Rob F.

I feel there is a lot of truth to this. An incident reading gives me a good mid-point exposure. Then if I feel the need, I can bias my exposure toward the highlights or shadows. So if I am photographing a steam locomotive, and the background is not too bright to become blown out by increasing my exposure, I can give an extra stop to capture some darker areas under the boiler, for example. But if I do need to render the background without over-exposing it, I can go with the incident reading, or perhaps just open up a cautious one-half stop. Then again if photographing something much brighter than average, an incident reading is good there, too, because a reflected light meter will over-react to that brightness; so that if I believe the meter, the scene will be underexposed so that it doesn't look much like it did in reality. In that case, I might stop down just a little, but not enough to ruin the shot. So an incident reading gives me a reliable reference point from which I can use my judgment. There is a reason why Hollywood cinematographers use incident meters (not saying they never take reflected readings)!

I recently picked up a Spectra Combi-2, which can take incident, reflected, and average readings. This meter has two photocells, one facing forwards for the reflected reading, the other facing back for incident. You select which type of reading you want with a selector switch, and the meter displays a reminder to show which type of reading is currently selected. And It has a three-position dial to select high, medium, or low light levels. I sent it in to Spectra-Cine for calibration. They turned it around promptly, with a calibration sticker that shows the expiration date. They certify their calibrations for six months. I doubt I'll be sending it that often; but maybe every couple of years. At the price of slide film, it might be worth it, to feel confident in my exposures. Anyway, I tried it for the first time in Colorado two weeks ago and really liked using it. I'll have more to report when the film comes back from Mike at AgX Imaging! I'll try to give a follow-up report on the results in a few days. Only negative so far is that it is a rather bulky meter! My Gossen meter also has a choice of incident/reflected and is much smaller. (I will stay out of the spot meter debate for now!)

Years later, I have a need for this mask, that slips onto the finder. I'm looking for one that fits the newer finder for late-model SWC, the one that shows the bubble level in the same view as the finder image. Any ideas where there might be one?

I've never messed with Hasselblad for my 500c/m and lenses. I use David Odess. My gear gets fixed right, and I'm sure he's more reasonable than Hasselblad (though he's not cheap). And He's easy to find with google.

Yes, Think Tank is a good bet. I don't carry lens-down, but my Retrospective 7 is deep enough for a body with lens attached and holds two extra lenses as well. They also have a couple of other models in the Retrospective series that are deeper still (but less wide) and I believe would be good for carrying the body with a longer lens attached, plus one more lens and an extra film back.

Unless you really know the hooks are the problem, it might be better to send it in for service. The symptoms you noted could be due to other worn or misadjusted parts.

One advantage of not using the goggled version is that they are a lot harder to fit into a small camera bag. A non-goggled Summicron or Summicron is tiny, and will fit into the smallest bag compartments or in the pockets! External finders are nothing to be afraid of. For wide angle lenses especially, they are easy to frame with!

I joined in 1998, when I got my Windows 98 Compaq computer. So it has been 19 years for me, and that was back in the Greenspun days for me, as well. I have really enjoyed the forum for its entertainment as well as the information exchange! Having a little trouble getting used to the new format, but overall it's been great!

Oh, sure, Edward, what you said is certainly the standard advice, and there is a lot to be said for it. But some of us just have to be different, I guess; or maybe just never satisfied. I have all the lenses mentioned (been using Hasselblad for 47 years), but can't seem to simplify down to a three- or four-lens set that meets all my needs. I wind up bringing too much. We are going to Big Bend National Park for 5 days in March. I will probably take the 40-50-60-100-150. Or maybe the 40-50-80-150. I might bring the 38 Biogon along--although the 40mm should be adequate. And maybe I won't really need the 150, but I should bring it. No sense leaving it behind. See what I mean? Some of us just have to fuss over things . . . I agree about the 60mm. It is a great lens! Best, Rob

I'm still working out what my best four-lens set would be. If I were to use my 40 (or38 Biogon), the 60mm Distagon, 100mm Planar, and 150mm Sonnar, then I have a set of focal lengths where each lens is about 1.5 times the focal length of the previous one. This would allow good control over framing, especially for color transparencies for projection, where cropping is not an option. The 60 would then be the "normal" lens (for me). But it leaves out the 50, which seems unacceptable! The alternative then is 40-50-80-150, or maybe 40-50-80-120. Then I suppose the 50 would be my "normal." But that leaves out the 60, which seems a shame. Well, maybe it's not a shame, I don't know.

I meant to say, "The 50mm non-FLE achieves fine center sharpness at f/8 . . . Have we lost the edit feature? I couldn't see how to change it.

There is a difference. The 50 non-FLE achieves fine sharpness at f/8; while the edges (not the corners) peak halfway between 11 and 16, by which point the center has lost some definition. My 60mm (I have both the CT* and the CF) already achieves very good definition to the edges by f/5.6, very-good-to-excellent by f/8, and a little better still at f/11. I consider it to be a "wide-normal" or "normal-wide." I upgraded from the 50 CF to the FLE. Much better lens, and for me, an indispensable focal length!

