cdzombak

<p>I work for a college newspaper, and we use several 17-55s. As Matt noted, PJs will go through that many exposures in a week or two, and I know that our 17-55s are used for at least 100 exposures a day. On football Saturdays, it's even more, and then they sometimes have to stand up to rain, snow, etc during the game.<br>

Same thing as everyone else said: this is not normal. I would send the lens to Nikon.</p>

<p>I recently (last week) bought a 500mL bottle of Ilford rapid fixer from B&H and can confirm that they have not changed the instructions. The outside of the bottle claims that it will make 2.5 L (1+4) or 5 L (1+9), but the instructions tell you to mix 1+3.<br>

Thanks, everyone, for clarifying this.</p>

Reichard - your solution worked! I'll admit I was sceptical, but I'm surprised at how well it worked.

 

Daniel - I've no doubt your solutions would have worked as well, but my masking tape (and the polarizer/ring) was laying right on my desk while my photo stuff was across the room, and I'm feeling lazy today :)

 

Thank you!

I have a problem. Specifically, I have a polarizer stuck on a 67->77mm step-up ring. To make matters worse, it

is a thin polarizer which doesn't have "stops" at each end of the rotation (if that makes sense to you).

 

Can anyone offer any advice?

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

 

I think I'll keep checking all the standard sites every few days and wait until I see something really cheap. I don't have to finish this any time soon, and something is bound to come up sooner or later.

 

Again, thanks!

It might help to be a little more specific with regard to the project...

 

I am trying to build my own tilt-shift lens for Nikon SLRs. A MF lens will work because I'll be able to focus at infinity with the lens mounted a few cm from the body (although I could also adjust this by squishing it in/out), and its image circle is big enough to cover the film/sensor.

 

Sheldon: Right now, "cheap" is maybe 20-30% of that. I know it's a very tight budget, but I'm sure it can be done. I'm (fairly) patient.

 

Georg, Lex: I'm not sure about the infinity focus and image circle on enlarging lenses. I'll look into that.

 

Bruce: while that's true, it doesn't quite fit this project (I did create a pinhole lens for Nikon SLRs, though...)

 

Gerry: Nikkor EL lenses look like an attractive option assuming they will meet the requirements above. Can anyone comment on that? Of course, I'll do some searching myself.

 

Ishmael: I'll consider that as well.

 

Thanks, everyone! I'll keep you posted.

I'm looking for a medium format lens, preferably shorter than 75mm, for a project I'm working on.

 

Due to the nature of the project, it doesn't matter which system the lens is for, and it doesn't matter whether

the shutter works. I would prefer a lens that I can stop down, though. Physical condition of the lens isn't

important, but I do want the glass to be fairly clean.

 

The problem is, I don't know which brands/systems can be found very inexpensively right now. I plan to spend

some time searching eBay and Craigslist, but can anyone just quickly recommend anything that comes to mind?

 

Thanks.

The newer Sigma 10-20mm's have the center-pinch style caps - not quite as good as Nikon's, but they are plenty convenient. Mine came with the newer-style front cap, and I haven't bothered to replace it with a real Nikon cap like I did with my Sigma 70-200/2.8.

 

As for rear caps, I always buy real Nikon rear caps. Tamron and Sigma ones are just too inconvenient, especially if you want to use them without looking at them.

 

And for third-party lenses - the Sigma 10-20mm is outstanding in my opinion. Mine has taken some abuse, including a horse spitting something green on it in Colorado, and it still works beautifully. My copy is plenty sharp stopped down. My Sigma 70-200/2.8 is also a great lens.

 

I just got a copy of the Tamron 17-50 (the older version w/screw-type AF) and it has, in my testing, been very sharp and otherwise very good. I've used the Nikon 17-55, and I have to say that I think the Tamron compares quite favorably except in terms of build quality. Given the price difference, I think it's a reasonable compromise.

My apologies if this is an often-asked question; I couldn't anything similar after some Googling, so I thought it

couldn't hurt just to post.

 

I have several photos which were taken with a flash to light the foreground and some other, warmer lighting in

the background. Is it possible (I'm sure it is, somehow) to adjust white balance for only parts of an image in

Photoshop or Lightroom?

