godfrey Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 <center> <img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW2/large/37c.jpg"><br> <i>Bride, Isle of Man<br> ©2002 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br> Hasselblad 903SWC, Kodak TMax 100, HC-110 1:31 7min@72F<br> </i></center><br> The Hasselblad SWC, all models, is one of my favorite cameras. I'd wanted one for many years and obtained one in 2002. I used it for about a year: It made wonderful photographs, the field of view is near perfect for my ultrawide needs, and the big negative combined with that wonderful lens is amazing. <br><br> Only reason for selling it was to fund more equipment that I use more frequently/ productively: my work has gone to digital capture in its entirety now. The Pentax DS with 14mm lens returns a similar field of view and not-quite-but-comparable image quality now. <br><br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Ultrawides are just another tool in the toolbox. There are times one cannot do without them, especially in really close quarters ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 One of the things I find with the Heliar is that it really creates deeply saturated blue skies. Here's a shot where the blue skies get so dark they are almost black ... but it isn't vignetting ... the lower corners are perfectly clean, and it was shot in bright sunlight at maybe f16.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 This isn't a pretty shot, but it was a challenging exposure, as I wanted the exterior to expose well, while maintaining detail in the shadowy interior. The Heliar was able to capture the interior of the bridge, while showing detail outside, along the two banks of the Thames ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 I wouldn't say that the sky darkening is not from vignetting. I think it's a combination of vignetting plus the tendency of the sky to darken with increasing altitude. There is some vignetting in the lower areas, just not as obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 The Heliar 15 has a lot of falloff (about 1.5 stops from center to corner) but doesn't vignette from my experience. Vignetting is caused by some component of the lens falling within the field of view, causing a shadow. Falloff comes from the fact that the lens' nodal point is very close to the film plane and the difference between the distance from nodal point to center vs nodal point to corner is relatively large. Most wide-angle lenses with a short nodal distance show falloff like this and it is exaggerated as the lens becomes shorter in focal length. The Heliar 15 is an inverted telephoto design, which helps ameliorate it somewhat, but it's not as strong an inverse telephoto as a similar focal length lens designed for an SLR, which would pull the nodal point further from the film plane and generally even the center to corner falloff a good deal. The Zeiss Hologon 16 shipped with a custom graduated ND filter with 2 stops center density to counter this fall off issue. Without it, it has almost 2 stops of falloff to the corners because it is NOT an inverted telephoto design. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Godfrey, your distinction between vignetting and fall-off is an important one. I don't doubt that the Heliar exhibits fall-off, and at its widest aperture, it may even be enough to look like vignetting. My understanding is that vignetting on any lens, if it occurs, is most likely and most pronounced wide-open, and this is probably because the lens is trying to gulp in light rays from the full circumference of the barrel and hence it's more likely that the barrel construction will occlude the corners. At f16, I'm sure there is some fall-off, but vignetting in the form of physical occlusion doesn't seem likely. Here's another shot where I think the tone of the corners is nice and even. At f16, I don't see physical vignetting, nor do I see significant fall-off.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Incidentally, and quite O/T, I used a Minolta Spotmeter F to meter off the armoured shield of the Bofors, with the intention that that area come out neutral grey. Shot in color, desaturated to B&W, and it turned out pretty well. The more I try it, the more I think I am just going to standardize on Superia 400 and 100 for both color and black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_westbrook Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Falloff is also a type of vignetting (the type that Godfrey is referring to is called mechanical vignetting). See http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/vignetting.html for a good intro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Tom, that link is a great inro. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 Great page. Although I think the distinction between "optical/artificial vignetting" and "natural vignetting" is a bit of semantics, to some degree. Fred, I can certainly see the Heliar's known 1.5 stops of light falloff in that shot. Happily, color neg is very tolerant of exposure error and I think it actually helps in this instance. With a 15mm lens, f/16 is well beyond the point where diffraction begins to intrude seriously on resolution. Since I normally make 11x17 to 13x19 sized prints, I most normally used my Heliar 15 at f/5.6-f/8 (diffraction begins to intrude between f/6.3 and f/7.1). Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 There is fall-off, just not enough to mind. It was a bright sunny day, so f16 was necessary ... under normal circumstances, I tend to use the Heliar at 5.6-8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted September 19, 2005 Author Share Posted September 19, 2005 My inside shots are all wide open at f/4.5 and outdoors during the day in the 5.6 to 8 range. Slow shutter speeds are likely to have a bigger effect on sharpness in low light than diffraction will outdoors. As for light fall-off, I usually edge burn my B&W prints anyway but with the 15 sometimes I do the opposite and "edge-dodge". Sometime soon I'm going to try some color with the 15, first time in the 3 or 4 years that I've had the lens! CVS Pharmacy has 24 exp. Fuji 200 on sale for $6.99 in the 5 pack, and I had a CVS coupon for $2.50 off on a $20 purchase so I bought 15 rolls yesterday. To sweeten the deal each box has a $1.00 of coupon for the next Fuji multi-pack purchase. I can't bulk load B&W that cheaply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johns1 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I had the Heliar and yes, it is a fun lens. But for me it was too slow @ f/4.5. I can't imagine using a lens with a maximum opening of f/8! I sold the Heliar and used the cash to buy my 50mm Nokton which is now my fastest lens. [My widest now is the 21mm Elmarit (non-ASPH) which suits me just fine.] If I had the $$ to pay for 120/220 media, pro lab processing fees and a larger scanner, I agree with Godfrey: the Hassy SWC with its 38mm Biogon is a jewel of a wide angle camera and in a class by itself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 "Slow shutter speeds are likely to have a bigger effect on sharpness in low light than diffraction will outdoors." Well said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 <i>.."Slow shutter speeds are likely to have a bigger effect on sharpness in low light than diffraction will outdoors." Well said!" ..</i> <br><br> Did someone say something about using f/16 in low light? In low light, most sensible photographers will use the Heliar wide open or, at most, stopped down one stop. <br><br> Most sensible photographers will also use a tripod for low light work with an f/4.5 lens, or very high speed film. Very high speed film will have a greater effect on sharpness than diffraction as well. <br><br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Fuji's really blowing out their color film at low prices, Al. I hope it isn't the fire sale, but I see the same in London as well. I'm starting to experiment a lot more with using color print film for both color and black and white. The fact that Superia might have a different sensitivity to colors than HP5 or FP4 doesn't bother me too much, at least not yet. "Color print film is more forgiving of exposure error" .... read: "more lattitude" ... read: "Can handle a wider tonal range without blowing out highlights or blacking out shadows". One can do a lot with those characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 I don't think I've ever used the Heliar at 4.5 ... simply because I didn't want to see the dreaded vignette. I've only ever stopped down to 5.6 or tighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted September 19, 2005 Share Posted September 19, 2005 "BTW, I personally refuse to buy the Zeiss 15mm T* in M mount (no matter how good it is) because an M-mount lens in the $4,000 price neighborhood should couple to the RF irregardless of the wide DOF." You realize that the original Zeiss Hologon 15/8 fixed aperture lens also sis not couple to the RF. And it had only a rudimentary focusing scale that skipped from a few meters to infinity. At least the ZM lens has a diaphragm and opens to F/2.8. But it is true, I too would have like to see the lens coupled to the RF. I agree with several other posters that the 15/4.5 Heliar (which I have) is only mediocre in optical quality. It is inexpensive for a lens that wide but it is not in the same league as the Leica ASPH wide angle lenses. You get decent but entirely unspectacular optical quality with this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted September 19, 2005 Author Share Posted September 19, 2005 I just leave it focussed on one meter almost all the time. Even at f/4.5 the depth of field will cover you for nearly all inside shots. At f/8 DOF will be from about one half a meter to infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 There is an old saw that the best lens is the one you have with you when the shot presents itself. In that sense, the Heliar is great, as the lens and finder easily fit in a pocket. It may not be perfect, but I would have missed a lot of shots for not carrying a bigger and heavier lens with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 I agree... <br><br> <center> <img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/37O.jpg"><br> Arundel Castle, UK<br> <i>©2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br> Pentax *ist DS + DA14mm f/2.8<br> ISO 200 @ f/11 @ 1/250 sec, Av mode</i><br> </center><br> A 'half-rez' version is available at <br> <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/37O- half.jpg" target=new>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/37O-half.jpg </a><br><br> enjoy,<br> Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Godfrey, where did you take that shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 It was taken from the walkway leading to the main entrance to the castle from the car park. I liked the sense of scale the 14mm allowed, from tiny flowers to the imposing structure of the castle on the hill. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederick_muller Posted September 20, 2005 Share Posted September 20, 2005 It's nice ... the composition works, and the field of flowers in the foreground makes it more than one's average shot of the average castle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now