Spending time with old friends

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>This week end I'm on my own, my wife is away at her club's annual retreat. Took the opportunity to bring out all of the old Nikon cameras and glass and spread them out on the dining room table. Since I have procrastinated on getting the darkroom going again and there is no local film processing to speak of, the various old F models and lenses haven't been getting much work recently. Resolved to change that -- Dwayne's is about $5, Roberts camera around $4 plus postage for negatives returned. Shoot & ship & wait!<br /> Anyway, I have the DF and D750 programmed to take 9 of the old lenses, just turn off autofocus, set to Aperture or Manual, select the lens by number and you're ready to go.<br /> I have been able to keep most of the lenses I bought over all the film years, and filled in some expensive "blanks" on the cheap when film photography initially crashed, so I have a bunch of old glass. I won't go through the whole exercise, just a few observations. I'll post a folder with some photos later.<br /> As mentioned, the cameras felt compact, light and quick with most of the old lenses. Focusing was easy and fast and the rangefinder indicator seemed to work well as backup. With one exception my pack of old fast lenses performance was still excellent - 135 2.8, 180 2.8, 105 2.5, the last particularly good. The 55 1.2, though programmed into the camera, was the only lens that routinely produced overexposed shots -- it is also the old lens I have used most with the digital cameras, though entirely indoors in available light. I will check into that further. The 50 1.4 was very good. The 24 2.8 was a favorite of mine for film, in this practice, edged out by the 20 3.5, I think because I have gotten used to having 18 available on the 18-35. The 35 F2, always a good street lens gave me thoughts of getting a modern 35 prime, though 35 is covered in a couple of zoom ranges. 300 f 4.5 is o.k. but offers nothing special in my opinion it is larger and heavier than the 28-300, only a stop faster at the high end. The 500 F8 Cat certainly has its limitations, but it is small and light and can deliver real reach under good conditions. 80-200 4.5 is an optically good lens, but the slide action is a bit awkward even though I used it for a long time. The only real surprise was the 50-300 F 4.5. It is a bit of a monster, over 5 pounds, a foot or so long, takes 95mm filters, but it seemed to do a good job and I like the range. Clearly, it is obsoleted by the 28-300 which is smaller and lighter with a greater range, but I enjoyed using it. If I were to set up somewhere with the 600 for wildlife, I'd almost be tempted to have it on a second tripod. <br /> Note: All the lenses are AI or were converted by John White of AI Conversions.<br /> Bottom line, nothing scientific, completely subjective, just a fun way to spend a few hours with old friends and come up with some resolutions:<br /> Use my old Nikons and do more film. Shoot, ship and wait!<br /> Include a couple of favorite (smaller) old primes for travel.<br /> Look into a modern fast 35. <br /> Revisit the process at a future date, possibly shooting head to head, old vs. new.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You know you don't need a darkroom to develop film, right? A changing bag to load the film into the tank, and from there on you can work in light. For colour, it isn't necessarily cheaper, though, but for B&W it'll sure make it more affordable.</p>

<p>If the 20mm f/3.5 is the small 52mm-filter AiS version: that is a really nice little lens. I bought it as a stop-gap measure at some time for a really nice price. But it stopped the gap good enough that it is still my wide angle. Compared to the more recent wide-angles it doesn't compare well in the far corners, and at infinity it isn't the greatest, but it renders really nice and has great contrast. I like it quite a bit more than my 24mm f/2.8.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>I agree with Wouter, no need for a darkroom if you're doing B&W. Closed down my darkroom in 2001, but have continued with B&W. It helps to have a scanner, as it's impossible to print without the darkroom, but processing the film is so easy that I now do it at my desk while I'm working on the computer.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>I was starting to think I was the only one left. Although I've put together a modest collection of AF lenses I still prefer my older manual focus auto-nothing glass. I keep a bag with two digital bodies ready to go all the time, have done so for years. It includes a 28-75/2.8 and a really cheap but surprisingly effective 19-35, an 80-200/4.5 and a 300/4. As I grow more bored with digital I am going back to my F2 and F4S bodies and some good old B&W film. I've pulled the AF lenses out and added an 85/2 and a 28/3.5. They work with anything I have and I am for some reason re discovering the joy I used to get in covering news and sports on Tri-X. I know it isn't all about the gear but as anyone who uses tools a lot knows, well designed and built equipment makes the work a lot more fun. I am glad to see another photographer getting out some old friends and maybe putting them back to work. I think I will pull my ancient 85-250 zoom out and get it warmed up. I know where I can buy a full set of darkroom gear, I just don't know where to set it up. If nothing else I find shooting film makes me unique in any group of photographers.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Wouter -- I do know I don't need a darkroom, and have everything but the changing bag, including the chemicals for B&W. Even my old changing bag is probably around somewhere. I operated without a darkroom as a young man, loading tanks and bulk loader in a dark closet, printing in the bathroom. Not certain if I prefer to fondly remember all that darkroom time or start it all over again!<br>

