pmarcus

Just found this thread via google. I've owned one of these in 80mm for about eight years yet I never understood what it was. Mine says C but it is obviously a CF. The lens is uneventfully excellent (aren't thry all?). I'm grateful for this conversation.

<p>Yea, but my Meade ETX (a rather good Maksuov scope) makes a great compact telescope! As I recall, my friend's Celestron never came to sharp focus because it was just plain bad. But that was thirty years ago, YMMV.</p>

<p>A study, obviously posthumous, of the great composer Brahms noted the changes in his personality from creative highs to somber lows. He is one of a number of artists who have been judged to be bipolar solely upon the observation of their works, left for us to enjoy.<br>

Sir Paul both unintentionally quotes from the deeply rational academy while playing a mean bass. And, by the way, the quote was: 'If I say it's art, then it's art <em>to me</em> .'<br>

Oddly prescient, John Lennon said 'If you can't take a joke, f**k you.'</p>

I had good results with mine. After my Coolpix 990 died, Mack did as they said they would and fixed it for good!

Sorry guys, but Warner speaks the truth. I owned what must have been the world's worst Nikon camera, a Coolpix 990. It visited Torrance a couple of times under warranty with Nikon. Then it lost its battery cover lock and needed more electronic work.

 

This was three or so years into the life of the camera (remember, I'm trying to depreciate this piece of trash for five years, thank you IRS). Mack fixed it and sent it back, end of story.

 

After that I used it for another couple of years and gave it to our partner, who is still using it. Pretty good for a sub-$75 warranty on a camera that originally cost over a thousand dollars.

 

Just ask yourself how long the camera will have a useful life (to you) and compare the warranty as a percentage of the price of the hardware. YMMV.

 

Phil

My camera store guys, Camera CO-OP in Houston, Texas, tell me that the D70s shutter is supposed to have a mean time before failure of 40,000 cycles. The D200's is 100,000.

So, your film camera has soul and your digital camera is just a computer? I've owned a dozen or so of both and found they were really just machines. . .

 

I'm personally happiest when I'm working, using the machine for what it was intended: taking pictures. Personally, I hope I never have to develop film again. I just shot my first catalog with digital. It was a lot easier than with film.

 

As for durability, all my Nikon gear was great except the Coolpix 990, which was so unreliable that it visited Torrance several times over its four year life. Today I brought home a new D200; I'm hoping for the best. The image quality is astonishing, but I hope the shutter lasts a while.

The D2X has more sophisticated AF as well as an additional image processor. Of course it's faster.

Newer ones are better, they have a second ring for close focus adjust (manually floating elements). Has a more evenly illuminated field than Zeiss 50mm, but the corners aren't as sharp. If you have a Mamiya, you're stuck with it, but then, it's a pretty good lens to be stuck with.

 

Phil

I write software for a living. In fact I'm having trouble dignifying this asinine attempt at piracy with a response. But I'll try.

 

<flame> First of all, Sylvain, I believe we all understood "if anyone around london UK have (sic) a copy that will be fabulous" as a solicitation for a free copy of someone's licensed software. Forgive me if that isn't what you meant.

 

Second, software price and licensing varies between hardware platforms. Just because one company provides downloadable software for their machinery doesn't mean you are, therefore, allowed to steal another product for yours. Get real! Don't buy expensive stuff without shopping for other things necessary to make it operational. Hint: software isn't free and it is a real product, just like the hardware.

 

Just a couple of helpful thoughts to help you on your way. </flame>

Thanks for the contributions. Michael, I'm going to check for the shim and test for optimum image/distance. I'll let you know the results.

Yes, the Componon is a reproduction lens design. My example was produced to mounted in a shutter for closeup work with a 4x5 camera. I have never seen the shutter mounted design.

I've had a 150mm Componon, built into a Prontor shutter, for a number of years.

Until recently, it only saw the inside of a drawer. It's blue coated and seems

typical of lens built in the sixties or early seventies. As I remember, the

serial number bears this out.

 

I shot a couple of sheets of 4x5 film with it, and the image seems uneventfully

sharp. The only shots I've taken with it are of a turn of the

nineteenth-to-twentieth century post office with my two turn of the

twentieth-to-twenty-first century cattle dogs loafing on its steps. The shots

were taken at range of about fifty feet.

 

Has anyone ever seen such a lens? I called Schneider, and one older guy who had

been there in the sixties said they had made a few of them for tabletop

shooters. I'm curious about its performance close to infinity. Never seen one

before or since. Anyone out there know anything about this one?<div></div>

My Leica has a lot of soul.

The M6 .72 (non-TTL) is alive and being manufactured along with the M7.

