greg_alton

<p>I just picked up the lens and have only had a chance to start using it - so the below are not comments on the optical quality or the VC (which from initial impressions seems to work well at distance), because I simply haven't had a chance to use much yet. Here are my impressions, FWIW:<br> -overall well-built and does not have a cheap feel. That said, the construction quality is not 'brick [euphemism]house' but solid. No complaints from me on this.<br> -It is a fairly long lens, although not particularly 'fat'. Feels more like the length/size of an old-style telezoom. Noticeably longer than, say, a Nikon 85mm.<br> -Which brings me to the most noticeable aspect: it is internal focussing and so doesn't have the (somewhat grotesque) extending focus of some macros, where the lens grows much, much longer as you focus more closely. Personally I think that's a big advantage in terms of handling/feel, but perhaps a subjective issue.<br> -The lens hood is quite large. I think it could be a problem at close focus ranges. I understand the previous tamrons had somewhat recessed front lens elements, this version has its front element 'right up front.' May make a difference in some extreme lighting situations. (My only complaint is too many damn lens hoods around my place)<br> -I was somewhat surprised that on a modern nikon (I used on two recent digitals), the camera shows the effective aperture, i.e. the aperture changes from 2.8 to 5.6 as you focus in to the maximum magnification. (Perhaps this has been around for a while but I did not know about this).<br> All around, excellent first impressions. I got this for about US$500 (not in US, I believe due to currency change issues where I bought it). At that price differential to the Nikon (which I haven't used), I believe a great deal. I'm going to assume that I'll continue being happy with image quality (again, first impressions are positive, but early for me to say). I see it sells for considerably more in the US, so no comment on whether it's 'worth' those other prices compared to alternatives.<br> A note on the VC: I have _not_ tried yet to test VC at closer focus ranges, but the documentation is fairly clear that you should not expect VC to be fully effective at close ranges. I believe the issue is that VC is not designed to correct for in/out movement of the camera (i.e. changing the focus range), which is the critical issue handheld and up-close.<br> Compared to my (somewhat limited) experience with other comparable macros, the biggest changes are the internal focus and the VC. The VC will make it very usable for normal (non-macro) handheld work (for me), and I just like the internal focus.</p>

<p>I can't speak for the A7, but I've done this on Nikon cameras in full manual (leave aperture on lens, select the shutter speed you prefer), and let auto-ISO take care of the rest. I think this should work on the A7 as well. If you see the ISO move out of a range you're comfortable with, adjust the aperture or shutter speed to taste. Takes some getting used to for film people (including me).</p>

<p>A quick question about the new version - does it have any way of manually setting the aperture? I would think that would be somewhat limiting for a macro lens that one might want to use on various extension tubes, bellows, etc.</p>

<p>@Andrew, I _think_ the answer is that for some countries/jurisdictions, wifi-enabled can be harder or even impossible to certify for local sale. Interesting to contemplate whether the chips are still there and disabled in firmware or whether it's physically different.</p>

<p>Just guessing, but it sounds like camera movement during the shot. Probably exacerbated by your movement in pushing the shutter button, what some call 'stabbing' the button. (This is assuming that the subject is not moving).<br> So suggestions - practice pushing the shutter button slowly and carefully. Check the shots that seem out of focus and see what shutter speed they are at - it's likely camera movement if the shutter is 1/60 of a second or less (and especially if 1/30 or below). Don't know that camera, but there should be a way to set a higher shutter speed, either as a shooting mode (shutter priority), selecting a specific shutter speed or similar.<br> Of course, if you can use a tripod, lean against something solid, or put the camera on a solid surface and use the self-timer, that may also work.</p>

<p>@Luke, I'm sure there are plenty of other Nikon cameras that have this feature, I only listed the ones I was certain about, particularly since they also coincided with the body type you had used before and said you were considering.</p>

<p>Nice photos, even nicer place!</p>

<p>The original FM has this, as do the FE/FE2 - not just the hold in rewind button, but a dedicated button lever to allow shutter cocking without winding the film.</p>

<p>Lovely. Where is this?</p>

<p>I don't disagree with Wouter - just that it sounds like the kid wants to also learn film processing and 'the real thing' with exposures, etc. Nothing wrong with the basic autofocus bodies, either, and if he'd like autofocus, that makes sense.<br> From my own experience, though, I find the 'automation' of aperture-priority enough to work quickly, and the direct feedback of seeing the aperture and shutter dials very instructive - something I don't feel with the electronic controls of most autofocus cameras. From the shooter's perspective, set your aperture, check that the shutter speed is high enough (if not, twist the aperture dial), and that's it - focussing is obvious.<br> Plus the FE just feels great. But it's one of the cameras I grew up with, so I'm biased.<br> One thought: if you can find one with any of the basic 50mm lenses, the combination is the whole experience - light, simple, effective. Maybe more so than a zoom on that body.<br> Good luck, and hope he has fun.</p>