We have the same lens, and I like it quite a lot as well, and agree with you on the 24 2.8.<br>

Thanks for commenting! Best, Sandy</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Tim, first I'd have to find the desk top! Currently all 6 feet of it littered with electronics, camera gear and paperwork. Extension of that, I'm obviously not as neat as you. I have a stainless tray I used under the tanks even in the darkroom to reduce cleanup. I do agree in principle!</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Rick, there is something about finely made metal and glass. Partly quality and partly nostalgia. There are a lot of folks on this site who still like and use the old stuff, some much older than yours or mine.<br>

The trick is to remember that no matter how much fun it is, there are some things the old gear doesn't do as well as the new. Thanks for dropping in! S</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>there is something about finely made metal and glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. I have to confess it's the mechanisms and machinery that I love, rather than the darkroom/developing aspects. If they had ever really made a 35mm film to digital adapter ( April 1 report at http://petapixel.com/2011/04/04/35mm-cartridge-that-transforms-film-cameras-into-digital/ ), I'd use it, but I am resigned to doing my own B&W and sending off to Dwaynes for color work......</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>JDM -- I was caught briefly by that one as well...you'd think they could...oh, well!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To me, it's not so much the aspect of developing - whilst I'm not doing it since a very long time, it does at some point become a routine, I guess. The second those negatives come of the reel, though, having produced an actual physical object, now that somehow gives a sensation that digital doesn't quite give me (even if I print those files, for some silly reason it doesn't quite have the same feel). Plus, while I am comfortable with editing software, making digital look like a B&W film somehow isn't something I frequently nail, and so why not do the real thing? I don't care much for colour film, but B&W film and exploring the different looks that different combinations can give is just nicer than sitting behind my PC (which inevitably follows when scanning).</p>

<p>The point about the old(er) MF lenses isn't just the construction quality and metal housing for me. They also in my view often render nicer - not as pinsharp as many modern optics, but somehow more elegant and natural. Also on digital, in fact, when possible I use these primes. Now I know most people want pin sharp and highly corrected, and there is a time and place for it, but the impeccable sharpness of many recent lenses just bores me. And many of the older fast lenses have that bit of character with rather outspoken "flaws" at their extremes (i.e. the 50mm f/1.2 wide open with its glow-in-the-dark look), which gives them that creative edge that can be fun to exploit. Maybe not ideal as allround-fire-and-forget lenses, though.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Wouter -- There was always Magic to darkroom work, that a captured image written by light could emerge on film. What I remember most was a print coming up on a blank paper in the developer tray under the safelight, that was a defining moment that made the necessary drudgery worth while, that and the final mounted print, your own creation start to finish.<br>

As to the lenses, this outing with "old friends" and some of the results (which I have not yet posted) suggest a virtually endless theme that I have not seen here, or possibly have missed -- an "exposition" of a favorite old lens. Eight to twelve images that show its value and capability. Certainly that would speak most strongly to those with that lens or system, but with all of the available adapters, might even generate broader interest. I suppose this should be the start of a new thread, but as the OP, I have a little latitude. What do you think?</p>

 

[User_4754088]

<p>Sandy, I use a round cake pan on my desktop and have a bathroom near my office. I walk to the bathroom to change chemicals, or do rinse water, then bring the stainless steel developing tank back to my office for the 10 minutes of development and agitation, and ten minutes of fixing and agitation. All the while keeping the stainless steel tank in the cake pan (which is teflon coated, so very easy to clean up spills) on the desktop.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Tim -- I love using household stuff for photography! I used plastic cat litter pans as developing trays for large prints. The stainless tray came from my Grandfather's Delicatessen!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My local grocery store is a vast compendium of photographically useful objects!</p>

<p>Here is a "I can't believe it's not butter" lid lens cap to use in place of the easy-to-slip-off Nikon original leather cap. It's even in the appropriate Nikon yellow.</p><div></div>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>JDM -- you must be a mind reader -- was thinking of finding something similar for the old 600 5.6. because the leather is good, but not quick. My 500 has a threaded metal cap, but it sometimes sticks a bit, so a nice option. For some reason, your photo of the cap hasn't appeared.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

While I agree that old MF Ai-

s lenses are perfectly

useable and have a better

feel than modern glassware,

they certainly aren't of

equal optical standard in

most cases. In particular

those old spherical

designs can't compete at

wider apertures with modern

aspherics.

