Are you actually able to achieve MORE depth of field with the 135mm Nikon lens than with the 135mm Palinar when the aperture on both lenses is the same when shooting the same object?!?

FWIW. I do not think that you can assess the amount of light making it to the theoretical film plane coming through two different lenses which have different maximum apertures based on the appearance of the aperture blades ....

I think that YOU may need to put the two lenses on a common "body" and then meter, accordingly ...

OR, put both lenses on a digital body, set the aperture, and then see if the resultant "shutter speed" is the same-or-similar OR decidely different.

FWIW. If the current LUMIX FZ cameras are physically similar to the one which I have (FZ15), then I highly recommend them for also being comfortable to grip & well balanced in the hand ... almost effortless to use, IMO.

Thanks ...

I guess that I had mistakenly thought the inclusion of the 'quoted' post was an indication of to whom the particular query was directed.

THAT query was for jerryc41 who wrote about "the thermal features" which he saw.

FWIW. As has already been mentioned, it will probably be hard not to take interesting pictures while you are in Yosemite Valley ...

This is probably stating the obvious, but if you are coming from points-West (via Sacramento), the first place you should plan to stop-and-shoot from is the "lookout" which is above the Valley ...

It has been a fairly long time since I was in Yosemite ... my trips have only been in April, November & December ... so, I was motivated to get up and hit the showers (which only had ONE temp ... very hot) as soon as it opened (7am?). It was (at the time) communal ... I'll guess between 16-to-20 (?) shower heads, but maybe less ... a line forms ... first come, first served. Better to be amongst the first, IMO ...

In November & December (OR any time the pre-Dawn temps are in the 40s!), you'll probably feel as if you have come out of a sauna when you exit the showers.

.....At least, I did.

IMO, it's worth walking up as many of the trails which are accessible from the Village to wherever they end ...

.....et cetera

Did you happen to mean that you were you in Yellowstone a couple of years ago?

Thanks for the excellent (even if it is off topic) advice for travelers.

With the understanding that some people are more technically inclined with regard to the nomenclature ...

.....And, that some of us-plain-folk generically refer to close-up photography as "macro" ...

Let me suggest that if you aren't taking pictures of FLAT FIELD objects (e.g., "copies of documents"), YOU may simply want to consider a set of 1+, 2+, 3+, etc. diopter CLOSE UP LENSES before you pony up real money for a high-zoot "macro" lens ...

..... The cost for a set of 52mm threaded Close Up lenses is less than $20 on eBay.

BTW/FWIW. Way-back-when, I used some a Close Up lens on my TLR ... an incredibly SLOW process because the Close Up lens needed to be moved between the viewing & shooting lens & the tripod head raised-or-lowered, accordingly. The image quality & results were great (the better the lens, the better the results); but, I hated using 120 film enough that the images I made probably should only have been thought of as an experiment.

The reason that I bought "macro" lenses in the distant past was because I wanted the convenience of continuous focusing closer than .5 meters PLUS better potential corner resolution (in theory) rather than to capture anything close to EITHER close up OR "macro" images ...

That's my way of saying that while continuous focusing is a (great) feature which should not be under valued, I have been able to & could live without it if-or-when the equipment was-or-is limited ...

Initially-and-Ultimately, I think that YOU need to decide how disciplined you are-or-want-to-be in how you capture/take your images ...

.....AND/OR, how deep your pockets are!

Do you currently have any lenses?

FWIW. I have a couple of m4/3 bodies and use my vintage Nikkor & Zuiko lenses on them with the use of the relatively inexpensive, hollow-tube adapters which you can buy through eBay AND from other sources.

The lenses are focused manually ...

The ONE (?) caveat is that the bought-directly-from-China-via-eBay adapters do not seem to be calibrated (THAT is an easy enough endeavor if I were motivated) as I belatedly determined that you can focus PAST "infinity" ...

Essentially, I am the only limitation in the images I take/create.

FWIW. I believe that RWR is correct that you are possibly trying to mount a Praktica/Pentax-mount lens on your Nikon ...

....The flange-to-focal length distance is different for MOST 35mm camera mounts ...

....With the Pentax lens mount flange-to-focal length distance being less than for Nikon's mount ...