 

Thanks for the help!

Chris

I think you've probably made a good decision.

 

I would still recommend that you think about the f/2.8 zoom lenses (such as those I recommended above) - the 16-85 will not be very good in most low-light situations, even with VR, and good zooms will almost definitely give you better image quality.

 

Of course, a 17-50 + 80-200 will cost maybe ~$300 more than the 16-85, which could be an important factor as well, and the 16-85 seems to be pretty good based on what I've read (although I have never used one, so I cannot comment on it in any detail).

 

The 50/1.8 is an excellent lens. If you weren't considering portraits, I'd actually recommend that you get a 17-50/2.8 (in line with my recommendations) and wait to see if you really need f/1.8 instead of f/2.8 for what you're doing. And actually, I've found Nikon's older 35-70/2.8, available used for ~$300-350, to be a convenient range of focal lengths for many portraits.

I'm biased - I love my new D90 (and highly recommend it!). I've never used a 50D, so I can't comment on that.

<br><br>

Regardless of which camera you get, I'm glad to see you've budgeted money for lenses. They are the most

important part of your camera system. You can get some very decent glass for $500~800. For starting lenses that

you want to spend good money on, I'd recommend two:

<br><br><ul>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom, available for Nikon or Canon. This is a good standard zoom, and I've had no

problems with mine. Available for < $300 on the used market if you shop around.</li>

<li>A 70-200mm or 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom. I don't know about Canon, but Nikon's older 80-200/2.8 can be found for

<$500 used. Sigma's 70-200/2.8 is also very well regarded (I own one and have had no problems with it.)</li></ul>

<br><br>

Work with these lenses for a while, and you'll eventually figure out what you like to do and what else you might

want to get (a really wide lens? very long? fast?)

<br><br>

A few notes on buying used - check KEH.com; they're well-regarded and are generally conservative in grading used

equipment. They have a 14-day return policy, no questions asked. Check out Craigs list and consider posting a

want-to-buy ad. eBay is riskier, but good deals can be found there as well. Also look around your area for any

local camera stores - not necessarily big chains, but locally-owned places. I've found some excellent deals at

mine, and they will stand behind the used stuff they sell (sending it out for repair if necessary).

<br><br>Either a D90 or 50D will probably be bought new online. Remember that if a deal sounds to good to be

true, it almost definitely is. There are many, many scams out there. Check resellerratings.com before you buy

from someone.<br><br>Finally, I'm only one person; I'm interested to see what the rest of this forum has to say

about your question (and my recommendations). Best of luck!

While I've never built one, my first thought was that you could use a laser and photocell hooked to a sound card. It looks like a few other people have had the same idea!

Definitely the D90 for high ISO performance and all the reasons mentioned above. I upgraded from a D70, and the D90 is *lightyears* ahead.

 

As others have noted, though, you do *not* want the kit lens for sports. (Something you will quickly learn if you're new to photography is that your lenses are *much* more important than the camera). You might consider getting a D90 body and a 50mm f/1.8 lens - that's a great, cheap, fast lens. For about $500, you might consider a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

 

Check local camera stores (real camera stores, not Best Buy, etc) for lenses; you can often find used lenses at locally-owned places for less than you'd pay online (at least that's what I've found). If you find a good local camera store, the people there will be able to help you out as well.

 

As for shopping online for used stuff, use KEH.com. They're reputable, conservative in grading equipment, and will take returns within 14 days no questions asked. And in shopping for a camera online, be *very* wary of any deal that seems to be too good to be true, especially with something as new as the D90. Buying from B&H, Adorama, Ritz, or Amazon is your best bet; there are many unscrupulous online retailers out there.

 

Best of luck!

Patty - what happens when you mount your lens on the D50 and try to use it? What exactly doesn't work?

I'm definitely leaning toward getting the Nikkor. My only concern is that then my f/2.8 lens arsenal will have a hole from 50-80mm instead of from 50-80. I'm pretty sure I can work around that, though.

I know, it's unlikely. I'm simply wondering whether anyone has any experience with either of these lenses (not necessarily both) on either of the two cameras (the D90 is new, but the N90s isn't particularly new...)

