In case you don't know, Nikon introduced the 55mm, f/1.2 in 1967, in the period before Automatic Indexing or Non-AI era. Four improved models we produced in subsequent years culminating to the last one in 1977 that was an AI model (serial numbers begin with 400XXX). In the very next year, 1978, Nikon discontinued this lens in favor of a much better design, the Classic 50mm, f/1.2 as an AI lens and in 1981 the even better AIS. If you lens has the 400XXX serial number, it is not only rarer because it was produced for one year only but can also be used with most professional and serious amateur Nikons up to the present. If it's a Non-AI, it may only be used with the Df. To this day, there are still labs that can change a Non-Ai lens to an AI fro a small fee (about $25).
You could possibly have rare equipment, don't just give it away. KEH, Adorama, and others would buy them at 10-15% of their E-bay value. Depending on condition, they could be worth much more to European and Japanese shops and collectors. Be especially on alert on the 55mm, you may still use it on the new Nikon Df.
Send these and more of them everywhere and make an effort to save this wonderful structure!
Thank you WJ for introducing new elements and professional views into this discussion. I am happily surprised that you add Leitz and Mamiya to the short list of excellence in lens design and production. I would love to see the results from such lenses in your negatives!
I agree that Zeiss is very special and has a unique feel of a perfectly made object in the hand. I did once compare the Planar 1.4/50mm ZF to the Nikon 60mm, f/2.8 Macro, shooting the same subject under same conditions. The quality was comparable when I printed 8X10's and magnified both 100% in photoshop. A pro friend thought the Zeiss had a slight edge. The Zeiss had a warm pink tint to it.
I could try again and post images if anyone wishes to see them side by side.
Great shot!
Please note that the Latin name is ANAS (Anus means the fundament)
The original Parthenon architecture has been measured with electronic equipment to the thousand of a millimeter and this is how we are certain of its "refinements". Columns have three different movements. They all lean inward toward an imaginary central line where they meet at a mile above the building. The columns swell slightly toward their middle (entasis is the technical term for this). Finally, columns slightly diminish in diameter toward the middle of the four colonnades and increase toward the corners.
I am not sure to what extent the Nashville Parthenon copied these and other refinements of the original. The overall effect is one of a slightly curved building but there was no point in carrying the imitative aspect too far.
Wonderful to have the actual plaque photographed, many thanks for this James. I only relied on memory and from my visits to the monument. It is indeed a great one and in one of the great parks in the USA!
The reconstructed interior helps us imagine the original. It was made by Phidias, one of the greatest artists of all time: on a wooden frame he assembled the statue entirely out of ivory and gold, and with gilded bronze attachments. A ton of gold was used for Athena's dress. To keep the ivory from cracking, the statue was surrounded by a 2" deep area filled with water that looked like a polished floor. The statue lasted for eight centuries and was destroyed by invaders in 267CE.
Great pictures!
As an archaeologist, I ought to correct your information. The original 1897 replica was made of wood and burned down. The one you photographed was built in 1925-1931 out of concrete and designed by the architect William Dinsmoor, a famous scholar on ancient Greek architecture and professor at Columbia University. The original in Athens was built entirely out of pentelic marble in 448-432BCE. Only the ceiling of the interior cella (100X36') was made of wood.
Willet is right, likely a juvenile.
The female can't be far away. It has the exact same beak but the belly is heavily streaked. The rest of her looks like a house sparrow. You will notice that the males molt their plumage in the fall and look like the females but much less streaked at the belly. You should have a nice book like the old R.T. Peterson guide (1947), or the Harper and Row Field Guide to North American Wildlife or the National Geographic Field Guide to Birds.
That should do it! We will be seen the results soon.
Your exposures are good enough for further processing in Photoshop 6 where you can improve exposure and brightness. You may also try to get close-ups of the birds by adding a tele-converter to your lens. This way you can avoid the ambient light from the brighter background.
The males lose their yellow in the winter but it begins to come back at this time. About your Red-bellied woodpecker: I believe your pictures show clearly yellow/golden near the bill and on the neck. If this is correct, you have the rarer for your area Golden-fronted woodpecker, usually ranges in Texas and Mexico.
Keep up the great work!