Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: forjava
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27 next>>
Jul 13, 2016 13:30:17   #
I've seen two unfavorable mentions of variable aperture in these interesting comments. I think the posting parties mean zoom lenses. That is, parfocal is preferable to varifocal, for image outcomes.

Not sure "pro" is going to get all the wonderful zooms. Consider the two Series E zooms, for example.
amfoto1 wrote:
"FX" versus "DX" is not useful to distinguish "high end" from "low end", "entry level" or "budget/kit lens". For example, a Nikkor 10-24mm is sort of mid-grade build, while their 12-24mm is more pro-quality build... and both of those are DX lenses. But, that also doesn't mean squat when it comes to price versus performance. For example, at roughly half the price of those Nikkors, either Tokina "ATX Pro" 11-20mm f2.8 or 12-28mm f4 offer as good or better image quality, as good or better build quality and roughly equal general performance. Incidentally, Tokina uses the same "DX" and "FX" terminology as Nikon, and both the Tokina lenses mentioned are DX models.

It's similar with Canon... there are both high-end and low-end EF-S lenses... but there are no L-series EF-S and never will be. That's merely because one of Canon's criteria defining "L-series" is that they must be compatible with and usable on all EOS cameras past, present and future. That's not the case with EF-S lenses, which can only be used on APS-C format Canon DSLRs. Therefore, no EF-S will ever be "graced" with a red stripe or the L label.

Yet, there are some EF-S lenses that rival L-series for image quality and in most performance characteristics.... such as the EF-S 10-22mm, EF-S 17-55/2.8 and EF-S 15-85mm.

Things that might distinguish "high end" Nikkors:

- Larger apertures
- Non-variable aperture
- IF or "Internal Focusing" design
- APO, ED, UD or FL glass
- AF-S... i.e., a focus motor built into the lens
- SWM or "Silent Wave Motor" focus drive
- VR or "Vibration Reduction" image stabilization
- Gold ring
- Nano coatings

You'll generally find several of these factors on the higher end lenses.

AF-S lenses are typically newer models. There are high-end AF-D lenses, too (without built in focus motors), but those tend to be older models. Nikon has gradually been converting their lens line-up to AF-S.

Not all AF-S lenses are high end... there are also lots of entry-level models. So, by itself, AF-S only indicates it's probably a relatively recent model (however, the earliest AF-S were introduced almost 20 years ago).

And, of course, price is one more thing that might give you a clue!
"FX" versus "DX" is i not /i ... (show quote)
Go to
Jul 10, 2016 19:20:45   #
“This is so helpful. My head is swimming with the choices. Please, more feedback and input!” OK, you asked. I was just minding my own business ;>) -- You know more about photography than I do but, again, you asked. Save my post and look at it again a year from now to review your progress. The marketplace is filled with short-cut photography products that will waste your money, make you late to market, damage your brand, and occasion your failure to rise to image excellence. And you’ll be making appointments with the chiropractor due to “twisting camera on tripod to hover over product. “

The short answer is, product photography is unforgiving, so you are at risk (p > 0.97) of wasting lots of time and then finally realizing you have failed to differentiate your images and have failed to make them sell against the brutal competition. I’ve read the craft sites and you can infer what I think about that from the following; I am pointing you to a cheaper, faster path, as will be clear only at the end of this post.

Your tabletop studio approach works. I mean having an elevated, dedicated surface for your subjects. Consider raising the table on four $1.25 cinder blocks, to minimize your bending. That’s the good news.

You will run into issues you never dreamed of and not know what you are up against. Perhaps as simple as dynamic range (given your subjects), light falloff (given your subjects) and speed of workflow (given your subjects). You may even have to learn how to plan the scene – why you want shadow, why it should fall forward rather than backward, and what tools enable this image attribute -- and so forth.

The serious response to your question entails lots of reading, starting with Hunter; a D810, Nikon's flagship for product photography -- intended for use with tethered live view (adios, tiny articulated screen), manual focusing, and a tripod with a cross arm for live view shoot-down shots; a hooded 85mm perspective-control lens, for tilt; one or two ~5500K strobes (not speedlights or continuous lights) for starters; and a range of light modifiers of all kinds, including a 77mm Nikon CPL filter, fittings on your strobes for cross polarization (See Hunter, again.); monitor calibration device (for color); base ISO 64; and a high-end light meter for measuring incident light for stills. That is not the whole story but it covers a good chunk of it in a single sentence, including your color concern.

