bruce_hamm

In the late '80s to early '90s Sigma made a 135mm lens that would stop down to f/64. As far as I could tell it served little more that a marketing gimmick as image quality was beyond poor.

 

Bruce

Although I agree with the previous posters that these lenses are really like apples and oranges, I will go out on a limb and suggest the 24-70mm. Why? The 16-35mm will limit you to wide angle use whereas the 24-70mm will give you some short telephoto use as well which I tend to use a lot for landsapes. In fact, I might even suggest a third alternative...the 24-105mm IS.

 

B.

Try asking John at Camtech in New York (www.zuiko.com) or Clint at Photosphere in Dallas (www.olyfix.com).

 

If they can't help you directly, they will at least be able to give you a definitive answer as to the availability of the part.

 

Hope this helps...

 

Bruce

Well, if you mean "water resistant" then you have lots of choices from Lowepro and other manufacturers, such as the Mini Trekker and Nature Trekker. However, if you really mean "water proof", as in submersible, then the Lowepro DryZone is the only choice of which I am aware.

No calibration is needed with the use of Intenscreens or Olympus 2-series screens in the OM-4/4T/4Ti. Calibration is only required when using brighter screens in the older Olympus OM-1(n) and OM-2(n).

I haven't used an Arax camera yet, but I have purchased some of their upgraded NT backs. They are a definite improvement over the factory stock backs that I have. In addition to what seems to be high quality products, the company also offers great service. Easy communication and fast shipping.

 

Bruce

Abi, I wouldn't be too concerned over the aperture differences. For landscapes, you'll want to stop the lens down in order to maximize the DOF anyways, so the extra speed won't be of use. Even if you do want a shallow DOF, I doubt that there would be much noticeable difference between f2.8 and f3.5 at those wider focal lengths. If low shutter speeds are the problem, you'd be much better served by a tripod rather than a faster lens.

 

Bruce

Antonio, you've already received some good advice to beware of older 88s on ebay. My experience has been that the untested film backs can be a big source for problems (I don't believe that ebay sellers thoroughly test the cameras). For the $260 BIN that you quote plus the $150 CLA fee, you are pretty close to the cost of a fully upgraded Kiev that uses the P-6 lensmount. Check out the cameras at www.araxphoto.com . They are gaining a lot of respect from Kiev users for the quality of their work. I've purchased film backs from them, and the difference between these and the standard factory issue samples is like night and day.

 

Good luck,

 

Bruce.

Most people think the price is out of line because they're comparing it with the Canon 10d. However, if you compare the specs, the E-1 is more in line with the 1D or Nikon D1. It seems that Olympus is targeting this camera squarely at the pro market. That seems pretty strange to me, but its not like Olympus has never had strange marketing practices in the past.

 

What really bothers me are the lenses. There's no mention of image stabilization on the longer lenses, and at $8K for the 300mm, there better damn well be world class IS/VR.

The Nikon offers a spot meter; the Canon has mirror lock up ability. Other than that, the cameras are very similar (although the Canon has eye controlled focus, which you may or may not find useful). Both companies offer extensive lens lines and although Canon has an edge in the number of lenses it offers with image stabilization, Nikon is introducing more of their vibration reduction models.

 

Best bet is to go to your local store and get the feel for both cameras and decide which one feels best for you.

I don't think that you'll find much help from Lowepro, or any other camera bag manufacturer for that matter. I think your best bet would be to find a small bag to hold your camera and lenses, and then pack that inside a large framed pack. Pack your equipment near the top of the framed pack to access it fairly quickly, and lash your tripod to the outside of the big pack.

 

Good Luck...

Jim,

 

I think we may be getting our Kievs mixed up. The precautions you mention resemble those to be made with the Kiev 88, which suffers from a poor overall design. Upgraded Kiev 88s, such as the Hartblei that I use, can be more reliable than factory models but when all is said and done they are still based on a flawed design. The Kiev 60, on the other hand, is a fairly robust camera if it has survived the shoddy quality control at the Arsenal factory. Most Kiev 60 owners find that if their camera doesn't give them grief after a few rolls, then they usually work well for a long time.

 

Now John, does this mean to say that if your camera is working now, will it never break down? Of course it doesn't. If you owned a Canon 1V or Nikon F5, both undisbutably robust cameras, there's no guarantee that either of those cameras wouldn't break down as well. Cameras, being mechanical devices, are subject to failure given time and heavy usage.

 

On to the original question regarding the Kiev 90: it costs a lot more than other Kiev models; it has known reliability issues; and unlike the Kiev 88, you would have a hard time finding someone who could repair one.

