MC-30A; check that in your D810 manual.
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/07/22/the-new-nikon-mc-30a-remote-trigger-vs-the-old-mc-30-version.aspx/ Wrt your polarizer buying, be sure they are circular; it is too easy to wind up with linear. As Nikon equipment is designed as a system, I am replacing my B+W Nano and other CPLs of various sizes (77mm, 62mm, 58mm, and numerous 52mm) with Nikon CPLs. Come to think of it, I'm done. This move is speculative on my part but at least I know Nikon CPLs are advertised as flat as flat can be, which implies others might not be. It's easy to buy Nikon CPLs used. My used CPLs have been easy to find in the original box and like new.
And as for B+W top-drawer filters, be careful. Their nano coat seems to me to be about repelling liquid and smudges rather than about shaping light in the manner of top Nikon lenses.
A scene that is still little-shot is from the rim of Ngorongoro crater to the huge crater floor, if you cruising around Kenya/Tanzania.
Unthinkably large numbers of grazing animals are more-or-less trapped on the crater floor, as are the creatures in the large pond.
The day I was there, there was a grass fire. The wildebeest huddled and then stampeded; it took a half hour for them to pass me, on the floor.
So, long lens, maybe an extender.
Get insurance on equipment or better, rent.
I have 3 non-AI lenses: a 50mm f/2 H, a 50mm f/1.4 S, and a 135mm f/3.5 Q.
The f/2 does not seat in my D3100 or in my N6006, as it should.
That is the problem.
The f/1.4 and f/3.5 seat in my D3100, and in my N6006, as they should.
So, the f/2 lens almost seats but actually it does not.
The edge of each camera body's metal mount is quite visible from the side with the f/2 but is largely covered with the f/1.4 and the f/3.5.
The barrels of the f/1.4 and f/3.5 lenses get closer to the camera body than does the f/2.
Using a caliper, I measure the inner diameter of the f/2 lens barrel at the metal mount.
This metric is smaller in diameter than the diameters of the other two lenses.
Most of the f/2 lenses on eBay have metal mounts with five screws, like my f/1.4 and f/3.5.
My f/2, like a couple of others on eBay has a mount designed without visible screws.
Is the f/2 issue normal and expected? Fixable?
TiA for your expertise.
Very useful remarks. Esp. the gel thing.
Thanks.
Seemingly, nobody ever says if some of the lights can be continuous, for example, when the key and fill are strobes.
Apaflo wrote:
I had not noticed the list of lenses in your signature. You don't need an 85mm prime. That's a waste of money at this point.
Either the 28-70mm f/2.8 or the 70-200mm f/2.8 will serve your needs, depending on focus distance and the framing you want.
At least two of us have hinted fairly heavily that lights would be a better way to fuss with gear acquisition. With two speedlights (and the SB800 is a good one) you have a start.
Extra lights are cheap if you want to go easy on the pocket book. The results are just as good as with better equipment. The advantage is easy of use, not better images.
You need two main lights, one powerful light that can deal with a softbox. Then you need a fill light, that need not be as powerful. Another pair that also need not be much of anything at all are used for a hair light and one to light the background. The SB800 is good for the main light, and the others can be older used manual lights with optical triggers. Vivitar 283 and 285 models are common, and along with Nikon SB24 are under $50. SB28 and SB26 models are under $100. Brand new models from various Chinese distributors are running everywhere from $40 on up.
So extra flash units is not the problem, it's outfitting them with a light stand and whatever kind of light modifiers are reasonable... the hair light needs a really tall stand and some kind of a snoot and grid. The side lights need medium height stands and barn doors. The main lights might be a softbox on one and a large beauty dish on the other, and they need fairly tall light stands. The background light can use a very short stand and needs something to hold color gels.
The total cost is probably about the same or less than a good 85mm f/1.4, but the effect on your photography would be huge. (You will have a very hard time, shooting studio portraits, seeing a difference between shooting with an 85mm f/1.4 and that 70-200mm f/2.8 set to 85mm.)
I had not noticed the list of lenses in your signa... (
show quote)
How-to
-Ingredients: Spray-on glue and a roll of black paper
-Task: Scissors-trim the excess black paper
-Result: Black on one side; white on the other
You can further soften light from a softbox, say, to manage highlights. With a large foam core panel, cut out the middle -- leaving enough for a frame to hold translucent material or paper. Place panel nearer or further, to taste.