<p>Since you are willing to lend him a Nikon lens, may as well go with Nikon. I'd say that almost any Nikon body with manual functions would be suitable, and one with at least some auto function would make his life a bit easier while starting.<br> So my suggestion: Nikon FE. Simple, basic, easy and fun to use, and well built. Automatic aperture-priority mode, set the aperture and shoot. You should be able to find one for less than $100. Either KEH or Craig's List or whatever.<br> But again, there are lots of other options that would work, too, from autofocus to Nikkormat and on.</p>

<p>I have one in Nikon mount (long story as to why I have it). In short, I would say that it is at best a specialty lens or probably more accurately a curiosity. I don't believe it is worth the $350 price but that's up to the buyer to decide. (Note that if you can get someone to buy for you in Russia, it costs about $240 on the local market).<br> It is a very heavy, manual-focus only, with no automatic aperture. On a camera that can do auto-ISO, it is not so cumbersome to use at moderate apertures - as long as you have enough light to focus. Focussing is, as others have noted, not easy to nail wide-open - and why buy the lens if not to use wide-open? As others have noted, it's also not easy to use on a DX-size camera, as fairly long.<br> So to me the only compelling reason to buy/use the lens is for its 'unique' bokeh, or as a curiosity. I haven't tested enough to have a strong opinion on the bokeh, which at any rate is a subjective thing. It is unusual bokeh and may be very interesting in some situations (dependent on lighting and background subject matter) - sometimes very nice, but in other cases perhaps harsh and distracting.<br> For Nikon, I'd say there is no reason to get this lens compared to the alternatives - the Nikon 85 1.8 is a great lens at a very competitive price. Sorry to compare only to Nikon, but I assume there is something similar from Pentax, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't hands-down superior in every way to the Helios - operation, automation, ease of use, 'predictability' (for lack of a better word) of results (sharpness, bokeh). <br> Unless, of course, you want it as a curiosity or really, really want to try out the Bokeh.</p>

<p>Ron, thanks, that's interesting. I admit that I have rarely touched ViewNX - so while I don't want to comment on whether that's something in the software or some setting, it does identify the point where something odd is happening.</p>

<p>Ron - I agree with you overall, but my point (in part) was that whether or not the difference is visible will depend on the original image and the filters applied. I think in your specific case it's that the 'stress' that leads to artefacting is more a function of the workspace (high-bit is what I meant, although I wrote 16-bit). In other cases, it may be the data limitations in the original image (for example, it is possible - if unlikely - that an image could have exactly the same colour/brightness values for a large area) althoug it is less likely for a high-bit image.<br> That said, there may be other things at play here, like the specific workflow. Is there any reason not to try opening/processing the original raw files in photoshop?</p>

<p>Ron - I'm interpreting well beyond my competence level here, but looking at your steps 8-10 (and comparing to the steps before), it seems to me that what is happening is normal. The banding or other artefacts that you are getting are occurring is because this particular dataset/workflow is sensitive to errors introduced during the posterizing. Put more simply, the original data is less of an issue than the 'quirks' of the mathematical processes (like rounding) when using an 8-bit process. (I'm hedging by referring to dataset/workflow because it may be different with different image and filter combinations).<br> I _think_ if you want to test my hypothesis, you could confirm this way: in your step 5) above, (up)convert the 8-bit tiff into a 16-bit tiff after opening. Then do the rest. I'm guessing you will no longer see the differences that you saw in step 6, because now the same filters will have enough 'wiggle room' (pardon the technical terminology) to work without introducing the differences you saw.<br> It would probably be possible to come up with a set of tests/filters that would show differences between multiple combinations of original 8- and 16-bit images worked on in 8- and 16-bit space. But sometimes differences just may not be visible.<br> (Sorry I can't test the particular things above in the coming days...)</p>

<p>In Aperture, I import both raw and jpeg, with settings to use the jpeg as original. For any file I want to reprocess myself, there is a command to "Use RAW as original". For me this works well as I have the raw file whenever I want to recover something, but if the jpeg out of the camera is good enough for my needs, no need to fiddle further. I find that sometimes I decide I want to use the raw considerably later - months or more - as I change my mind what I want to do with a file later. Importing is fast enough. The only downside obviously is hard drive space, which I figure is cheap.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to look at a TLR (Rolleiflex or Autocord or some variation thereon) and try that as a first step. Especially for travel, they are surprisingly light and easy to use, and as a benefit, I find many human react very differently to a TLR. You'll have time later to move up to bigger and more complex gear. I have and love a Mamiya 7 and it's great but find that most frequently, I prefer to take a TLR with me. The disadvantage is obviously no interchangeable lenses (except the Mamiya TLRs, which - for me - dont have the size/weight advantage.)<br> Everyone will have their own preferences and opinions, but at minimum, I doubt you would regret buying and trying a decent TLR.</p>

<p>If I understand correctly what you're planning, the reverse ring just needs to fit the filter ring, so (almost) any 28mm will do and the mount doesn't matter. (I think you do need one with manual aperture though).<br> I've done this before and I found it hard to use, it's quite fiddly: so before spending a lot of money, try it with whatever lens you can find at a reasonable price. You can always buy a super-duper $$$ lens for this later. But if you don't like working with reversed lenses, you won't have an expensive bit of kit you don't use.<br> So for those reasons, I'd suggest almost any Nikon 28mm f2.8. They can be had used for not much, and with the added advantage that they will work on your cameras just like any other Nikon lens (of same type/age). Most of them (as I recall) have decent reputations.</p>