Let me call attention to the remarks of BebuLamar on the 100mm lens for products. I have 105mms, zooms, and macros of various lengths; going to an 85mm 1:2 PC lens as suggested above will avoid a lot of wasted motion and you will end up there anyway. Likewise, consider the valuable, illustrated remarks of E. L. Shapiro and sharpshooter, above.

The photography world is full of true incomplete advice. For example, you have heard here that any DSLR will do for web images since they all have excess resolution. What you might not have heard is that product photography benefits from exceptional dynamic range of the sort seen in, say, a D810.

A fine point: most see polarization management as a way to address reflections. However, it improves contrast, on behalf of your color issue, even if your subject has metal exposed on its surfaces.

Can’t remember if I mentioned Hunter, falloff, and polarization but since you have reflections…and light is the priority, a low-cost starting point is to read Hunter several times. You’ll know when you are done with Hunter if you have developed an integrated point of view about shadows, depth, and reflections for your own products. Then you will be able to conceive your scenes. From there, you have a sound basis for choosing the enabling tools.
Go to
Jul 10, 2016 16:58:24   #
Grand kids? Landscapes? An interesting comment about 35mm on full-frame (24mm on your D3100) is: "...fine for...landscapes, ..., groups, ... and good for flash, too, since its angle of coverage is inside the angle produced by most flash units." See p. 176f of Keppler, 1977.

For economy with quality, you can use the manual-focus Nikon (Nikkor and Nippon Kogaku) lenses from an earlier time marked Auto on eBay; see my post from about two days ago for detail.

Manual focusing is easy!!! to learn but the wider the lens' angle, the less need to focus as there is inherently a wide depth of field. Moderately wide, as in 35mm primes (24mm on the D3100) is less problematic than very wide. Bottom line: your jumping grand kids will be more readily captured well.

An Auto prime at 24mm f/2.8 goes for $90-$150. For auto focus, I recently bought a used 24mm AF D f/2.8 for $178.


spdmn54 wrote:
I currently own a Nikon d3100, I have the kit lens as well as a decent zoom. I am looking for advice on what wide angle lens would be best. I have looked into a Tamron 18-24. I like to shoot nature and landscapes, as well as the grandkids (when they sit still long enough). What would someone recommend, plus I don't want to spend alot. Want to keep my gas to the minimum.
Go to
Jul 7, 2016 19:39:41   #
Yesterday, a fellow hog remarked, "If you know what to look for, maybe you'll find a treasure!" Maybe find a treasure? How about finding a treasure for sure? Treasures have to be excellent and mispriced. In the last month, I've helped myself to as much lens mini-treasure as I can carry and now it is time to broadcast opportunity.

On eBay, the excellent (See below.) early "Auto" lenses are low-priced and plentiful. They are hard to sell largely because they cannot be used on, say full-frame Nikon cameras.

In the last month, I have bought a dozen Auto lenses, from 28mm to 300mm. I even have a few duplicates because I am finding them in ever-more gorgeous condition. Most, but not, for example, the 300mm H, are marked with the underappreciated "C" coating. This useful coating happens to indicate a non-initial version of an Auto lens, whatever its focal length. All these Autos are good to go on my D810.

Oh! Wait!! Use Autos on my D810? Who knew??

The Heart of the Story
So, here's the story. The long-since sold-out factory AI kit for these manual-focus lenses was installed in the 1970s on some fraction of the used Auto (non-AI = pre-AI = NAI) lenses. This kit made the Auto lenses roughly as usable as the later AI lenses, on AI cameras. These manual-focus lenses are available on eBay and not rare, yet. These "factory AI'd" lenses will work on today's Nikon DSLRs, if you know how to focus manually.

The factory AI'd lenses are worth more than unaltered Autos but seem to be priced the same as their counterparts that have remained unaltered to this day. The factory AI'd lenses are the treasure readily to be found. Sellers fail to point out this wonderful update 95% of the time, as if unaware of the factory AIs' greater utility. Amazingly, even sellers from Japan generally seem to be as brain-dead as the North American sellers when it comes to factory AI'd lenses, simply describing factory AI'd Auto lenses as non-AI.

How to Find
How to find these desirable items? Search on: Nikkor Auto -"auto focus"
This will find nearly all the Autos, that is the pre-AIs / non-AIs. Auto is the original term; the other two terms arose later, simultaneously.
An alternative search might append, "C" and, for example, "28mm".
Likewise, you could search: Nikkor Auto -"auto focus" 28mm H.C
A useful synonym on eBay for dot-C notation is dot-free notation, for example, some write H.C while others write HC.
The search above found seven 28mm H.C lenses while I was writing this, one of which had been factory AI'd, as I discovered only from the photos.

