Charliemouse

21 hours ago, NGMD said:

A bit of trade and cash to get my first 5. 

Bad habit.  🤣

57 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

Thank you both, I know that he has had Sigma in the past and was really pleased with the quality.

His allegiance with Canon sprang from his A1 with motor drive decades ago!!

I learned photography with a Canon AE-1, back in medieval times.  A motor drive would have been a dream.  😁

1 minute ago, Aldebaran said:

 

Thank you @Charliemouse, we felt the same regarding replacement, it would be going down the same road.

Thanks for the link, the pre-owned II would be a better bet 🖖

Do consider third party lenses, such as Sigma and Tamron. They are significantly better value and sometimes even exceed Canon for image quality and features.

3 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

MPB is the best known in UK.

e.g.  Used Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM | MPB

If you do decide to replace it, I honestly wouldn't recommend getting the same lens, as it will probably just have the same problem in a few years time (if not sooner).

Just to back that up, I looked at several 28-70s on MPB, and they all said "some moisture inside", which I suspect is really the glue issue I described.  It's a common problem sadly, that only appears about 10-15 years after the lens was made.

3 minutes ago, Petra said:

Have a Google, can’t remember the name of the site, however there is one or two good places for getting quality used camera kit at reasonable prices🤔

MPB is the best known in UK.

e.g.  Used Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM | MPB

If you do decide to replace it, I honestly wouldn't recommend getting the same lens, as it will probably just have the same problem in a few years time (if not sooner).

1 hour ago, Aldebaran said:

Thank you - that is a real b*****d 😑

Poor old Mr A, it was his favourite lens and it cost a fortune. 

But, thank you for your help, we guessed it was something terminal because it had been kept in proper conditions.

I think I see that you have mentioned me on the NBS, how nice - I shall see you there later🥰

Yeah, it's a good lens, and was a great lens when it came out.  You can get that exact model second hand for around £400 I noticed.  But the equivalent to that as a modern Canon lens is something like £2000.

If you want to replace it with something similar, let me know and I can recommend third party lenses that will be a lot cheaper.

21 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

We have Canon equipment - one of the prime lenses an EF 28-70 2.8 L Zoom seems to have developed a haze on the photos.

The lens has been stored properly at room temperature along with all the other lenses, when it was last used a couple of years ago it was fine, but it has developed this haze, it looks like the photos has been taken on a slightly misty day. There is no fungus.

We have put it in the airing cupboard and in the sunshine, but it hasn’t improved.

Any ideas, or can the misting be removed with photoshop or similar?

Thank you chaps.

Hi.  Sorry, it's been a busy day.

I probably have bad news for you.  Firstly, you should get it checked by a proper camera shop anyway.  But be prepared.

Possible causes of hazing:

1. The 28-70 didn't have proper weather sealing, so it might be moisture trapped inside the lens.  Doesn't sound like that though, by your description of how it has been stored.
2. The oil on the helicoid could have evaporated and deposited on the inside of the lens.  Seems unlikely, but would still require dismantling and an expensive clean.
3. (Most likely) Unfortunately, the 28-70 has a notorious problem.  There is a compound element inside (two separate pieces of glass glued together to form a single 'lens').  The glue they used denatures over time, and becomes hazy.

Basically, if the latter has happened, and I suspect that is exactly the case, it is probably not financially viable to repair the lens, as the work required and/or spare parts, would be very expensive.

Best case, it's going to be £200-300 service.  Worst case, it's written off after £50-100 investigation.

Sorry.

When will the RM make something this good again?  I present the glorious

1997 Gold £2

On 16/01/2024 at 16:25, ZRPMs said:

Well I have my new camera. A Canon EOS 2000D. Got 3 lenses a Canon EF 75 - 300, a Canon EFS 18 -55 and a Sigma 28 - 200 (just found out this is most likely faulty). Not having any experience with anything to do with photography other than my phone, I'm finding it quite daunting navigating all the buttons and menu's. @Charliemouse many thanks for your help. Of all your suggestions, believe it or not. The tripod has been the most useful bit of kit I've bought for the camera. Far more than I first thought it would be.

 

Here's a few of the pics taken today. Not great by a long shot but they do show up all the wear and issues with these old guineas. With the naked eye they look ok but close up like this they certainly show their age. However, if at 351 I looked as good as the Charles II guinea I won't be doing so bad.