<p>Six-month follow-up. I bought the 70-180. It has seen quite a bit of use right in the back yard, photographing in my rose garden. And I did get some use out of it on vacation in Colorado. The autofocus can be slow and a bit frustrating; apart from that, I like it. As far as I can tell at this point, I'd say it's a keeper. The 80-200 f/4.5, I have done almost nothing with. It can go.</p>

<p>The M5 should also be mentioned as having accurate framelines (35/50/90/135mm), for normal, non-closeup shots. The 50mm frameline on my M6, M7, MP, and M9 is much too small. I get so much more in the picture than in the finder, that extraneous details I meant to crop out with the finder, still wind up in the picture. Especially true for the 50 and 90mm frames. Of course, with the M9, I can re-frame and re-shoot once I see my error on the LCD.</p>

<p>Nothing does it for me like the Zeiss finder, with its big, bright view, and absence of any curvilinear distortion. I never felt confident about my framing with the Leitz finder.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I remember an old saw about telephoto magnification that I use and seems to hold. Starting with a "normal" lens for full frame of 50, the series for magnification by 2x is to double the lens length.<br />So, 50-100-200-400-800-etc. Each step gives a 2x magnification. It also shows why going from a 200 to a 300 mm lens is not so great a step up.<br />Did I make that up, or do other people use that?</p> </blockquote> <p>You didn't make it up! To talk about magnification, we ought to first ask, "magnified compared to what?" As good a thing as any to compare with, is the size of the image put on the sensor or film by the "normal lens." Say that the normal lens is a 50mm. Since a 100mm lens will project an image on the sensor that is twice as big as the image from a 50mm, then the 100mm has magnified the image by 2x. And the rest follows logically, just as Robert Coney wrote. A 200mm is four times 50, so the magnification is four. And so on.</p> <p>No need to divide the first number into the second. That's the zoom ratio, not the magnification.</p>

<p>Still waiting for remission to kick in . . . <br> In the meantime, I pulled the trigger on a 80-200/4.5, for 60 bucks and shipping. A piece of Nikon history!</p>

<p>For the benefit of those who may not know: "NAS" = "Nikon Acquisition Syndrome," a special and highly addictive case of "GAS" or "Gear Acquisition Syndrome." My usual defense is to wait a bit and see if the urge goes into remission, as it often does.</p>

<p>Actually I have never used a filter with mine (since I have nothing that fits)!</p> <p>Stephen, thanks for that info. Mine is Nr. 286xxx, so I need to find that 14222 adapter. I think I will check with DAG to see if he has one.</p>

<p>I didn't mean that I photograph in gale force winds! But when photographing out of doors, just as I'm about to shoot, a breeze comes along and moves flower petals--enough that refocusing is needed. As an example, my 28-105 AF comes in handier for this work than a non-AF Macro.</p> <p>I guess my interest is because this lens combines the versatility of a high quality zoom lens with a macro function, in a lens small and light enough to use as an outdoor walk-around lens, minimizing lens changing. But it's slow in aperture and slow in AF speed. And the tripod foot looks like it would make it hard to hand-hold. And it's not meant for that, but for tripod use. So I probably won't make any changes until I see something more clearly right for me. It's not like I can't take a picture with the 22 Nikon lenses I have!</p>

<p>My 180/APO came with no filter and no retaining ring, but does appear to be threaded. A Heliopan ES 60 filter seems the exact correct diameter, but won't thread in. Because there does not appear to be enough space below the threads for a series filter to seat, I think it is meant for a 60mm threaded filter, of a different thread pitch. Now, the filter I have does fit most Leica R lenses, like a 35-70 zoom, and a couple other zooms I've had. I seem to remember there are two pitches, 0.5 and 0.75. I'm fairly certain my filter is a .5 thread, and the thread on the lens looks coarser--so I assume it's a .75. Or else the other way around.</p> <p>First of all, do I have this analyzed right. And if so, who makes a 60mm filter of the right pitch for my APO? Any recommendations?</p>

<p>Another possible answer (just ran across this thread, only 14 years after the previous post) is that if a state-of-the-art military lens were sold to the public, it could easily find its way back into the military--the <em>wrong military . . .</em></p>

<p>Well, just one more thing (Like Lieutenant Columbo). The 70-180 is said to have slow AF speed. One of the things I would like to do with it would be to capture shots of wildflowers, which are seldom stationary on a windy mountainside. They are usually fluttering in the wind. Would the 70-180 be too slow to refocus or follow focus on fluttering flower petals, at macro distances? I'm thinking of selling my MF 55mm and moving to an AF macro. But is this the right one for the job, as opposed to maybe a 60 or a 105?</p>

<p>The D300 is a good camera! I use mine right alongside my D700. But I'm still as cautious about using it in wet weather as with any camera!</p>

<p>Okay! You have mostly talked me out of it, which I think is the right advice. I've considered the 80-200 Two-ring version, but I think the size and weight would discourage me from using it very much. I'm also discouraged by a report on another thread here that the 80-200, under its professional-looking metal-and-paint exterior, is put together like a child's toy. It was said that when the focus collar failed to focus the lens, the writer found that it is connected to the focusing mechanism via plastic tabs that are secured in place by melting them!</p> <p>And the 70-210 is noisy? Gee, maybe I'll just continue with the three-lens set I use to cover this range.</p> <p>Thanks for the help!</p>