matthew_delphenich

<p>I'm in the market for a 1.4x TC to use with my TS-E 24 II, and I've run into a bit of a roadblock regarding the different models produced by Kenko. I would be perfectly willing to spend the extra chunk of change for the Pro 300, but every description I've read refers to it as being "designed for telephotos". When used with a shorter lens, does this make a difference? Would the extra money go to waste, or worse, actually degrade the performance?</p>

<p>I'm sorry if this has been covered before. I found plenty of threads discussing the performance of the MC4 with the TS-E line, but curiously none have mentioned the Pro 300 variant.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I'm in the process of buying a Shen-Hao, and from what I've experienced, the included GG is fairly dim. I have a Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8 which is all but useless with this focusing screen, particularly for the night shooting that I prefer.</p>

<p>I've heard that the Yanke Optics 2-in-1 screen/fresnel is a nice option, but I've also heard that fresnels should ideally be optimized for the kind of lens that will be used. Does anyone have any experience with this fresnel/lens combination or similar? Will I have any problems switching between a wide and a normal lens?</p>

<p>Also, the retailer has no option for a "Shen-Hao sized" screen. Would I be correct in assuming that I would want a sinar/wista/toyo screen for use with the Shen-Hao?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

 

<p>I had a similar sounding issue with my 50mm CF. Instead of hitting a solid stop at infinity, it would grind tightly to a halt around the 50 foot mark. I was able to turn the ring freely between macro and 50 feet, as though nothing was wrong. I took the lens to David Odess and he quickly removed a screw that had loosened itself and was obstructing the focusing gears. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, there are actually two lenses that fit this description. The older one (knurled focus ring, sliding DOF indicators) is indeed Bay 50. However, I have the newer 80 C T*, which was common as a kit lens for the 501C. It is almost identical to the 80 CF, the only difference being the lack of aperture/shutter interlock and the orange indexes on the barrel. This uses a Bay 60. This same thing tripped me up when I was attempting to buy new lens caps. Hope this didn't confuse the issue even more!</p>

<p>Actually, I do have a fairly sizable stockpile of desiccant packets (my only useful takeaway from my months working IT), but he doesn't. He has had the screen sitting in a bowl of rice overnight, and called me this morning to let me know the ring is dissipating nicely. There might be subtle marks left afterward, but he thinks he can live with them. Again, thanks for all the suggestions and help!</p>

<p>Last night, a friend and I went for a night shoot, where we were caught in a bit of rain and our gear got wet. Neither camera got drenched, and I've certainly put my camera through much worse. Unfortunately, when he took out his camera this morning he noticed the issue evident in the photograph here. The aberration seems to be on neither the front nor the back of the glass, so we assume it must be between the plies. We have several hypotheses as to what this could be, but neither of us, nor the workers at Calumet could be sure. Has anyone seen anything like this before? If so, is there anything we could do to fix or minimize the issue? Obviously, my friend would prefer not to replace the screen if at all possible. Thanks in advance!<br>

<img src="http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/mattwd87/IMG_9001.jpg" alt="" width="586" height="600" /></p>

<p>As Q.G. says, the 80mm + 16mm tube will leave a small gap in your focusing range, but I still find it to be a fairly acceptable way of making portraits. Last year I did a small project consisting solely of portraits made this way, and I was very satisfied with the results. Some may not like the perspective you'll get when you use this method, but I don't find it to be distracting at all. Here are a couple of my shots from the series (these are around the middle of the 16mm tube's focusing range).<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5122/5298936986_8a549b91a7_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="349" /><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5206/5298395565_1301345338_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="349" /></p>

<p>Thanks guys! That's the first time in a while that I've seen it for the "right" price (not $5.00 per roll). However, I'm still worried about the extended availability. I can't convince myself to buy up huge stocks of "doomed" film. If Acros is indeed (sadly) endangered, I guess I'd rather rip off the band-aid now and just move to TMX.<br>

Has anyone heard any more recent news than this summer's mass-discontinuation announcement from Fuji? The increasing difficulty in finding the film has me worried that any new source would stop carrying it as soon as I was able to order some.</p>

<p>Has anyone heard any updated availability information regarding Fujifilm Acros 120? Reports seemed to go back and forth all summer. After initially hearing it was discontinued, I then found out it was just changed from single-packs to 5-packs. Unfortunately, now I can't find those either. Is it possible that Fuji has really discontinued a film just two months after going to the trouble of repackaging it?</p>