 

Finally, there are a lot of threads on Photo.net regarding Kiev equipment and many posts slamming it as unreliable junk. But, many people who actually USE Kievs see them for what they are: an incredibly inexpensive, no frills camera system that use excellent inexpensive lenses that produce great results. Purchase equipment from a reputable dealer that backs up their merchandise, like Mike Fourman at Kiev Camera, and you shouldn't be disapointed. Purhase from ebay, and beware.

If you are willing to shoot 645, then I don't really understand your adversion to 6x6. If you compose your subjects with the crop in mind, then it really shouldn't make any difference. You can get a 645 viewfinder mask and a 645 back and add them to a used Hasselblad outfit for a reasonably priced setup. However, if you are really critical of your results, and you don't mind the slower workflow, then I think the previous suggestions of a 4x5 setup are spot on.

THE reason to invest in Kiev is to access the lenses. Take a look at the line-up that Evan has assembled and then picture yourself buying the same kit from any other manufacturer. Unless you have *really* deep pockets, then its impossible. Sure, Mamiya offers an inexpensive alternative. Hell, for the asking price of some upgraded Kievs, you could get a decent used Hasselblad. However, there's no way that I'd be able to afford a 30mm superwide for a Hassie...

 

In the end, if you're happy with the results it produces then that's all that matters. If you are worried about reliability, carry a backup.

Longer lenses without tripod collars do cause problems because the weight of the lens is not supported when the camera body is attached to the tripod. This can cause the lens to vibrate slightly, which is probably the problem that you are experiencing. The 300mm with its tripod collar should overcome this, however Bogen makes a lens support (model 3420) that should eliminate vibrations with your 200mm.

Dimitri,

 

Sorry, but I can't help you with those particular leather packs. However, if you're stuck then you can check out the Lowepro MFB 100 and 200. The 100 fits my Hassy 6x6 backs like a glove and the 200 fits larger 6x7 backs. They come with an AW cover for bad weather as well.

Jan,

 

You are quite correct that different people visit different forums here. However, in two forums you posted seven identical questions. Come on...

Try to show a bit more respect to others around here in the future. Clogging up the boards with multiple posts is not the way to encourage others to help you out.

Keep an eye on ebay for the Tamron SP 80-200mm f2.8. For the price that you quoted for the Tamron 70-210mm, you should be able to pick up the faster, and much better lens. Tamron also made dedicated 1.4x and 2x converters that work well with the f2.8, and those would give you a bit more flexibility. Be forewarned, though, that this lens is big and heavy.

You could spend some time in the Canadian Rockies between Banff and Jasper. Lots of wildlife opportunities (right beside the highways), mountains and glaciers.

With any extension, bellows or tubes, the only thing that changes is the distance between the lens and the film plane. The focal length of the lens remains unchanged with extension, as opposed to the use of teleconverters. Therefore the aperture, that being the ratio of light gathered vs. focal length, remains unchanged as well.

The Tamron 90mm f2.5 has a good reputation, as does most of the SP line. I'm sure that this lens with the matched tube (or any extension tube, for that matter) would give good results. The effective aperture with extension tubes remains the same; it is only with teleconverters that it is multiplied.

For little more money than the mirror lens, you could pick up something like the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. I got one off the bay for about $130. While the image quality won't be quite as good as a Canon super tele, it will blow the doors off a mirror lens. And if you don't like it, you could probably sell it for close to what you pay for it.

Not entirely sure of the model numbers...maybe someone else here would know. They are of a 7 element design. I just know that the teleconverters are adaptalls badged with the SP designation. I used to own the SP 80-200mm f2.8 with SP 2x converter. Even on the zoom, the results were fine. The problem was that I found it to be a pain to use. I would have to remove the adaptall mount from the lens, mount the converter to the lens, and then mount the adaptall to the converter. That would not be too bad, except for that I never found it all that simple to remove and remount the adaptall. That's why I think if you could find a quality converter that would mount normally, i.e. between the camera body and the adaptall mount (as opposed to between the adaptall mount and the lens), then that would be a better set up. I don't think you would notice much difference in performance, especially considering that you are using a prime lens. If an AF converter will work with the MF lens, then I'd suggest either a newer Tamron or a Nikon converter.

Bob, Tamron made both a 1.4x and 2.0x matched teleconverter for that lens. The 2.0x is readily available on ebay, while the 1.4x is less common (yet it cn be found there are well. Friends of mine who use this lens with the OM System claim that they get better performance by using the Zuiko converters rather than the Tamron converters. Also, the Zuiko is easier to use as the Tamron converter mounts between the lens and the adaptall mount, which most find to be a pain the the ass to remove and then remount. So, I think your idea of finding a newer Nikon mount converter is a good one. Watch out for any converter that has a protruding front element as this may cause some problems when mounted to the lens.