Struggling for time a bit at the moment but hope to show some more pictures of some of the collection as I get to grips with the camera.

 

Great pics.  Better than 95% of what I see online.  Sharp.  Fills the frame.  Good colour.

Tripod is so important!  Sounds like the most boring thing in the world (probably is), but getting the right pod just makes everything else work.

On 16/01/2024 at 16:39, ZRPMs said:

Just some old tokens I got off Ali Express. What do you think of my camera setup?

 This is mine here. The black one is the daughters.

Wipe clean.  Very practical.

4 hours ago, Petra said:

RAM stuff is much better than Perth mint🤔😮😮 …. there…. I said it🤔😮😁

Shhh!  You want to start a war?

5 hours ago, Gordy said:

Finally......

Agreed!  It's a nice design.

The RAM web site appears to be in a very broken state.

I guess we wait before they turn up here.

19 hours ago, James32 said:

Last sovereign 1965 received today ( actually a couple days ago, but let's pretend it's today )for the set of ten Gillick years.

Not received today on the TIR thread?  Chris!!!!   🤣

Wen flip?

8 hours ago, NGMD said:

The reverse is so much better. Sharp edges, uniform finish. Details are important.

Agreed. It's a belter.

But a slightly unfair comparison being a much larger coin.  I do have the set, so will look at a smaller one.

10 hours ago, Petra said:

Can you put up a decent ordinary picture of a coin and then your detailed one so we can compare..🤔🤔

Here are wider images of the maple and roo for context.

12 minutes ago, NGMD said:

Love to see like modern Germania/Perth proofs or anything you have under the mattress to see alternative modern processes under high magnification.

Here's a couple:

2014 1oz Reverse Proof Maple

2014 1/4oz Proof Kangaroo

33 minutes ago, iacabu said:

I do love seeing these extreme close ups, great thread.

What magnification are these taken at? 

Difficult to be precise.  The closest this lens focuses is about 12mm, which gives a stated magnification of 700x.  I take these figures with a bit of a pinch of salt though, and it obviously depends what monitor you view it on.

A more useful measure is what distance the image covers on the subject.  The image of George's head is about 1.5mm x 1mm.

49 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Any chance of doing a Gillick and some earlier Victoria though George V to see how things have gone down hill 

Here's a couple of Gillicks.  First year and last year.  Sadly, only bullion.

1958 Bullion Full Sovereign

1968 Bullion Full Sovereign

Amazingly, I think there is more definition in these faces than in the 2015 proof above.  Of course the finish is not as good with bullion, but it makes you wonder.

35 minutes ago, NGMD said:

Do you have any close up shots of alternatives mints? Be good to see their process on magnified details.

Which do you mean?  The previous two were Perth and Canada.  They are the only proof coins I have with the Pistrucci design, to compare George's head like with like.

I am happy to photograph anything I've got with the microscope, but I don't have proofs going further back than the 1980's.

2 minutes ago, James32 said:

Die has been laser etched? Or a dwarf with a teeny weeny hammer did it.

It's always the leprechauns.  🤣

1 hour ago, DdraigAur said:

Very interesting topic. Would those neat striations on the Canadian coin indicate the die was somehow CNC/machine finished?

I have no idea.  Hopefully someone with more coin minting knowledge can answer.

In the meantime, here are some more pics.  Including some missing 'frosting'.

For scale, those digits are approximately 1.5mm tall.  That makes the 'striations' about 50 microns wide.

2 minutes ago, ZRPMs said:

It makes you wonder if the dies are being produced with less quality as part of an overall cost cutting exercise or are we loosing a craft to mechanism. You'd think with todays tech you could almost increase the quality of the detail. Look at the Great Engravers series. The originals were made with far better detail. 

It's a valid point.  I do not have any old proof sovereigns, so I cannot go further back.

But I can compare modern proof coins from other mints, even if it isn't like-for-like.

1 hour ago, ZRPMs said:

And that's progress right there for you. I think the detail gets better the further back you go.

Agreed.  The frosting gets more 'frosty' as time moves forward (and more holes), but the definition of the face and detail gets worse.

What is especially noticeable is that, with the 1984, I could not keep the whole face in focus because the relief was so much higher.  The later coins, especially the 2015, are flatter and easily focused.