How to Recognize
You may ask how to recognize these more treasured Auto lenses -- with infallibility, at the expert level? After all, the searches above indifferently return any Auto lens for sale on eBay, including those not factory AI'd. There is a lot to this question and its answer but here are two simple ways.
1) Look for a row of white aperture numbers below the prong that sticks out near the rear of the lens.
2) Look for "nostrils" on the prong.
Invariably, if (1) is true, so will be (2) and vice-versa. So if either is true for a lens marked, Auto, both will be true and the lens can only be an instance that has been factory AI'd. Notice that later AI and AI-S Nikkors (Series E lenses are not Nikkors and are AI, not Auto.) pass this test but cannot be marked as Auto. This visual test is quite adequate to avoid buying an unaltered Auto lens. Likewise, this visual test is good enough to avoid less-desirable home-brewed Auto lenses -- see below. Seller descriptions on eBay often suffer from the seller's lack of familiarity with lenses.

Now, only for completeness fiends, here are some minor points: While this discussion has featured eBay, the discovery procedure above works for any lens for sale anywhere, as in garage sales, photo retailers, and pawn shops. You can be your own expert. Wherever you may look, some of the lenses for sale returned from your own on-line searches may be factory AI'd, as you'd wish to get maximum utility. Being your own expert is essential, as misinformation about photography is not especially rare, let alone confusion about lens mounts.

Notice that a seller may use the term, non-AI or pre-AI or NAI and similar descriptors without mentioning the definitive Auto marking. It follows that searches using many such synonyms will uncover more candidate lenses than a search using just "Auto". Similarly, there are lenses inadequately described that are factory AI'd with no cue (Auto, non-AI, etc.) in the description. Some of these are so naively photographed that there is no cue in the photo either. In this unusual case, there is nothing that even the expert lens architect can exploit.

Home-brew AI'd Auto Lenses
For lenses described on eBay as just "AI'd." In the latter case -- if the term has been used suitably -- the lens may have been manually reworked to conform to the AI physical spec but with zero contribution from Nikon. These lenses have been AI'd without using the factory kit. This rework to achieve rough AI compatibility requires milling (grinding) the lens's base.

As I have had extensive exposure to older items built with hand work, I am of the school that milling the base of Auto lenses disfigures them and is better avoided. After all, the non-AIs serve well on, say, the D3100, and increasingly, so I hear, on mirrorless cameras. In fact, a year ago I had boxed up a 50mm 1.4 Auto-S to be milled by an expert. I held off and months later I finally understood why: my respect for the integrity and authenticity of the lens. This lens is now in its rightful place, unaltered, on my D3100. For my D810, I now have a later, superior 50mm f/1.4 Auto-S.C, bought from someone that had asked Nikon to factory-AI it back in the 1970s.

Excellence Mis-priced
How excellent are these Autos, you ask? Here is an indicator: In 2016, a Nikon lens designer revealed that the respected 55mm Auto, the f/3.5 of 1966, as I recall, had been designed to approach near-theoretical resolution. The designer's point was that Nikkor lenses, even those from archaic times, generally are adequate, by virtue of Nikon culture, to service the most advanced DSLR sensors.

I have not attempted a full-bore discussion of the comparative weaknesses of the Autos like flare suppression, unavailable to Autos to the extent now feasible with computer-aided lens design. Similarly for coatings. On the other hand, I have I not touched on the unique strengths of Autos wrt today's lenses like kinds of glass and low element count.

The key to this whole treasure topic is mis-pricing. The causes are:
(a) Hubris, with its attendant deprecation of earlier lens designers' wit
(b) Limited awareness -- while the AI kits used long ago in factory refits are generally sold out, factory AI'd lenses are plentiful on eBay
(c) Mis-scoped understanding of Auto lenses as suitable for only a few interesting cameras
(d) Abhorrence of milling and disfiguring in Auto lenses reworked manually, after the factory AI option became scarce

To be clear, I am not equating Autos and newer lenses I own like the 105mm G and the 85mm PCE. I am saying that Autos still have their place. For example, for product photography in the studio, I am curious to compare the adequacy of Nikkors of the same focal length and of the same aperture profile, using lens instances introduced over the years.

