kinesisphotogear

I have the "old style" 100mm/2.8 Macro (non-USB) and the auto focus is rather slow. I'm not sure what motor it has built in, but how would it compare to the

current 50/1.8 lens, which has a "micro motor?" I'm considering purchase of the 50mm but do not have store nearby to demo.

They are in my backyard and the color change just started in the last week or so. At higher elevations we got a skiff of snow yesterday too. Give it a few weeks.

The recent thread on this same topic is found at: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003iky&unified_p=1

With macro you will generally be shooting on a tripod or stand of some sort�so find one that you can switch out batteries and/or CF cards WITHOUT having to remove it from the tripod (some of the Nikon Coolpix 900 series required removal from tripod to access the cards). Since most of the cheaper ones are rangefinders and NOT SLRs you would want to find a model which the LCD can be used "live" for viewing. An AC adapter may be handy for this purpose as LCDs eat batteries.

I have used a Sinar P with the Calumet back and have posted a page with comments on the problems with this back.

http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html

Tamron has a 28-105/2.8 (82mm filter dia), why doesn't Canon? Is this length difficult to design w/o sacrificing quality?

My local repairman said the Copal shutters were easier to work on. The Compur shutters are (as one might excpect from German products) rather over-engineered.

Ten years ago, when I worked at a commercial photo lab we used a Rodenstock APO-Rodagon enlarging lens (75 or 90mm as I recall) as our "primo" duping lens (we also had a few 55mm Micro-Nikkors, some of which had barrell distortion). We had it attached to a $20K optical printer, however placing an enlarging lens in front of your F3 may not be an option.

Auto focus speed on the Tamron is much slower.

Beware of behind the lens filters when using super wides. I have tried it with my 47mm (use a roll film back) and any dust on the filter shows on film. I have had

to go back to front mount with this lens. With the 65mm it is OK if the filter is very clean. I also use the Xephonon 3x3 and 4x4s.

Once I "test in" an incident meter I would trust it 10 to 1 over a reflective meter for most subjects. Visit <A HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html">

this page</A> on my web site where I discuss underexposure problems I have had with Sekonic meters. I also address a fix.

Read this <A HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html"> link</A> on my site about my experiences with Sekonic meters underexposing.

Their are two schools of thought on residential interiors: 1-Shoot during the day and use strobe or 2-shoot at night with tungsten lights. Most of the national home magazines are shot during the day and flash filled allowing the windows to blow out a few stops. When I have shoot residential interiors (i.e. model homes) a nearby home is sometimes showing in the shot--blowing it out helps hide it. I'm usually overexposing the exterior by 2-3 stops. I carry a combined total of 6,000 watt-seconds of power, however if you shoot at wider apetures (F8, instead of F16 like I normally do with a 47mm on a 6x7cm roll film back) then you can maybe get away with 2400 watt seconds of power. Some photogs shoot interiors at night using many tungsten lights for total contol and previsualization. The lighting on the "product" is great, however the windows are always black (unless you shooting at twilight) and don't have the bright feeling of daylight shots.

Visit this excellent thread for discussion regarding 400, 500 or 600mm.

http://www.naturephotographers.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=002923

This thread seems to talk mostly about yaw-free or not. I personally think the asymmetrical movements vs. symmetrical movements as a more important feature. I

was almost ready to buy a Horsemen when I finally did a side-by-side trial shot with a Horsemen (center tilt) and a Sinar p (off center or asymmetrical). The 2-

point focus system in use on all Sinar cameras is the quickest time saver feature and overwheliming reason I bought this brand. Yaw free was merely a added

bonus.

I started with Schneider glass and eventually migrated to Nikon as I upgraded. I cannot tell the difference. Basically I bought whatever was available on the used

market and Nikon always seemed to be available. A former Sinar manuf rep (with many years selling LF and orginally from Europe) said all three were more or

less equal.

I use this very product. Try # 24LR "Table Measure Tapes" from www.southstarsupply.com. They have them that go left to right or right to left. They also stock

Fairgate aluminum rulers in metric and problably Ls as well. Southstar is a sewing supply house.

I use a Nikkor-M 300/9 with a Copal shutter for 4x5" copywork It is my undersanding that the M series are short process lenses with a shutter and multicoating.

My only concern with a traditional process lens would be that many (most?) process lenses aren't coated or having multicoatings, which is fine in the studio

UNLESS you have a high key background (I did a side by side test with my old [not multicoated] and new [multi-coated] 210/5.6 once) Another issue to consider

is resolution. If the lens is designed to cover 20x24" and you are only using 4x5" the lines per mm or final resolution may not be as good as a lens designed for a

smaller format. That is why I went with the 300 Nikkor instead of the Schneider or Rodenstock "process lens with shutter" lens. They cover too much and my

believe is that a lens that only covers 8x10 would give my primo sharpness for 4x5.

You are developing your own B/W? Is it a developing problem? Too much agitation (using tank and reel method) will result in darked edges with neg film. Try a roll of E-6 and send the film out for processing.

Close-ups or head shots of subjects with slightly long noses may not appear as nice with a 120mm lens, compared to the 150 or 180 standard length. I sometimes wish I had the 180mm to limit the depth of field on some types of portraits.

I used to own a Toyo with a revolving back. It has been many years, but as I recall, with wide angle lenses and with serious shifts or rises the extra thickness

caused some vignetting. I now shoot Sinar (w/o such a back) and NEVER miss the rotating back. As already mentioned on this thread, you are shooting sheet film,

which is inherently a slow operation.

I meant UV strobe heads, which I thought Speedo called them CC heads�anyway I have also used tungsten lights in the past put you have to somehow place

the polarizer further away from the hot lamp. In side-by-side tests I prefer the Fuji tungsten film over Kodaks.

Short of writing a book, I would start with a 100mm macro lens, 1200 to 2400 watt-seconds power pack with two color corrected heads and polarizers for each

head (usually 12x12") and a polarizer for the lens. Oh then a good incident flash meter. I use Fuji Astia film or Kodak E100S. Aim the lights at about 45 degrees

or less and test away.

I have found that my 508 underexposes in the incident mode. For more about the 508 read <A HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html"> this page</A> on my web site. Why aren't you using the meter in incident mode? -- it is easier (more accurate) to use than spot or reflective mode.

I have posted this many times, but here goes again. Beware of Calumet old style C2 backs. Visit <A HREF="http://www.kinesisgear.com/opinion.html"> this link

.</A>