll see. So be prepared to purchase a new one if you use it a lot.</p>

<p>Al, are you kidding me that it's Coleman stove fuel? No wonder it's highly flammable! Here I was going to specialized stores to buy scanning fluid and paying a premium when all I needed to do was go to the nearest sporting good store. Sigh.<br> As to the original question I use an Epson V750 and I used to wet mount all the medium format photos I wanted to be the sharpest from edge to edge. Nowadays, though, I just throw the negatives onto the medium format holder and scan them. I found they were about 90% as sharp.</p>

<p>I'm late to this thread, but the largest I've made on a 23cII-XL was 16x20. I'm not sure I have alignment problems since I can get sharp images, but for what it's worth I've gotten sharper 8x10 images from my Bogen 22b enlarger with the same lens. </p>

<p>Sorry to hear that this happened to you. I ended purchasing 3 TC-16A's before I got it right. It was a real pain. I finally got it working and I've only used it once during the years I've had it. Figures, eh? It's not as easy as the instructions showed it to be. </p>

<p>Perhaps you're right. Since the OP only has four lenses, then I agree with many that a 35mm would be best to get. I found that longer than 85mm was a bit too long when I shot weddings. I did love the 24mm lens for large group shots. I found that to be the ultra-limit to wide angle lenses without the people at the edges being really distorted. So that said, the 16mm would be good for one or two specialized shots and the 105mm being too long for many others. </p>

<p>I know I'm late to this thread, but I personally love the 16mm fisheye. I had a lot of equipment stolen recently and instead of buying all new, different lenses I stuck with what I had, but I made sure that 16mm was on the list. The 105mm macro would be great to have for the occasional closeup and portrait, but I have numerous lenses that duplicate that focal length. When you de-fisheye the lens with the proper software then you don't lose much of anything in the corners and some curved items become straight. I basically use the lens like a 180 degree wide angle lens.<br> Here are some examples of my use for the lens. Notice that the people look normal.<br /><br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627247430991/</p>

<p>I normally use Silverfast which came with your V750. You need to set up boxes (the part that's going to be scanned) for each slide you're going scan after you've pressed preview. I then choose one box around a single slide. I then change all the parameters for that one slide, for example, 1200 dpi and slide exposure (which I usually null out since I'm going to change them in photoshop), and multi-scan (if any) After everything looks good then I press a button that applies that change to all the boxes that you created. After that I press batch scan and off it goes.<br> I've never used the Epson software for that type of batch scanning so I can't help you there.<br> However, since your box is greyed out I would delete all the slides and start again.</p>

<p>Hi Chad. I use modern lenses just as you do. I shoot with lighting behind the subject all the time and I guess I'm just not as critical as you because I don't seem to have the problems as you do. The lenses I've been using lately are the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G and 24mm f/1.4G so I know what modern, Nano coating can do for us. I'm not saying they're perfect, because they aren't and neither are the Hasselblad CF lenses, but again I've not run into the flare problems that you seem to be experiencing. <br> For the examples you provided above you used f/16. Unfortunately that aperture normally introduces lens diffraction and that usually doesn't give you the best lens performance. Try the same tests using an aperture two stops down from your minimum (f/2.8). The performance will probably be much better. </p>

<p>A "little" back light? I'm hoping you're joking. That background is so bright it might as well be shooting into the sun. That's high key to the nth degree. You won't find any lens that will be able to handle that without changing the contrast. </p>

<p>If it ain't broke....don't fix it.<br> If you have the money to spare then I'd get it done otherwise I'd just let it be and wait until the shutter fails. I was going to send my D700 off to get CLA now that I have a D810 but after seeing your post I'm not so sure. It's working fine so I'll just let it go. <br> If you're truly using the camera as a second body, though, you need to get it in tip top shape because it's your backup. You don't want to have two paperweights on your hand.</p>

<p>Canon used to introduce new cameras the moment a new technology came out and suddenly they just stopped. The company probably wanted to focus on other aspects of their company such as printers, copiers, lenses, advertising, point and shoots and such. They probably feel their current cameras are good matches to what Nikon has to offer. Also, they're probably keeping a careful eye on the camera market and the sales vs. what the cellphones are doing to the market.<br> Remember, Nikon is really expensive to begin with, always has been, always will be. Many consumers see that aspect as a negative and go with other cameras, particularly Canon. There's a reason why Canon is one of the top sellers in the world. Nikon has to differentiate their cameras from other companies somehow to make them "worth" the extra price and a full FX product line with lenses and accessories to match is a great start. Sony can't match the amount of lenses or accessories available to their full-size sensor line. Canon can, but at this point they're a little behind Nikon.</p>

