art_tyree

<p>Kyle:<br>

Your flower is an Amaryllis. <br>

This bulbous plant comes from South America and goes dormant late summer. It can be grown i a pot if you are in cold winter country, or planted outdoors in mild winter areas.</p>

<p>Art</p>

 

<p>And hairnet recommended while in use.<br>

To keep ears out of image.</p>

<p>The 14-24 2.8G is considered the sharpest wide zoom of all, sharper even than most prime wides. Pro Canon shooters buy adapters so they can shoot with this lens. You may want to do a proper test, and look into a fine focus adjustment for yours if needed. The Zeiss wides may possibly be a line or two sharper on lab tests (questionable though), but lack autofocus and lack zoom. Do what works best for you, but be sure the 14-24 is not up to spec before replacing.</p>

<p>Louis:<br>

Your gorgeous and bitingly sharp portrait demonstrates why I cherish my copy of the 55mm Micro manual focus. A true gem of a lens, and I don't miss autofocus in micro work anyway.</p>

 

<p>Look for a used Micro Nikkor 55mm manual focus lens. Might be in your price range, and, though 20+ years old, is very sharp. (check for good condition and operation). I am happy with mine.</p>

<p>Curiosity overcame me and had to visit my local camera monger to look at a Df. Was immediately impressed by how "right" it felt in my hands, how easy it was to see and set most controls from the top plate, and how nice the prism viewfinder was. As a former F3 and F100 shooter, couldn't help liking a new Nikon that looks like a Nikon. The sales guy told me the Df has been selling well.</p>

<p>Good information! Hadn't been aware of the file size limitation on PE. Yes, have been thinking that Lightroom would do everything I do on 90%+ of my images, and who knows how many more editing features Adobe may add as time goes along. </p>

<p>As I am not crazy about using using software from The Cloud, I am looking into alternatives to the Almighty Photoshop. Does anyone here know of pros who use Photoshop Elements for their work? Other than no CMYK, I see no reason why it would not be suitable, but there might be other factors to consider. Would appreciate any information.</p>

 

<p>Eric, lenses are formulated for the purposes to which they are to be used, and of course, to meet a price point. Those f2.8 zooms used by the pros are designed to be sharp at a range of apertures--but even with such high $ lenses, there have to be some design compromises. Even a top-of-the-line lens is not as sharp wide open as when it is stopped down a bit, say to 5.6. In addition, for that money you get an optical design that is sharp all the way out to the edge of the frame (though not quite as sharp as at the center) and construction meant to take hard use and moisture. However, Nikon has a series of f/4 and thereabouts lenses that are quite good--Excellent in the image center, and acceptably sharp at edges. The smaller maximum aperture requires less glass, and this, plus some cost-saving materials used in construction, allows a much more moderate price for these lenses. Check out Shun's reviews of lenses here on Photo dot Net.</p>

 

<p>I have all the primes Dan mentions, and can verify they are fine and useful lenses. Yes, the 24-70/2.8 is a fine zoom and worth getting, but you can do fine with a couple of primes in the meantime (60mm macro is very sharp and works as a normal lens). Sometimes simple is good; you learn to be resourceful with what you have, and end up with a lot of keepers. But having an acquisition plan is good too. I too am a backpacker; if you ever want to go to the Canyon in winter, would be willing to meet up there.</p>

<p>Judging from the five-petal flower, it's in the Rose family, and the foliage indicates it's probably one of the Rose family berry species.</p>

<p>The (immature) seed heads and foliage together look like Apache Plume, a shrub that does occur in the mountains of the southwest. Look up that name in a flora of Arizona and see if the description and illustration matches. I would bet on Apache Plume from your image though. --Art</p>

<p>The 180mm/f2.8 does focus "beyond" infinity. You must take care to keep the focus on or closer than infinity. Focus correctly with your viewfinder (as we all did in film shooting days) or use the live view function (which so many think is necessary these days) to get your focus spot on. </p>

<p>Tom:<br>

I suspect you do the same kind of photography I do--landscape, fine-art, macros, tripod stuff. You're going to love that D600; haven't got mine yet but am salivating. Love using my F100 film camera, which is somewhat the same idea as the 600 is in digital. That 24-85mm lens is quite capable, too--have seen nice work shot with it already (check the Nikon brochure for the D600), and it's rated favorably by the test techies. After a while you can then decide if you want to go with some primes as I have (24mm/50mm or 60mm/105mm is a good starting trio); or add another longer zoom (70-200mm f4 maybe). But I wouldn't rush on the lens battery; give the 24-85 a workout for a good while and shoot a lot of different subjects, and find out what your real lens needs are. Happy shooting!</p>