<p>Is it just me, or are a lot of those prices pretty similar to what we are all paying for these things used? I'm actually surprised, they're a bit higher than what I was expecting. To be fair, I was born in 1987 so part of me wants to believe that there used to be a world where you could buy a month's supply of film for a quarter and a spanking-new Hasselblad was $49.95 at Sears. Then again, I'm used to buying all of my gear used. If I was accustomed to spending $6,000 for a new lens it might be a bit of a shock to see one for "only" $1,100!</p>

<p>I do appreciate that a dedicated prime would be a better option than adding a teleconverter to my 80/2.8, but unfortunately, as I said, I just don't have the money to buy a wide angle and a telephoto at the same time (and I don't particularly want to wait another 6 months to complete the set). It seems, from all this talk, that the only issues I might run into are with the 1.4x TC. I'm actually more interested in the 2x TC, specifically the Kenko model. Will my lens/TC be safe with this combination? </p>

<p>I've been using my 501C and 80/2.8 CF T* for about 6 months now and I would like to start expanding my lens collection. I would like to get a 50mm as well as a 120 or 150, but cannot afford to get both at the moment, so I was considering a teleconverter for the 80. I've heard a few warnings that some teleconverters *only* work with lenses longer than 120 (non-protruding rear element), so I wouldn't want to waste my money. Does anyone have any experience with the 80CF and the Kenko 2x TC? I'm not too worried about image quality, for ~$50 I'm willing to take my chances (as long as I don't end up with a $1k holga), but I would still prefer not to break either my lens or the TC just by mounting them together. Also, any other tips or warning regarding TCs would be much appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi all, I'm sure this sounds pretty similar to plenty of posts here but I couldn't find exactly the information that I was looking for so I thought I'd ask my own question. Yesterday I received and scanned 4 rolls of Fuji Pro 400H (120) that I had shot over spring break. I had always used Portra (160 and 400) and was happy with my results, but the salesman at Calumet convinced me to give the Fuji a try, saying that it was "designed for scanning". The results seem generally fine and generally even sharper than the kodak (which could be due to better scanning) but I notice that the shadows have pretty significant grain. I rated the film at ISO 200, so the shadows should be dense enough to avoid this, but the grain creeps into just about all of my shots, even well into the higher mid-tones in some. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether there is a better way to scan them (V750, Epson Scan software) to get better results, or if the Fuji is just inherently grainier than the Kodak? I would consider many of the shots verging on "unacceptable" even though my exposure looks fairly accurate. I'm beginning to think that whoever said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" was onto something! Thanks in advance!</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everyone for your help here. Bengt the spring you show is the one on the other spool, and on mine, that seems to be the proper shape (with the small downward curve at the end). Scott, your photo was exactly what I needed to see. I really think "bent all to hell" is an accurate description of mine. And David, thanks so much for all of your suggestions. I was actually planning to pay you a visit if this wasn't something I could do myself. I'll certainly do so if it's called for in the future!<br>

I'll order the replacement spring immediately, but is there any reason why it would be unwise to use the back without the spring in the mean time? If the pressure it puts on the spool is truly necessary I can wait, but it would certainly be nice to have two (mostly) working backs until the part arrives! Thanks again everybody.</p>

<p>I recently bought a Hasselblad 501C with two A12 backs. The body, lens, and one back are in great condition but the second back seems to have an issue with sticking. As far as I can tell, there is a pressure spring next to the take-up reel, which is designed to keep the film tight on the plastic spool. In my back, however, the spring seems to be bent somehow, in such a way that after 9 or 10 exposures, the pressure it puts on the take-up spool is too great to continue to wind the camera (as evident in the second picture, the spring is already pushing against the empty spool). Since the other back I have is of a different design (it has spring-loaded buttons instead), I have no way of knowing what "normal" should look like regarding the spring. I think that I have narrowed down the culprit, but I wanted to see if anyone had any ideas about how much this would cost to get fixed, or whether there is something simple i can do myself? The seller from whom I bought it seems very willing to take care of any repairs I may need, but if this is relatively inexpensive, I would rather save us both the trouble and have it done locally. Thanks in advance!<br>

<img src="http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o26/mattwd87/hasbackspring.jpg" alt="" width="533" height="800" /></p>