This discussion will not be news to some hogs but I hope I have added enough background to enable any learning-oriented or creatively oriented or financially constrained hog to confidently pick up some of this long-spilt treasurrrre.
Go to
Jul 1, 2016 13:37:25   #
On this page, one pic has moon with reflection-ice-cap at bottom right; in the other, it is at bottom left; wth?
Go to
Jun 26, 2016 02:31:18   #
Hmmm... Here is a case study: I just looked at my 50mm f/1.2 lens and the cap is a LC-52 (52mm) cap, like my slower f/1.4s and 1.8s. I have the impression that designers have some leeway in choosing a front-lens diameter. For example, the 50mm 1.4G filter size is 58mm. I have read a bit of Nikkor lens history and noticed a case where Nikon issued a lens with a filter size, maybe 58mm, and redesigned it at the same speed to be 52mm, which is more convenient, among other advantages.

Calipers can help you measure filter size until you learn to eyeball it. Digital calipers are great. I recently used mine to measure distances on the mount of my screwless Nikkor H 50mm f/2. It turns out this mount has some peculiarities.

Nikkor and Series E lenses are the same size at the back. Use a LF-1 or newer LF-4 cap.

RRS wrote:
A 50mm lens that is a fast f/1.2 will need a larger lens cap then one that is an f/2.8. The rear cap will most likely be the same if they are the same brand. The speed of the lens plays a factor in size.
Go to
Jun 24, 2016 15:35:56   #
Although rarely remarked upon, the D810 is Nikon's flagship studio camera, designed with attention to use in the studio with a tripod and live view.
Sounds like you are largely other than studio. I was not expecting to have seen another commenter here mention the studio topic, but it happened. The D810 is good for more than studio, as others here have remarked.

Others have suggested FX lenses. For affordability, buy used and consider older MF primes, Nikon polar filters, and hoods where not built in, to increase contrast.

Bill Munny wrote:
I am looking at purchasing one of these cameras. I have a 35mm f1.8 prime, an 85mm f1.8 prime and a 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Dx lens (kit supplied). I want to go for full frame, really could care less about video and don't want any suggestions that compare cost. I would like to know the real differences comparing these two cameras. I am not new to digital, used to sell to Hallmark, American Card, and Backpacker Mag but with film using a Nikon N90s and Velvia or Provia. Now I am back to doing lots of photography (because I am retired) with all subject matters but especially the Rocky Mountains since I live there, so any unique qualities in comparison would be very appreciated. Thanks for any help possible.
I am looking at purchasing one of these cameras. ... (show quote)
Go to
Jun 24, 2016 15:22:03   #
About the criticism of the two kinds of memory cards in the D810:
Sb designed as a field-replaceable module with variants for 2 of each type.
I consider it a design defect that I can easily live with.
Go to
Jun 20, 2016 15:06:27   #
You have highly valuable things to say about the topics you mention. Maybe you could open a new topic -- comparing the various 105s from the non-AI variants to the G. Or, the Leitz idea and your 60mm experience (and why not the 55mm variants).

wj cody wrote:
as a nikon user (film) i can firmly state that Nikon has been stating that for at least 70 years. i've used lots of their 105s and they are very nice. but the best portrait lens i've found to be the nikkor 60mm f2.8 macro lens - i think it comes closest (on a 35mm or full frame digital imaging device) to e leitz' golden mean.
Go to
Jun 20, 2016 13:07:23   #
Nikon has written that 105mm is the ideal for portraits. This statement is about distortion and angle of view, not bokeh, etc.

Your 70-200 on a Canon crop-sensor camera or on a full-frame lets you approach Nikon's decades of wisdom, if you wish and you'd have lots of wiggle room to experiment with perspective and angle of view near 85mm and 135mm. Maybe that is a great learning tool. There are zoom issues such as the constancy of your effective aperture across focal lengths (parfocal, varifocal), and the larger number of lens elements compared to a fixed lens.

kevin519 wrote:
So I was thinkin this mornin, most will agree for portraits an 85mm is best, some will say other lens', but for the most part an 85, but what about the crop vs FF body? So what if you use a 50mm, with a crop of 1.6 that puts you at 80mm right, and the 85 at 136, so now what? So is it the mm, or the f/???, or is it in the way the 85mm is built, I just dont know. I have a fast 50L lens, and a 2.8 70-200 which can hit that 135mm spot easy, so why would I buy a 85mm?
Go to
Jun 19, 2016 19:32:01   #
Yep. So we don't need grant-seeking observatories to measure the difference.