<p>I think others have covered the lens issues pretty well. Some general comments/suggestions:<br> -I love the d750 - it's a great camera. But it's also a complex camera - budget some extra time to figure it out, to set it up the way you like it and want it to work, and be prepared for it to work differently than your d300.<br> -You didn't mention but you may want to keep your d300 for a while for critical tasks (like sports under pressure). Once you've settled in you can get sell the d300 or whatever you decide to do with it.<br> -I'm not much of a movie person, but I would say expect to spend some time figuring it out. And maybe be prepared (like above) to use both cameras until you work out what makes you happy. Personally I find the tilt-screen and live view on d750 to be far more useful than I thought I would. (For example, shooting from a tripod at waist height or lower becomes easy).<br> -Don't expect too much from the wifi - especially at first. Maybe you'll find exactly the right use for it, but it's still limited functionality (minimal shooting control and downloading of jpegs only).<br> All this is IMHO. Image quality is great and personally I find the 'look' of full frame to be fabulous.</p>

<p>I'm sure that's the lens Wouter was referring to, Skip. It's a great, small, and very reasonably priced lens for what you get, and I doubt you will be disappointed.<br> You ask about 'best indoor portrait lens.' Frankly I think that question is impossible to answer unless someone knows what types of portraits you like to do and the space you're working in. I'm not trying to dodge the question, but it really is less about the lens than the way you work, the images you like to make, your subjects, etc. Some people might use wide angle lenses, others prefer longer lenses.<br> If you wanted a versatile zoom lens that could be used for different types of portraits, a 17-50mm fast zoom lens (f2.8) might fit your needs. But I'd experiment and practice more before searching for the perfect lens, the 35mm above would be a good start.</p>

<p>My comment for 'other uses' is that on DX, 35mm (appr ~50mm equivalent on FX) is a more flexible lens for other uses. The field of view is big enough to get a couple of people in pictures at reasonable distances, or broader use in a variety of situations. In comparison, 50 mm (~75mm on FX) is a narrow enough field of view to be limiting for general use - but liked because good for indoor portraiture (single subject) with nice isolation from background due to the narrow depth of field. You could always still use the 35mm to crop smaller subjects, and quality difference would probably not be noticeable except at large magnifications.<br> Obviously you can compare these focal lengths using your 16-85 to get a general sense of the difference in field of view.<br> What you may find the 35DX/50FX most useful is general use in low light situations. As an example, the field of view and low light capabilities makes it a very good lens for quick snaps at parties, gatherings, whatever. It's a two stop difference which in marginal light situations is significant.<br> Almost all the variants of both lenses focus quickly, are small, and reasonably light. Obviously the 35mm DX is a lot cheaper than the FX version. In short, I doubt you'd be unhappy with that lens at the price - although if you want a lens exclusively for portraits, it may not be the right one.</p>

<p>I think for starters the OP should focus on fun. There will be a lot to learn and he said he's a bit overwhelmed, especially coming from digital. In a lot of ways this is a great time to try film/medium format.<br> There will be plenty of time to learn how to extract the maximum from MF - but to start, getting exposures right, dealing with loading and winding film, the entirely different procedures for getting everything done. (That's one reason I think trying 35 mm first would make sense - extracting the maximum at first won't be the goal, but learning about film).<br> If scanning either at a shop or a jury-rigged solution works for him, great.</p>

<p>I'm going to give suggestions a bit off the track you started with:<br> -My suggestion would be to start with a simple twin-lens reflex, like an Autocord or Rolleicord or any variation on that. It is 6X6 not 6X7, but the cameras are much simpler, lighter and give you the 'full medium format film experience.' That's not to say the other suggestions won't work well for you but they are probably (in my view) the most user-friendly way to start. If you shop carefully and decide to change later you probably won't lose much if you sell and switch later.<br> -Since you have never used film before, you should try using a regular 35 mm SLR first - preferably in manual mode. Cameras are available cheap (like $50) or you probably know someone you can borrow one from. Try it and see if you can live with film at all - and notice that in many places, it can be very hard to get medium format film developing done at reasonable prices, whereas 35mm developing and scanning is still widely available. Yes, it won't have the full 'medium format look' (although still will obviously be film) but if you've never used film at all, you really are better off trying 35mm first.</p>

<p>I suppose there are always situations where wider could be useful or necessary. But personally, the biggest issue for travelling would be the size/weight - money aside, I don't think I'd ever be willing to travel with the 14-24 for the use I'd get out of it. If I really needed wider than the 18-35 on FX, I'd be looking for something much smaller, but 18 is about as much as I've ever wanted/needed. I could imagine wanting a faster lens but for size/weight reasons I would not choose a zoom for that.<br> But as they say, to each his own.</p>

<p>Assuming you want to set it to 160, you would set it at the line in between but closer to 200. As the other poster put, those two lines correspond to 125 and 160.</p>