Send it to ACS in Woodland Hills, they'll let you know the cost of repair. You can find them around for $300 so if it's more than $150 it's probably a write off.
|
|
05-09-2012, 09:36 PM
Send it to ACS in Woodland Hills, they'll let you know the cost of repair. You can find them around for $300 so if it's more than $150 it's probably a write off.
05-09-2012, 10:29 PM
I checked out the Eastern Enterprises web site... do you send them YOUR own glass, or do they sell converted lenses... it's unclear. Is there a US Distributor, or only Asia Pacific?
05-09-2012, 10:32 PM
http://reduser.net/forum/showthread....-DC&highlight=Originally Posted by BRANDON JAMESON
05-10-2012, 01:04 AM
I have been in contact with Eastern Enterprises regarding rehousing lenses. We have been using them for 3D work here in pairs, they matched well and we had no matching issues from the sets we had available to us. Focal lengths used were Nikkor 15mm, 24mm and 35mm, There is an 85 which has not been used for 3D as its too long but still a superb lens. The conversion work is absolutely the best Ive seen. Focus marks are exact as you would expect. Silky smooth movement and lenses operate as Cine lenses for rotation. Only the 24mm had breathing we thought was more than hoped for but Id guess would have resulted from the original glass and optical design. Iris was near circular. As said the work is top rate.
I don't know if you can send your own glass, I don't see why not. If you mail the company they can advise. Im not aware of a US dealer I think the work is mostly bespoke.
05-10-2012, 01:58 AM
Some interesting opinions here. I note the same obsession (unnecessary IMO) with wide apertures here as I do on photography forums. Now, I'm not calling anyone 'wrong' but I don't see the point. You really want to pay three times as much for an 85/1.4 over an 85/1.8? For me, never.
So some of you like the 105/1.8. I have that lens and it's soft and exhibits low contrast wide-open. Not bad if you like the look, which I kind of do I suppose. But why bother with it when you have the 105/2.5?
And the 135/2.0? Well, from what I've seen it's not so great wide-open. Check it: a comparison of the 135/2.0 on DX versus the 200/2.0 on FX:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00YaiT
Scroll down to Apr 19, 2011; 10:17 a.m. to see the results. If you want a real bargain, perhaps a 135/2.8 might be just as good but cheaper. I don't know.
Something that isn't mentioned here: DISTORTION. Martin Widerberg hinted at it on page 3: "The 28 2.8 ais, with that one you actually get straight walls in your pictures." He could be right, I don't know, but most lens tests I see make me wonder why primes are made in the first place. Perhaps distortion is tolerable in stills (actually not really but anyway) but definitely not in movies. It's one reason why I'm just not impressed with some ZF lenses. The 18/3.5 should not have any distortion and yet it does.
But here's something: have a look at the Samyang 14/2.8, here tested on a Canon:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...8eosff?start=1
Yes it has obvious light fall-off, but that's on a 5DII. On the S35 sensor, you'd probably get somewhat less. And yes, it has distortion, but correctable distortion. But check the CA and resolution performance. Quite amazing. Is it worth it? When I get a RED camera I'll let you know. :-) In the meantime, I've enjoyed reading this thread!
05-10-2012, 02:36 AM
The 105/2.5 is a spectacular lens in its own right. I started shooting with one a bit ago, and was amazed at how sharp an image came out of something my grandparents bought in the 70's. The bokeh looks better than any of the newer D and G lenses I have to boot.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