Observatories unnecessarily introduce uncontrolled variables: different people measuring at each observatory, altitude of measurements is arbitrary and hard to reproduce w/o measurement error, need for a foil like ice bubbles but measuring ice bubbles and bulk air is inherently different.

This headline is lazy mischief, not science, because the claim is not consistent, correct, or complete.

Worse, there are any number of problematic presuppositions. For starters:
--Higher levels of CO2 are worse than lower levels -- but, for example, higher levels promote plant growth
--CO2 is now out of whack -- but would not CO2 have also been out of whack 4M years ago, before humans evolved and in either case it could not be natural and OK?
--CO2 increases appreciably affect climate -- do all agree there is an effect and is the effect agreed to be bad?
--Our science betters know what they are doing and we should be taxed so scientists can intervene to save us
--It is ok for observatories to collude to seem to confirm modeled projections that do not reflect observations
--Every observatory wished to participate and no observatory was afraid to demur

Keldon wrote:
It's possible to measure the carbon dioxide content in ancient air bubbles trapped in the Antarctic and Greenland icefields.
Go to
Jun 19, 2016 18:53:44   #
I'm not a turtle shooter but you likely have a mix of diffuse reflection, direct reflection (mirror-like), and polarized reflection (glare). Approaches to try, including a couple for the light-hearted photographer:
--Do polar filtering of the light source or of the light entering the lens or both ("Light, Science and Magic")
--Put a large diffuser or two between the sun and the turtle, near the turtle
--Use bounce light as key, to diffuse the untoward reflection
--Place the key light so the direct reflection’s angles of reflectance do not return to the camera (Fig. 3.7 of “Light…”) – or wait for the turtle and/or sun to move in a way that satisfies a required angles
--Spray on some diffuser (like Angelus Paint Duller) -- unless your testudine is alive
--Use a larger light source
--Shroud the lens with the manufacturer's hood
--Accept some glare from the carapace as useful information for the viewer

Another possibility, but I am unsure, is to use a longer lens.

sakitson wrote:
Submission by mubashm reminded me of glare problem I encounter with turtles. On the rare occasion I get close enough to one, does anyone have experience with using an opaque screen to cut the glare and bring out patterning on turtle shells? Or any other ideas? Thanks.
Go to
Jun 7, 2016 00:31:12   #
About this: " not all snakes are bad and most will leave you alone if not molested"

Playing in a Texas creek at age 10, I paddled my inner-tube ashore and grabbed some tall grass. This revealed a coiled water moccasin sunning itself. The serpent slithered into the water beside me -- impossible to see it.

That snake was gracious enough not to bite me. I think snakes know they must share their domain. I'll leave it at that.

sr71 wrote:
Mate you kill a BLUE INDIGO you just might answer to a higher calling, not all snakes are bad and most will leave you alone if not molested.....
Go to
Jun 4, 2016 19:07:30   #
Article by unnamed author sounds like it was written by a child or a high-school cheerleader, except more naive. An example of the hype phase of "crossing the chasm."

Failure of the article 1: making it sound like it will be in production for everything tomorrow morning. Technology transfer normally begins in a niche and gradually encroaches, over a decade, if not 2-3 and originators fail to see all implications. For example, the article did not say much about optical errors such as diffraction, which could be inherent in the approach. These will have to be dealt with.

Failure of the article 2: the article's low-to-zero understanding of materials and lenses, that is, of everything covered. For example, the no-scattering claim for titanium dioxide. Its refractive index depends on the deposition process and it can be hugely scattering.

Please understand, I am commenting on the article, not the research.

To illustrate the multi-decade remark I have made above, I have a patent (

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,340,730.PN.&OS=PN/7,340,730&RS=PN/7,340,730 .

) -- I wrote this up in 2001 and built it in 2002 before mobile went viral and of course we had not foreseen that. This patent has been cited in many patents issued up to the present, as in Patent US20120159308 - Customization of Mobile Applications ... from 2012) and I am deriving a patent portfolio inspired by the 2002 proof of concept. Significant impact is still at least five years away. All kinds of stuff gets in the way of development, not to mention production. There's your two decades, easily.

In short, keep your SLR lenses.
Go to
Jun 4, 2016 15:48:39   #
The light is alive; the texture is palpable.
Light patterns on window casements are enchanted.

I see a (photography) book cover.

That said, and I'm no expert on CA, take a look at your chromatic aberration, everywhere.

Would be interesting to shoot this scene with different cameras, various SLR lenses, and different photo-editing products.

Thanks for sharing.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 27 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.