michael_chuang1

<p>Kodak and Voigtlander DKL are deliberately not identical. Rick Oleson has a very <a href="http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-150.html">informative page</a> on this.<br /> There is some more information on <a href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00b8w7">this thread</a> on p.net.<br /> <br />All that said, if you are going to shoot your S-K lenses via adapter on Fuji X-mount the odds are that the adapter will accept both V and K flavor DKL lenses. I have a no-name DKL-to-Nikon F adapter that accepts both flavors. (I combine this with a Nikon-to-Sony E adapter to shoot on NEX bodies, if anyone cares.) Just for the heck of it, here is the essence of banality taken with a DKL-mount Balda-Curtagon (35mm),</p>

<p>Unharvested pumpkins after the deer have got to them. From a few years ago. Argus a-four, Fujicolor 200.</p><div></div>

<p>> Brikk claims to donate a proportion of its profits to 'populations around the world which are suffering'</p> <p>My aesthetic sense is reeling from the garish tastelessness of it all and I feel faintly nauseated. In fact, I am suffering. Perhaps Brikk will give me a handout? I have my guesses as to where this wretched excess will sell, but should probably keep that speculation to myself. Perhaps the lucky purchasers will celebrate their new acquisition with a nice glass of grand cru Burgundy, well mixed with a generous slug of Diet Coke to make it palatable. </p>

<p>If I had to choose from your list I'd bring the 28/2.8 and the 80-200 zoom, but that choice is because of my way of seeing things which does not favor the normal perspective (interpret "normal" however you like ;). You've said that wide and normal are likely most useful for your style so why not just take those?</p> <p>Gearhead stuff aside, is this hike going to be for photography purposes principally (or solo or with a photo-tolerant companion) or will it be with a bunch of nonphotographers? If the latter, will they put up with you fiddling with an SLR? In that case the Stylus Epic may be a better choice. Personally, these days I'd not take a film camera but rather bring my weatherproof digital stuff (Olympus m43) if photography is the main goal, whereas for a group hike with nonphotographers I'd go with some sort of "travel zoom" digital P+S such as one of the wide zoom-range Panasonics.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yet another Packard hood ornament.</p><div></div>

<p>And finally, at 105mm, closest non-macro focus. Leaves were scudding all over the place with the intermittent winds; no disrespect intended to T/SGT Cobb for leaving part of his name obscured.</p> <p>That was the first, rather hurried outing with the 35-105/3.5. I haven't got used to it yet and was occasionally turning the wrong ring and all that, but I think I'll enjoy using it. It's rather big, but definitely performs well enough for me.</p><div></div>

<p>Regular non-macro setting @35mm.</p><div></div>

<p>There is also a walkway with memorial tiles/slabs. This was taken using the 35-105/3.5's "macro" setting. Probably at a middle aperture. These days an Army Technical Sergeant (T/SGT) would be called a Sergeant First Class (SFC). T/SGT was a WWII-era enlisted rank.</p><div></div>

<p>Oops. Ignore please.</p>

<p>As above, but stopped down to f/8.</p><div></div>

<p>Marine Corps sigil (second from right in above photo). Pixel-level crop, original image shot at 105mm wide open. Sorry about the over-exposure.</p><div></div>

<p>Shot at 35mm f/8.</p><div></div>

<p>The lower portion of the multi-service monument from which yesterday's Sailor and Soldier images came.</p><div></div>

<p>Pixel-level crop of the above image. I'm sure it could be made prettier with some work, but as a SOOC JPG I'm favorably impressed by the lens/A7 combo.</p><div></div>

<p>Church across the square @35mm f/5.6. The steeple from the 300/4 "report" yesterday was shot at the same location.</p><div></div>

<p>From the same position at 105mm.</p><div></div>

<p>The nice images Alex S, Ashley Brown and Bill C (among others) recently posted with their 35-105 lenses stirred up a hankerin' for said lens. So this weekend I was also keeping an eye out for one at the camera show. One dealer I didn't recognize had a very nice clean one with original hood for actually a pretty good price, but as I'd already blown my "FD budget" on the 300/4 I posted about yesterday, I kept searching. Sure enough, dealer Al the next aisle over had one, sans hood but with a smudgy Hoya UV filter on the front end, for $30. Well, hell, I thought, that's too cheap to pass up, so I bought it. Cosmetically it looked pretty good, though weirdly half the focal-length markings on the zoom ring were just gone. Didn't look worn off, just not there. Al warned me to look the whole thing over carefully; I think he had just gotten the lens and had not a chance to inspect it in detail himself. Yeah, yeah, says I, impatiently pushing cash at him, it's got that filter, probably been on it since day one. Well, Al was right, taking off the filter there was a miniscule nick on the front element, but I've shot worse with little effect, so I'm not concerned.</p> <p>The following were shot at the Wakefield Town Square at the same time as the "plain" FDn 300/4 from yesterday. ISO 400, pretty much SOOC JPGs with a touch of sharpening if resized to 700 pixels. Also some pixel-level crops. This first one is full-frame at 35mm, again of the Philippine-American War memorial.</p><div></div>