Basil wrote:
Don't believe I've seen any that is black on one side. Where do you get it?
My last three new topics disappeared; comments appear reliably. Mystery not solved.
WessoJPEG wrote:
That was me you should see the one of the 34 Ford Coupe. But I can't post photos on this new Forum. Must have shut me out.
About this: "But in the vertical position doesn't shift act like tilt?" Leitz is correct.
What does shift do?
Shift maintains the perspective of the x space (horizontal) by exposing more of the radius of a larger lens element than is needed for a lens that does not need to shift.
The earliest PC Nikkor (35mm f/3.5) of 1962 can shift laterally across three positions. 360-degree lens rotation is another maneuver and this takes you out of x space but not into z space (depth). There is a 1980 f/2.8 model. The kindred PC Nikkor (28mm f/3.5) of 1980 is also second-generation. I'm not sure what the mount is for these two lenses but the lens screw became black for both, which is handy for buying the later (optically superior) models from pictures. None of the lenses of this era tilt.
What does tilt do?
Tilt reorients the in-focus area (a rectangular cuboid, for DSLRs) in z space. Of course, as a hog mentioned in this thread, you can rotate your non-PC and non-PC cameras 90 degrees and get something akin to a stitched-together set of shifts.
The PC and PC-E Nikkors came later, with modern mounts. These lenses' mounts can rotate. The lenses can tilt or shift as needed. They can tilt and shift at the same time.
The 1962 lens pioneered shift for DSLRs, so it is collectible. Accordingly, it is not clear to me that this lens should be altered.
Bobspez wrote:
Leitz,
Your comment raised some interesting questions for me.
First, you are right in that the PC Nikkor 3.5 is shift only, not tilt shift. But in the vertical position doesn't shift act like tilt? What does tilt provide in the vertical position that shift does not?
Second, In regard to AI-ing the lens. I took a look at the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 that I AI-ed and realized that the grinding was done to make about 1/4 of the black metal collar protruding from the silver metal mounting collar with the 3 mounting flanges, flush with the silver metal mounting collar. That part of the black metal collar prevented the lens from mounting all the way to the click on my D7000. Looking at the PC Nikkor 3.5 there is no protruding black collar, just the silver metal mounting collar with the 3 mounting collar. There is nothing to grind. I am at a loss to see what is preventing the lens from mounting on the D7000 all the way to the click. It only mounts about half way then can't turn further, just like the 50mm 1.4 did before I AI-ed it.
Thrird, I don't understand what the aperture ring being at the front of the lens barrel has to do with monting the lens.
I would appreciate any clarification from you or any other posters. The lens performs well on my D3100 but I hoped to be able to use
it on the D7000 as well.
If there is any interet in this specific 3.5 PC Nikkor lens by the OP or others I could perform a pano test on a large stand of woods behind my yard. My original interest in the lens was getting panos with correct vertical perspective with the ability to eliminate most of the foregroud and get more sky, but haven't had a chance to try it yet.
Leitz, br br Your comment raised some interesting... (
show quote)
This point of view is much more accurate, if rarely voiced, than the anti-plastic remarks so often tossed out so lightheartedly by so many.
Readers, think about it: How many Series E lenses have you seen on eBay with damaged plastic barrels? When Nikon first used plastic, on the EM and Series E, Nikon set up a QA organization tasked to ensure parity in quality to metal.
Mounts have different issues; Series E mounts are metal.
Drivers for plastic at Nikon, initially, were (1) manufacturing cost for consumerization and (2) lighter weight, for women and sub-adults.
And let's save the topic of plastic in pro-level aspherical lens elements for another day.
rook2c4 wrote:
Not all plastics are equal. The plastic the lens manufacturers use isn't the same stuff you find in toys and toothbrushes. It doesn't warp, break or shatter easily at all. Even bakelite, the plastic camera manufacturers commonly used many decades ago for camera bodies, has over time proven to be a very durable, long-lasting material; and the plastic they use now on lenses is far more stronger and durable than bakelite ever was. It would take some serious abuse to damage it... like throwing your lens off a cliff or from a bridge overpass.