<p>Thanks for all your help here. I brought the whole thing to Calumet to have it quickly looked at. Without dismantling anything, the expert's guess was that the lens had a broken or dislodged cocking spring. As per your advice, Edward, I was hesitant to mount the lens on any of their bodies, and unfortunately they had no lenses which I could test with my body.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a pre-owned but great condition 501C with 80mm C T* lens. Unfortunately, now the leaf shutter seems to be frozen. Before this I have only used a 500C/M, so I'm not completely sure if I'm doing something wrong or if there's anything I can do to easily remedy this. The shutter opens properly when the body is cocked and closes when the shutter is depressed. However, the shutter never re-opens to make an exposure, and stays closed until the body is re-cocked. I've also tried this using the mirror lock-up. The mirror swings up, the leaf shutter closes, and the body blind opens all as they should, but when I press the shutter release, the leaf shutter does nothing but slightly twitch. Has anyone experienced something similar and/or have any suggestions? Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Thanks for all of your help, this was exactly the information that I was looking for, and having a hard time finding. Kevin, thanks for the additional tip about the filter order (I'm sure I would have ended up doing this backwards!). Tim, thanks for the tip about the longer lenses. I do generally use between 85-135mm equivalent lenses for portraiture on my DSLR, unfortunately I just dropped about $900 on the Hassy body, lens, and 2 backs, so my wallet has not recovered quite yet (starving art student, here). The Proxar just seems like a nice (cheap) way to get some similar capabilities until I can do it right.</p>

<p>I just ordered a 501c with an 80mm C T* lens, and I would like to get a Proxar diopter to go with it. So far I have been unable to find any real world advice as to which version of the Proxar would be appropriate for this lens to take a reasonably close-up portrait (face filling most but not all of the frame). The Proxar comes in 2m, 1m, and .5m flavors. Do these numbers indicate the ultimate focusing distance while they're being used, or do they mean something else?<br>

Also, I've been a little unsure as to exactly which filter size I want to be looking at for my 80mm C T* lens. Although it is designated C, it has the barrel design of the newer CF lenses (minus the exposure lock button and the orange markings). As far as I can tell, the older C lenses took a bay50 filter and the newer CF lenses took bay60. Would I be correct in assuming the in-between C T* lens uses the bay60 as well? I won't actually be receiving the camera for about a week, but I would like to be able to get my accessories together so I can use it immediately! Thanks.</p>

<p>Ray, to answer your question, my 35mm body right now is a Canon A-1. It's from the beginning of the electronic takeover in cameras, so it has Av and TV AE, but no AF or any of the other goodies like that. I do use the aperture priority on my A-1, and I wouldn't mind having on a MF body, but any other automations would be unnecessary for me. The Mamiya bodies are very attractive for what I'm looking for. I think my choice might ultimately come down to which one I can get the best deal on.</p>

<p>Upon even further investigation, it seems that many agree that the Pentax 645N is really worth the step up in price. Specifically, they say that the viewfinder and overall ergonomics (buttons instead of dials, no AEL, etc) of the original 645 are somewhat inferior to the 645N. On KEH, the 645N is around $200 more than its predecessor. I'd love to be able to stick with the better bargain, but I don't want to overlook the supposedly better product. Would anyone with hands-on experience agree or disagree with this? Are the flaws of the 645 really tough to get around? Thanks again.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody so much for all of your help. I think my decision is pretty clear now, certainly a lot easier than it was before. Your answers were exactly what I was looking for to assist my thought process. I think the best choice for my needs would definitely be a 645 (now I'm thinking the Pentax 645N, but that might be on the pricey side for me). I shouldn't forget to mention that after this semester, I'll be taking a class dedicated to large format view cameras. As far as I'm concerned, for my needs the 645 is a much better "middle step" between 35mm and LF than would be 6x7.</p>

<p>Hi all, this is my first post here so please bear with me! Im starting my first full year of being a photography major. My first class next semester will be a color film class, and we are able to use any body that we would like. With B+W film at lest, I was often dissatisfied with the resolution and graininess of my prints (Tri-x @ 8x10). I'm fairly sure that in this next class, we will be printing even larger. I'd like to get into MF sooner or later, and I'd like to buy into a system that I can be happy with for my whole school career.</p>

<p>After a bit of research, it seems that a 645 body would be the most similar (handling-wise) to a 35mm body. My question is, will I be sacrificing a noticeable amount of resolution for this usability? There are plenty of great 6x6 and 6x7 bodies which would produce very nice images, but the overall consensus seems to be that they are hardly portable formats. (Reasonable) portability and ease of use are important for the style of shooting that I like, but since I'm so green with the whole world of MF, I'm unsure of what to expect.</p>

<p>Will a 645 negative at, say, up to ISO 400, allow me to make high quality prints up to 11x14? If not, would a 6x6/6x7 be significantly better?</p>