<p><strong>Dave S</strong>: I was pleasantly surprised by the resolution as well. These were all shot at ISO 400 and are pretty much SOOC JPGs, by the way. A touch of sharpening after down-sizing to 700 pixels was generally all I did in post. This is indeed the plain, non-L lens. (i) As to the nervous-looking bokeh in the first image, I see where you're coming from, but to be fair each of the blotchy blobs is usually a bunch of leaves each with slightly different colors. In any case, I don't find the background offensive though I agree it is busy. (ii) I don't know about CA stopped down because I failed to shoot any frames at smaller apertures. Even though we have useable ISO1600+ these days, I think my subconscious still believes I'm shooting Fuji RDP at its rated ISO 100 in some sketchy-light wildlife situation, so I reflexively tend to stick to wide apertures with long lenses. Must work on this!<br> You are correct that I favored fast shutter speeds. Incidentally, the first time I used a long "legacy" lens on the A7 I was using the electronic first curtain (EFC). The following photograph is what I got shooting at 1/6400 with a breech-lock Vivitar 400/5.6. I had a bit of upset thinking that my new-to-me used A7 was defective what with the dark band on the left and all. Turns out it's a known problem and turning off EFC is the work around.</p> <p><strong>Bill C</strong>: Thanks -- for your comments and for doing so much heavy lifting content-wise on this forum! I've not used the 200 macro enough, but the few shots I've used it for came out well. I look forward to playing with it on the A7 and with the proper tripod mount.</p> <p><strong>Louis</strong>: Your work sets the standard and your enthusiasm for the A7 was one of the things that prompted me to take the plunge. I am having a blast with the A7 playing with old lenses at their intended FOV. Despite their (re)increasing popularity I still feel that most FD lenses represent great bargains; I'm putting together a fun collection of FD (and 3rd party FD-mount) glass at "pizza prices" but then again I've run into few L lenses so far -- perhaps fortunately from a personal finance standpoint.</p><div></div>

<p>One from the files. Black vulture, Florida. Late morning near Merritt Island if I recall correctly. Nikon D200 and Sigma 100-300/4 wide open at 300mm.</p> <p>Bill Jordan, your shovellers remind me of an anecdote (collective groan). A while back I was taking desultory photographs from the dike in Great Meadows NWR. There are two large ponds on either side of the dike which is only a foot or so above water level. I spotted two hen shovellers dabbling in the rightside pond and did my best to sneak up on them. (Fooling no one since the dike was largely bare at the time and a person on it was visible from all over the ponds.) Anyway, I had my tripod set up and shot away while the ducks ignored me. Finally I was ready to go home. At this point I'd been standing up for about 30 minutes and still ignored. I folded up the (silver aluminum) tripod legs without collapsing the sections first and tucked it under my right arm in much the way one would carry a rifle. About 3 seconds later both hens squawked in apparent alarm and noisily exploded from the water winging for the opposite shore. Ducky pattern recognition?</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, the obligatory image of tree branches against the sky. This is a pixel-level crop from the bottom right of the full frame. This was a wicked tall (as we say here in the Northeast) tree and there was a good breeze going up that high. That said, shutter speed was 1/5000 if EXIF is to be believed, so no excuses there.</p> <p>On buying the lens, my provisional plan had been to strip off the tripod collar for the 200 macro and sell the 300/4 FDn, but now I think this lens is a keeper. It seems adequately sharp and has nice color rendition, at least on the Sony, and I like the OOF rendering (though perhaps not a challenge on such a long lens). Plus it's internal focus which is ergonomically nice. Well, dang. Looks like the collar will be shared between the two lenses. Thanks for reading. I'd appreciate hearing about experiences from others who have used this lens. (Or comments from those without experience for that matter.)</p><div></div>

<p>Pixel-level crop.</p><div></div>

<p>WWII Honor Roll, partial listing. This is the whole frame. A bit of barrel distortion, but unlikely to be objectionable for the kind of stuff I usually shoot.</p><div></div>

<p>Union Soldier, War Between the States.</p><div></div>

<p>From a memorial honoring the different branches of the US armed services.</p><div></div>

<p>Eagle detail, resized 2:1.</p><div></div>