 

I'm also wondering what others on this forum would do presented with this opportunity.

I have an opportunity this weekend to buy a used Nikon 80-200/2.8, the latest AF-D version, for about the same

price as I can sell my Sigma 70-200/2.8 for. I'm not sure whether to do this, though. My Sigma is the non-DG,

non-macro version. It works very well, and it's plenty sharp.

 

Given the opportunity to exchange a Sigma 70-200 for a Nikon 80-200 AFD for little or no loss, would you? I'm

mainly concerned about AF speed. I'm mainly using a Nikon D90, but use a Nikon N90s as well. Does anyone have

experience with both of these lenses, and their AF speeds in particular, on these bodies?

Hi,

 

I have a photo:

 

I like what I've done with it so far. I've used Lightroom exclusively on it. I've applied a fair amount of

warming to get the look I've achieved here (and I do like it). The problem, which I didn't notice until I

printed the photo, is that her eyes have an unnatural, yellow tint to them.

 

How can I keep the effect on the overall photo but change her eyes back to white? (I wish LR had a localized WB

adjustment... that would be handy in so many situations...)

 

Thanks.

As for the Pocket Wizards - I'm thinking that the only difference between the US and European version is the frequency used. If that's the case, I don't think you'll have any problems - I think it's a safe bet that nobody's going to be checking whether your PWs are operating on the proper frequency, and nobody is going around NYC looking for rogue Pocket Wizards with special radio equipment.

On a semi-related note, about two weeks ago I exposed a roll of Neopan 1600 at 6400. I developed that yesterday for 12 minutes in stock Microphen and the results were good - next time I use this particular combination, I'll probably do 12.5 or 13 minutes, but I'm happy with these results.

 

Again, I had some problems with exaggerated grain in scanning some frames, but this time only because those particular frames were underexposed (bright points of light confused the N90s' metering).

 

Thanks for the advice, Lex! I'll try another roll sometime this weekend.

 

The photos are here: . I've done a little work in Lightroom, but not much.

Lex, thanks for the advice. I plan to try a second roll at 12800 within the next few days, and I guess I'll develop it for for ~25 minutes with the agitation you recommended. Microphen is pretty flexible, then? (And just to clarify - you recommend dumping my 320cc of used Microphen back into my 1L bottle and using the liter for 10 rolls, right?)

 

My exposure technique for this roll involved setting an N90s to aperture-priority, ISO to 6400 (the highest that camera will go) and exposure compensation to -0.7. Next time, I will probably still use aperture priority but will use spot or center-weighted metering rather than matrix.

 

Thanks very much for your help.

I hope to do more experimentation and learn the trade offs and skills required to make this work!

 

A note: the box for Delta 3200 recommends 13:30 for ISO 12500 in Microphen @ 24 degrees. Based on what I've

seen, even that will be underdeveloped. Next time, I'll probably try developing for ~14 minutes. I'm pretty

much shooting in the dark here (no pun intended :) with regard to times, so any input is appreciated.

 

Looking at the negatives more closely, the edge markings are properly developed. I think my problem here is more

with incorrect metering than with underdevelopment, although both are contributors. I will watch that carefully

next time.

 

I'm amazed at what the scanner (an Epson V500) was able to pull out of these negatives, considering that I'm

seeing stuff on the computer that I simply cannot see on the negs. Hopefully, these will be substantially better

if I properly expose and develop them.

 

I'd like to get this working, but unless I can get it to work substantially better than this, based on what I've

seen so far I think I'll *generally* (there will be exceptions, I'm sure) stick to pushing Delta 3200 to 6400.

 

I'll attach the best image I got from this roll once I finish scanning.

I'll try doing 2400 DPI and adjusting in PS rather than in the scanner software.

 

I'll gladly admit that the exposure on the street corner wasn't very good.

 

These are from a photo class I took in high school; they are Arista 400 film. I don't know what developer we were using.

The film is 135 format. Is was fresh from B&H - I got it about a week ago and kept it in the refrigerator until I was ready to use it. I then developed it just a few hours after using it.

 

I will post scans by this afternoon.

 

I believe more dev time will fix the problem; everything on the negs looks gray, not clear as a properly developed negative should.