<p>Geof: I do a fair amount of macro, and use both the 55mm and the 105mm Micro. The 55mm is an older lens and manual focus only. If you are tight on budget, the 55 will do very well for you; it's a classic lens and famously sharp. (I use MF for micro, also use the 55 for "normal" lens shots, and don't feel a need for AF on what I do). Otherwise, get the one with the newest technology, and above all the one that feels right to you when you rent or demo it, and gives you an image you like. You can pick up a 55 Micro used for very moderate price.</p>

<p>Thanks to recent posts on my thread, I am getting a good education in optics available for Leica mount.<br>

I appreciate the observations made from experience; I certainly would't be able to buy all those lenses, even from Cosina, and try them. But the 15mm/4.5 and the 21mm look like good choices, and would like to add them to my presently modest lens arsenal (50mm Summicron DR, 35mm Summaron, 90mm and 135mm Hektors), all from 1960s.</p>

<p>Wednesday posters: I see a lot of nice work here on Wednesdays. As I don't know home areas of all, would love it if you could squeak in just a wee bit about where pix were shot.</p>

<p>Cesar: very charming portraits--keep using that lens!<br>

Lil: Your landscapes of Sweden in winter are quite appealing. That yellow house looks like something out of a romantic novel--nice.</p>

<p>I still have the well-done b & w portraits my mother had made of my sister and me. The photographer did them with a Leica Model A in available light (this was in the 1950s). The beautiful thing about such a "basic" instrument is that it makes the photographer think about his craft--every step, which should be integral, as both pleasure and discipline, to photography. Drew, those images were obviously done with a "modernized" version of the classic lens (Elmar?)--nice look to them.</p>

<p>Carl and robert, thanks for sharing the photos. I don't see any barrel distortion--remarkable. I am eager to shoot some pix with the VC 15mm. Carl, where did you round up that many rangefinder shooters? Nice-looking group.</p>

 

<p>Thanks all, for the good information--just what I wanted: experience with the lenses. I may well decide 21mm is wide enough for now--used a 20mm on a Nikon and had to be careful not to get my twinkle toes in the photo (I often compose vertical). Just checked prices on used Leica 21mm--four-digits a pop. I note that Nikon lenses have some noticeable barrel distortion, while the CV equivalents have much less (of course I'm comparing mirror-reflex camera lenses to rangefinder camera lenses). I'm pretty well convinced by now that a CV lens will not be a compromise in image Q on my veteran M3 and M2. And in fact maybe an edge better than all but top of line Nikon DSLR lenses. </p>

<p>My thanks to Starvy and Mark. I am going through the "just thinking and studying a bit" phase, to use Mark's apt phrase, and found the idea of a 15mm lens intriguing. I certainly like the appearance of the Cosina lenses (nice metal and finish, lovely focus and aperture scales) and their compact dimensions. Your comments are already helpful in assessing the potential quality of the 15mm and other VC lenses. Yes, lenses are tools--they should be acquired for a purpose: the 15mm might be the ticket to semi-panoramic images (which have their own caution-points re. composition), and interior architectural photography (which should be distortion-free). </p>

<p>I am looking at extending my lens set to super-wide. The Voigtlander 15mm lens made by Cosina looks like an interesting option (and far cheaper than Leica-made glass), and the importer describes it as a rectilinear lens, i.e. not fish-eye in its perspective. Would like to know what experience other Leica shooters have with this and other Voigtlander lenses and how you appraise their optical qualities (sharpness, contrast, color). </p>

<p>An entire generation of fine photographers produced splendid photographs with zero-frame-rate cameras, a trained eye and intuition substituting for (and surpassing) the need for "high frame rate." Perhaps there is an alternative to wishing against the realities of physics and $$ to get a gee-whizz frame rate. The great photographers I have studied (the Alfred Eisenstadts and Morely Baers, et al) all had one thing in common, regardless of their equipment: time spent in the field, observing their subject, practicing their craft, developing the eye for the decisive moment. This is not to slight the OP's felt need for "high frame rate"--only to suggest another way of looking at the capture technology issue. I would consider the frame rate of the D600 a luxury--But then I am chronologically closer to that great generation of frame-rate-less photographers :- ).</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe: I am considering going with the Samyang lenses. How do you like yours? Would like to see your mini-review. Thanks.</p>