The more I use my M6, the less I want to use my Nikon AF gear. I'd like to have the ease of use of the SLR and AF lenses, but the image quality just is not as good as my Leica. Or, as I told someone recently, "There really is a difference between a one thousand dollar normal lens and a one hundred dollar lens". Some people claim they can't see it, but I've been doing this since I was a pre-teen (with real cameras - thanks, Dad), and this camera line is so good the results sometimes amaze me.

 

I think I want a bumper sticker for my dented Chrysler minivan: "Ask me about my aspheric Summicron". I made a living shooting; this is the first time in many years that it has been fun. For me this is like skiing is for others, I don't want to use typical SLR pro gear any more. I don't shoot subject matter that requires anything else, so I don't feel the letdown.

Look closely at your background and diffusion material. Whites often contain brighteners that photograph blue. Also, make sure you're using UV corrected flash tubes. If not try adding a <little> warm filtration at the ligth source. YMMV.

I have a Pancake I. I shot it and a type IV Summicron on the same roll at the same time. Yes, I know the Summicron is 2/3 stop faster. It was generally agreed by people that didn't know which lens was used that the pictures were almost identical, with the edge given to the Voigtlander. Imagine that.

 

If your lens is operating correctly, it should be among the best that can be bought today. In fact, I just bought a 35mm Summicron ASPH. I shot a similar series with it and the Color-Skopar. The results showed that the Voigtlander lens was a little warmer and had to be closed down a stop or so before it was really crisp. The ASPH was (as we all know) sharp wide open. But closed down there was only a minor contrast difference. These were small prints and I would expect to see greater differences at higher magnifications. YMMV.

 

Phil

 

Phil

You know, the trend toward SLRs probably went too far, but if it didn't, it wouldn't be a trend.

 

When I started in the seventies, I bought Nikon gear because everyone else did. But, on the other hand, everyone bought it because it had so many more interchangeable accessories than any other brand. Even Canon took years to catch up, even though their cameras and lenses were fine, and sometimes a much better deal.

 

But remember this: you can't shoot football or other stadium sports with the lenses available on a rangefinder body. Nor were there any polaroid accessories available. Or long roll backs. Or fast motor drives (very important in sports). Notice the emphasis on sports. I hate sports. But sports is what sells newspapers.

 

Finesse doesn't sell cameras that go to work (at least not at everyday newspapers). Speed of operation (internal metering) and lots of lenses does. Remember, M bodies didn't even have meters until the M5!

 

As much as I love my M6, if I need to work quickly with difficult lighting and multiple lenses, the camera to use is my autofocus Nikon gear with its fast motor, matrix metering and sophisticated flash. Yes, you can hear it in the next county, but I agree that at a quiet press conference or performance, the Leica is a blessing. I've never been asked to leave a press conference or performance because of noisy equipment, but I have gotten beaten up by my editor for not bringing back a picture.

 

35mm cameras were designed and financed by editorial work. To do it successfully, you must be aggressive - yes, the press is afforded certain luxuries.

 

Phil

HCB said that America cramped his vision, so he switched to a 35mm when he shot here.

Get your lenses cleaned! Scratches or cleaning marks vary in their effects, but internal haze causes exactly what you are describing. If you want to be sure, borrow a clean lens in good condition and shoot it. Develop it as you did the other rolls and compare. That will put and end to the guessing.

 

Phil

Shoot any subject with both from the same distance. It's unlikel that any Nikon lens' focal length varies more than 2%-3% from stated.

 

I bought my M6 and lenses based on tests I made years before with equivalant Nikon and Leica lenses. I shot a Nikon 85, 50 and 35 on the same (rewound) roll with same images taken with Leica M3 and 90, 50 and 35. Both were stunningly sharp, consistent color differences; but the focal lengths corresponded as you would expected. I'd guess these magnification differences are finder based (or we all did a lot of acid back in the hippy days ;)).

 

Jason, please shoot these lenses from the same point to the subject, regardless of what's in the finder - just focus - this is making me nuts just thinking about it!

 

Phil

I own a Fuji 75mm SW. It's a knockoff of a Schneider Super-Angulon. Shoots the same way, too. Mine is an f/8, and it makes sharp pictures that look like they came from my Schneider 90mm f/8!

I believe that Ilex made some of the later lenses in the Commercial Ektar line. Lynn Jones would know.

I own the PI and have shot both it and a type IV 35mm Summicron together. We couldn't tell the difference between the two lenses. Voigtlander has the advantage of many years of product engineering and design improvements. Besides, the pancake has the advantage of being almost a stop slower. If you want a collectible or a period image, buy the Summaron. If you want image quality, but a new lens - any new lens.