 

And I'm baffled by the

reference to film as "the

real thing". In overall IQ terms

there is no way that 35mm

film can compete with even a

modest 12 megapixel DSLR, let

alone one with 24 or 36 megapixels.

 

OK, we're let down by printer

manufacturers when it comes

to making a decent B&W print

from a digital file; but that

shouldn't be confused with

the tonal quality that a digital

camera can provide.

 

Let's take off our rose-

tinted rear-view spectacles

and consign 35mm film to the

"obsolete" bin where it

belongs. And I speak as

someone with over 40 years

use of film (thankfully)

behind them.

 

Sure, I sometimes get out my

old F2s just to stroke them

and admire their workmanship,

but that doesn't make the

too-small film that they take

any less inferior.

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Rodeo Joe, for once we agree. Earlier I said "The trick is to remember that no matter how much fun it is, there are some things the old gear doesn't do as well as the new."<br>

Old cameras, old lenses, film -- True Romance doesn't involve logic!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I called film "the real thing" in the very specific context of black and white. It had nothing to do with resolution, "IQ" (for whatever one wants to read into it) and so on. It had to do with obtaining the results I want.</p>

<p>Maybe some of us just don't care too much about these superior sensors, more resolution and resolution at the outer edges on fast wide angles. Maybe we just use the gear we like to use to get results we like. So, maybe all those superior test results are important to some, and not to others; we pick the gear that fits our needs, and it doesn't quite matter if others think that means using inferior tools. The results count. Indeed, there is no logic in it, nor does there need to be.</p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>Another vote for old glass...Nikkor 105mm f2.5, 180mm ED f2.8, 50mm f1.8, all AI, on my F2AS, FM & now "aging" D600, a superb images every time, B/W or color, better than the same in AF types. I don't know about anybody else, but I still prefer to drive my 5sp. manual shift '94 Ranger pick-up with no heat or AC, and windows that don't always crank, than my automatic sedan with all the electronic BS on it...(that's for Mr. Willemse)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Well, I just sold my car today, so I am back to the most old-fashioned ways of transport: walking.<br>

I'm not against digital, nor do I think lowly of new(er) lenses. I just think they're all tools for the job, and that proclaiming something superior or inferior is an opinion, not a fact. Choose whatever you prefer, and leave others their choice, no need to impose your opinion onto others or belittle their opinion just because you prefer something else. Live and let live.</p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>For Mr. Willemse, if I offended, please accept my profound apologies, it was never meant in mean spirit. I agree whole heartedly, with your statement..."Maybe some of us just don't care too much about these superior sensors, more resolution and resolution at the outer edges on fast wide angles. Maybe we just use the gear we like to use to get results we like. So, maybe all those superior test results are important to some, and not to others; we pick the gear that fits our needs, and it doesn't quite matter if others think that means using inferior tools. The results count. Indeed, there is no logic in it, nor does there need to be." When I mentioned your name, I was trying to support your statement, there was never any dig or disrespect implied sir. Shame on me if I didn't express it very well, and it's my fault for not being clear. I've always had great respect for your opinions, and I hope that you don't think unkindly of me now, as well as in the future. The few times that I've taken the opportunity to contribute to this forum, I've always tried to be supportive and positive, and sometimes inject some self depricating humor as well. So again, I hope you'll accept my apologies, I most certainly, never, never, meant any disrespect. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

Mark, no worries, it wasn't your response, rather that my own earlier reply was a bit more vague than I liked. All OK!

[mark_miranda2]

<p>Most grateful...thank you!</p>

[glen_h]

<blockquote>

<p>And I'm baffled by the reference to film as "the real thing". In overall IQ terms there is no way that 35mm film can compete with even a modest 12 megapixel DSLR, let alone one with 24 or 36 megapixels.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

It is usual to count digital at the pixel resolution, but on most there is an anti-aliasing filter to reduce it below what the pixel count gives.

 

In the case of film, the MTF curves down, so it isn't so obvious what single value to give for the resolution. Lower speed films like Panatomic-X get to about 80 cycles/mm, or about 22 megapixels worth for a 35mm full frame.

 

Digital cameras will give you 22MP at ISO 800 or so, with reasonable S/N ratio, but if you have the light, film does a pretty good job.

 

Sometimes I put manual focus AI lenses on a DSLR, for somewhere in between the experiences.

 

I also have a Nikon N80, so autofocus, autoexposure, but film camera.

[rajmohan.]

<p>Digital sensors may surpass film in resolution/sharpness, but I suspect that many people continue to shoot film in search of a different look.<br /> When I want to see a scene with maximum resolution, sharpness, realism and clarity, I step away from the latest-and-greatest terapixel DSLR and use the finest optical instruments in existence (my eyes, assisted by the fatty neuronal mess behind them).</p>