....Which means that an intermediate lens is included in Pentax-to-Nikon adapters .

YOU can test this very quickly by removing the adapter AND holding your Kalimar lens against your camera body (BE GENTLE IF THERE IS ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE LENS MAKING CONTACT WITH THE SENSOR PINS INSIDE THE CAMERA BODY!!) AND THEN pointing the combination at an object which is (probably) less than 1 meter in front of you AND THEN moving fore-and-aft to see if you can bring the chosen object into focus ...

If you can bring the less-than-1-meter object into focus when the lens does not have the T2 mount attached, then it is a Pentax-compatible lens rather than a T-mount lens of any ilk.

Now, as far as whether-or-not it is worth ponying up for a Pentax-to-Nikon adapter ...

While it may certainly be less expensive to buy a non-Nikon Nikon mount lens to use on your Nikon digital camera body than to buy the Pentax-to-Nikon adapter, I don't think that the answer is as cut-and-dried as suggested BECAUSE if you find that using a vintage lens on your digital camera body is doable for you then you may find it worthwhile to pick up some vintage Pentax Takumar lenses if-and-when they become available if you want this-or-that particular focal length ...

....Obviously, there are scores of non-Takumar Praktica/Pentax-mount lenses.

BTW. I bought a Pentax-to-Nikon adapter way-back-when just-in-case which means it must not have cost too much at the time (at least, I must have thought it was worth buying at the time!) ... I still don't know how good-or-bad it is ... regardless, if you are a wise shopper (check eBay, periodically), then you may be able to find one for a reasonable price, too.

FWIW. If the pictures are embedded in PDF files, then you might want to try this ...

.....TURN the PDF image 90º, if necessary ...

.....CAPTURE the image using a Freeware program such as SCREENHUNTER ...

PROCEED.

EXCELLENT ...

I'll be sending it on to some of my friends.

FWIW. This is a conditional answer which may only be applicable if you are using a vintage 135mm lens OR any-other-focal-length lens on a digital camera with a "dumb" (hollow tube) lens adapter ...

I (mostly) use manual lenses on my m4/3 & 4/3 camera bodies ...

.....Yeah, I am one of the few people who has a 4/3 camera body!

What I accidentally determined in the past few months is that the lenses on the m4/3 lenses focus slightly past INFINITY (I generally do not focus on objects which are at infinity) ... and, DOF apparently will-or-does not compensate for THAT focusing error.

The solution would be to simply calibrate the adapter's flange-to-focal-plane distance & "shim" the lens mount on the adapter, accordingly (somewhere between a piece of 20-lb. paper stock & index card stock) ... BUT, simply knowing the problem exists is enough (for now), so I haven't bothered.

Of course, THIS is only a possible resolution if your manual focusing problems exist when you have racked the focusing ring over to infinity.

I'm not sure that you really need a new lens for the type of on-stage pictures which you plan to take ...

And, some additional pre-planning may make the difference which will give you the results which you want ...

REGARDLESS, before you pony up for a new lens (gotta love that Alaskan petroleum royalty!?!), since you are using the lens in manual mode, you may want to retrieve a vintage, fast 50mm lens (f2.0 or faster) which you can use at its maximum aperture to try as an alternate perspective, first. You will need a lens adapter -- a simple (hollow tube) adapter can generally be purchased from China via eBay for less than $20.

If you don't have any vintage lenses, then I recommend you look for Nikon/Nikkor lenses, first ... Olympus OM lenses, second ... Pentax Takumar lenses, third (because of the closer flange-to-focal-plane distance which may-or-may-not present a compatibility problem in some instances).

FWIW. Regarding your earlier post & photo ...

If you can jockey for a better position to lose whatever it is that is blocking the contestant's left foot AND use a fill flash or reflector (some 'testing' ahead of time may be necessary to achieve the desired lighting balance), you may-or-should be able to get the effect you are looking for.

.....At 15+ feet, the flash probably won't overwhelm the subject/object ... but, it may ...

.....It's something you'll just have to test.

BTW. You may want to try shooting at f1.8-or-f2.8 & a lower ISO + a monopod-or-tripod.

LUBITEL