<p>So the lack of contrast is what the problem is? I found that the CZ lenses had less contrast than the overly contrasty Nikon lenses (if that's where you come from). Luckily the portrait photo is easily fixed in post by adding more contrast, but I can see where the lower contrast can be bothersome. </p>

<p>This is probably the most flare I could probably get. There was some lights from a billboard to the right. <br> <img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7432/11113914724_147629b2cc_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I've been using the 120mm CF lens since 1993 and, seriously, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone complaining about flare. In fact, seeing that two or three people had responded with seeing flare made me wonder if I just had been missing it all these years? However, after quickly going through some slides and negatives I shot that could definitely have been influenced by flare I just don't see it. Maybe I'm just lucky? Not sure but I've been happy with the lens ever since I purchased it all those years ago.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2095833">Panayotis Papadopoulos</a> now you can understand why big companies don't move very fast when it comes to upgrading their computer hardware, software and OS. They can't afford to change to the newest thing only to find there's a bug, a security hole, or problems with the products. I was at a company where we were just moving to Windows 7 this year even though Windows 8 has been out for quite some time. <br> I waited a year after the D700 came out to purchase it. I didn't want to deal with the bugs or problems. Unfortunately for me the wait didn't help. I had two tan spots on the sensor that turned out to be oil. I either returned or repaired the D700 at least 3 times before it got into the reliable state it's in now. If this is the only time I'll need to send the D810 into the repair shop then that'll be great for me. <br> So, most of the time it's best to wait and see, but sometimes even waiting doesn't guarantee perfection.</p>

<p>I use a method that people will probably snicker at and claim it doesn't work, but it works for me. I have a mini pool table and there are four marks (dots) that go down the middle of the table. Just focusing on the dots work, but it gets a little difficult since I'm standing further away, so I got some cue stick replacement tips and put them on the dots to make it easier to focus on. When I take a picture I can see what is in focus and what isn't by looking at the fabric on the table and the cue stick tip. </p>

<p>I'm not defending my "broken" camera or the company, but I understand that imperfections come out after the release date and that happens everywhere. Look at software, how many bug fixes come out in a year after the initial release? I have a stereo receiver that had at least 4 firmware fixes released. My initial Nikon N8008 had a bug in it that I reported to Nikon. They apparently fixed it in subsequent releases. Things happen and should be expected with all cameras, electronics and software, except the Nikon Df.<br> I didn't cry about my new D810 having to be sent to Nikon, I just packed it up and sent it. No drama. I'll wait the week or two to get it back. </p>

<p>I know this is going to sound silly, but I needed a picture of my wife's ring. I had a D700, a macro lens that was huge, tripod, flash unit and accessories. I shot and the pictures came out with the least amount of depth of field I could get even stopped down. It would have been worse with the Hasselblad (since this is a medium format section on Photo.net). What I ended using was my Canon SD950 point and shoot in macro mode. The depth of field was there, it was relatively sharp, and all I needed to do was get up close, pop a shot and be done with that. The person that said to use the smallest sensor available was right. I think a camera on a phone would have taken a better picture than what I was trying to achieve with the D700! It sure would have been easier. </p>

<p>I have been using a Gossen Luna Pro since 1983. I used to take a lot of night pictures on slide film so the exposures I used to get were pretty accurate, though, I did bracket one or two stops either way just in case at times. I normally set the meter at -2 under the exposure I got and metered then nulled the needle. Most times than not I wasn't too far off the correct exposure time. Hope that helps.<br> Nowadays though, people use their LCD panel on the back of their digital camera to determine exposure. It works for the most part. </p>

<p>My impression was that the 40mm CF version was good for film with corner to corner sharpness and the CFE version was good for digital because the emphasis was on central sharpness for smaller digital sensors. The corners weren't supposed to be anything to write home about.</p>

<p>OH, one other option you can use if you don't want to spend money is to use whatever lens you have and take two or three photos and stitch them together using Microsoft ICE (free program that's really, really good) or Photoshop, if you own it. Make use of those frame per second that you have on your camera and pop off a few frames. Do this two or three times and you'll have a few pictures to choose from in case someone wasn't being cooperative.</p>