Not all plastics are equal. The plastic the lens m... (
show quote)
Valuable info, not widely known: "no amount of grinding will convert it to AI."
Leitz wrote:
The PC-Nikkor 35 f/3.5 does not tilt. It has a preset diaphragm, the aperture ring is on the front of the lens and no amount of grinding will convert it to AI.
A compelling image as composed in landscape format.
The child has involuntarily assumed a pose natural to the age group but foreign to adults.
Your B&W issue: B&W works but is there opportunity in a color version as well?
Would the incompatible colors and patterns of the clothing would be interesting in color?
Would the hair color play well with the others?
This is maybe the most understandable and most usable of all the comments here and mercifully short. I mention this because Paul, with his invention, faces a problem, which is writing his elevator speech. As soon as somebody says the Scheim in Scheimpflug, the eyes will go blank.
The point for Paul is that wherever you look on the web, including Nikon's site, the discussions of tilt and shift are too terse to grab hold of. He could consider forming a small, loose community of photogs, versed and naive wrt t/s, to ensure clarity.
Pablo8 wrote:
****************************************************************************************
Not quite right in your thinking about the tilt of the lens correcting converging verticals. That is done by shift movement of the lens upwards, keeping the lens and (film) sensor, parallel to the subject. Tilt will give more control of the depth of field to a larger, or lesser degree, than fixed optics.
I've been looking at Nikon's 45mm PC-E and 24mm during the last two weeks. WRT your landscape question, I have found out things I did not know, even as an owner of Nikon's 85mm tilt-shift. Here are some indicators you are right about using a PC lens for the shots you have in mind.
A seller of a 45mm told me the perspective is more realistic for a landscape pano stitched with shifted shots on the 45mm PC-E than had the scene been done on a wider lens -- we had been discussing the 24mm PC-E from Nikon. His point was that using a wide lens for landscapes introduces perspective issues while the normal lens with shift is a cure for that.
This seller's remark led me to look at the art on my walls, mostly California impressionists from the depression era. These artists mostly did landscapes. I was astonished to see that not one of the ten or so was wide in the manner of a photo panorama. One was square. The most valuable one was portrait! What do photographers know about composition that painters, after hundreds of years with success in perspective, do not??
Next, I saw a remark from Nikon that the 45mm t/s is good for nature. Then I realized that there is a larger infinity of good nature shots one can compose with a normal lens like the 45mm t/s (1:2 reproduction ratio) than with a wider lens.
For your kind of work you may want a circular polarizing lens. I finally found a (no longer made) Nikon CPL, called PL2; should fit either the 85mm or 45mm t/s. Nikon has a system point of view, which I try to follow.
Nikon made shift lenses at 35mm and 28mm, still for sale used, but no longer made. They may be a fit for much of your work, if not all. The ones with the black knob are superior to the earlier ones. I decided against getting these because they do not tilt.
Thanks, rw.
Your link shows correlation between Dietz, Toyo Optics, and Makinon.
This link gives more on obscure Toyo, mentioned in your link:
http://forum.mflenses.com/toyo-makinon-t35353,highlight,%2Btoyo.html
Toyo made a 75-200, not mentioned in these links.
So here we see a less-than edifying spectacle: hogs who so cleverly circumvent and deprecate Nikons recommended (
https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/322 ) use of its own Nikon products, as in batteries.
Buying non-compliant camera products is not in your global interest, for obvious reasons. Nor is this worst practice in your personal interest:
(1) You cannot know if a problem is due to non-adherence of a third party to Nikon quality standards; see case study, below
(2) You are increasing the risk of untoward substances migrating into your household
I have experience with anti-counterfeiting mechanisms for contract manufacturing that protect printers from third-party ink. So, I have long wondered why Nikon has not protected itself from third-party [sic] batteries and lenses, as the thwarting technology -- asynchronous encryption -- and its financial benefits are long-since established.
Case study, happening now: I have only Nikon batteries on two Nikon cameras. And I have a new problem: battery drains slowly when camera is off. Problem happens with both D810 batteries and only on my D810, so I know to suspect this camera, not the batteries. If Id had third-party batteries, I could not form this conclusion and act on it.
In short, choose any and all genuine recommended third parties/knockoffs -- LoL.
Hint for Nikon: Think chain of custody for components. It is in your future.