Introducing f stops (another variable) into the discussion is simply confusing. Simply stated, DOF is dependent on magnification. That statement assumes the f stop is the same on both lenses. If I use my 55 at f 8 and my 105 at f 8, and the subject magnification is the same, the DOF is the same. Only the perspective changes. Of course if I use a different f stop on the 2 lenses the DOF will be different.

Depth of field is not dependent on focal length. It is dependent on magnification A photo at the same magnification with the 60 and the 105 will have exactly the same DOF, but will have a different perspective.

It depends on what you want pictures of. I have 3 that get the most use, a 55mm f2.8 Nikkor D, a 90 mm Sigma and a 120 medical Nikkor AI that get the most use. The first two are used for carry around, and I could probably get by with the 90. The 120 has a built in flash and works nicely for moving critters and such.

Some of the "old stuff" is still capable of pretty good images. It's fun to bring it back to life. When I first ran across the member her who had some balsam I was thinking about buying an old 5.8 cm Nikkor f1.4. I didn't end up buying it, but it had the same problem (only really bad). One day I'll maybe run across another one. I have one 85mm f2.8 "soft focus" lens made from a converted slide projection lens. It works just great.

The "lens module" separates from the aperture module and body. I have cleaned it front and back, but I think the problem is inside. Can you post the link to the video please? info on these lenses is sparse at best. Mine is the "A" version. There were apparently a B and C version as well as a C variant that had a coated lens.

I recently acquired a lens that appears to have some'defects' in the cement between two of the elements. It looks like dried "water droplets". I think someone here had a supply of balsam available and had offered to sell a small amount. I have tried searching, but can't find the post. Any help would be appreciated!

Also, If anyone else had attempted such a task successfully, any tips would be appreciated as well.

The lens is a Novoflex Noflexar 40 cm f 5.6.

Thanks in advance

They got me!

https://photorumors.com/2019/04/01/sony-gives-up-and-quits-camera-business-ceo-says-they-can-no-longer-compete-with-nikon-and-canon/?fbclid=IwAR2ISqEwSR9mhEsYcZk5jFGyhWXD2mxYjvVLE_bFcuoIsnii3cLKsa1BVgs

My wife is Canadian, the geese are not. They are Canada Geese (or goose). It was she who first corrected me.

I use these:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Neewer-Auto-Focus-ABS-Extension-Tubes-Set-12mm-20mm-36mm-for-Nikon-DSLR-Cameras/201829927491?hash=item2efe004a43:g:OJcAAOSwCU1YrnrD&frcectupt=true

They work flawlessly, and are very reasonable. The build quality is great.

Part of the difficulty with this topic is the definition of "True Macro". One of my first lenses was a 55mm Micro Nikkor Auto. With the extension tube that came with it it provided, the image on the film was life size (1:1). Simple, right. Anything less than 1:1 was "not a true macro image". That definition worked fine with film cameras. The image on the film was either "life size" or not.

If I put the same lens on a crop sensor camera and attempt to take exactly the same image, it is, of course, cropped. This means that if I move the camera farther away from the subject, so that the field of view is the same, the image I capture is less than 1:1 on the sensor, therefor, by definition not a true macro.

This image was taken with my cell phone. I have no idea what the size of the sensor is, but it is tiny. Is this a macro image?

https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2018/8/1/312701-bee2.jpg

I would say yes. Others would argue not.

Somebody smarter than me will have to come up with a proper definition for this type of image.

Regards

Good luck! Have a great trip.

In order to give advice on what might be most useful for you, we would need to know what type of camera(s) you are used to. Going on a nice vacation with a brand camera that you are completely unfamilear with sounds like a recipe for a disaster.

Vocal work. Mostly for free, and just for fun. I am blessed with a very deep base voice, so even when there are "better singers" than me, I often get a shot at the part. Everything from Church solos to community and semi pro Choir work. I'v had the pleasure of working in half a dozen operas over the years as well as dozens of musicals. As I age, my voice isn't what it used to be. I am not the best a all the technology either A good shot, SOOC is just fine.

Thanks again,

Richard

The Camera arrived safely. It will soon be put on display with one of my vintage lenses mounted; probably the 35-105 f3.5.

Thanks again.