syd

May 31, 2005

Thanks David,

--------------------

Let me first support Ellis' view that neutrality is a very big deal and if you saw the effect of a non-neutral filter on your photographs you'd see that instantly. Pink or dirty green clouds are not good.

--------------------

Certainly, the trouble is I have not seen or had this problem with my Cokin ND Grads and I have seen other images using the so-called more neutral filters and I can't see any difference. Let it be said that I use transparency film almost exclusively and have not noticed any colour caste at all ... my mileage may vary from others though as you say. I would be very interested for somebody to post two images side by side using the same film and same shot and do a physical comparison between something like Cokin ND Grads and Singh Ray ND Grads to really illustrate this point once and for all.

My question, much like Kai's is what tone or colour is neutral? I myself stated that my Cokins are more grey than neutral based on the assumption that there is something more neutral than the grey grads I own. I haven't seen this illustrated though in pictures however.

-----------------------------

The picture's a little muddier and more complex than simply comparing Singh Ray with Cokin - the top and bottom of the market in price terms. You can also get HiTech and Lee resin filters, cheaper than Singh Ray, better than Cokin, and trying to understand why Singh Ray are more expensive than those brands is more difficult.

------------------------------

Quite! I know about Lee and Hi-Tech but am specifically looking at Tiffen and Singh Ray in terms of ND Grads right now which is why I specified those brands specifically. I like the Lee stripe filters which are the equivalent of the SR reverse ND. But at the of the day it seems to me that resin is resin is resin ... can you make optically superior resin from one brand to the next?

---------------------------------

First, all the other brands I mention are better than Cokin P because they seem to scratch less easily and they seem (to me) to have more chance of being neutral and have less clumsy gradations and coloured areas which means there's less chance of it being obvious that you've used one.

----------------------------------

Indeed, I have noticed that the Cokins can scatch easily but again isn't resin, resin, resin? What properties are at work that make any other resin filter less likely to scratch than the Cokins?

------------------------------

This conclusion is based on experience with Cokin, HiTech and Lee and an assumption on Singh Ray. Subjectively I feel that looking through the various filters gives me the impression that Cokin will have a greater effect on sharpness.

------------------------------

Have you actually seen this difference in images? Just curious ...

------------------------------

But if you can't see any of these issues on your images, just don't change them. I can entirely believe that one Cokin is different from another.

------------------------------

No I haven't but it was my hope that by buying something from Tiffen or SR that I would see an improvement based on what I hear about Cokin by comparison. I suppose I am trying to ask rational questions as to why one would be deemed better than another but nobody in the photograpic world has ever done a side by side test to show these gains. One is therefore dealing with personal opinion until you spring for the filters and it;s understandable that at such a high price allot of people have questions before they make that purchase.

---------------------------------

Second, durability of all the resin filters is an issue.

--------------------------------

A reason I am tempted by the Tiffen glass ... to me glass would be more durable, providing I don't drop them. But as I said before, if you drop a resin filter on rocks or gravel you will get terrible scratches so there's really no reason to suggest resin is more durable than glass ... glass may break more easily if dropped on hard surfaces but resin scratches more easily. Based on this it appears that providing I don't drop my filters the glass are ahead in the race overall ... no?

-------------------------------

Third you can drop a resin grad without wrecking it. They don't bend very well is all.

-------------------------------

As I said above, depends on what you drop it on ... both a glass and resin filter dropped on carpet would be fine. If dropped on rocks at the ocean, both glass and resin would suffer ... one from scratches and the other from a possible chip or crack.

---------------------------------

Fourth if you can get a definitive view why Singh Ray are worth their premium vs other HiTech and Lee, let me know please; I've been asking people on here for years without having a clear answer apart from the fact that they make a wide range that I don't need. More likely to be neutral is not an issue since I test each new grad I get and they go back till I'm happy. I've seen decidedly non neutral filters from Cokin, HiTech and Lee.

--------------------------------------

I'd love to know myself ... I would also think it sufficiently important that some online photographic site might do a definative test! It appears no-one has ...

--------------------------------------

So maybe the comparison you could be making is HiTech or Lee polyester

vs Tiffen glass and there you won't have price equality.

--------------------------------------

Well I honestly don't see why Cokin aren't a part of the above group also but I take your point.

May 31, 2005

Thanks Ellis,

So I was right in assuming it was all down to the more neutral colour compared to the Cokins. The funny thing is I have never had colour caste problems with my Cokins though I admit they are more grey than neutral. I was just wondering if the price hike was anything other than the tone of the filter but it seems it isn't as both are resin.

In your opinion are the Tiffens and the Singh Rays much of a muchness in quality and tonality? They are about the same money though the Tiffen are glass ... which has me leaning towards the Tiffen.

May 31, 2005

Ok, so I have the Cokins and have not had bad results with them but I

really have to ask, what is it about the Singh Ray ND Grads - which

are also made with CR-39 Optical Resin - that warrants the difference

in price? Is it only the fact that they might be more neutral than the

Cokin ... is that all?

On another note I am wondering why they don't make glass P filter

style grads like Tiffen which would seem to be more scratch resistant.

I can't see any reason to purchase a second set of resin based ND

Grads when they would be as prone to scratches as the Cokin type ...

for twice the price. I've never dropped any of my filters so the idea

that glass would be less durable is pretty much moot for me, not to

mention the fact that if you dropped a Resin Filter on most surfaces

that would be ruined as easily as glass also!

Does anyone have any comments regarding the quality of the Singh Ray

grads that makes them stand so far ahead of the Cokins, price wise and

otherwise, apart from a more neutral ND?

Thanks ...

May 25, 2005

Thanks Kai ... your thoughts regarding zooms vs primes matched my own. I've found an EX+ Yashica 200mm which price wise might just necessitate a purchase. If I can wait then the Contax 200mm might be a bit better but as I said before, I have two exceptional ML Yashica's that were better than the Zeiss glass of the same range that I tried so who knows ... the Yashica may well be a keeper.

May 25, 2005

Here's the link for your own bookmarks by the way ... http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html

May 25, 2005

I have Roberts site bookmarked and have read the 3rd party lenses section before ... it's never really given reviews of lenses first hand though. I am hoping for some real time comparisons from people in the here and now. Hopefully some are about ...

May 25, 2005

Thanks,

What I should have said is that the Tamrons are still current design still being sold whereas the Contax 200mm is not.

May 25, 2005

Thanks Larry,

I wouldn't buy new, I have been eyeing KEH, B&H and various other places for them also. Any thoughts on the Yashica 200's?

May 25, 2005

If only that were true! I understand this is usually down to personal experience but my own does not bear that out regarding Zeiss and Yashica glass. I have two ML Yashica lenses, a 24mm and a 50mm and a friend of mine had a Contax SLR with Zeiss glass and after trying my Yashica glass he wanted to trade lenses with me! I tried his Zeiss lenses and found them to be sub par. In this case it just wan't true.

I figure that the Zeiss prime in the 200mm might serve me better but with the recent Tamrons and improvements being made from time to time I am curious to know about the other lenses from those that have tried them. Thanks for your comments though.

May 25, 2005

While we are here Kai, what are your thoughts about the Tamron 60-300mm and Tamron 70-210mm compared to the others we are discussing here? By the way, how good is the Yashica 200mm you mentioned?

May 25, 2005

Indeed ... will the Tokina mate with the Contax? I'm just looking for the best glass in a Tele in the cheaper range. Given that longer focal lengths are more important to me in this I'm assuming a prime like the Contax will be superior to the Tamrons but It's always nice to ask before you buy.

Whats the Tokina like, given that it will mate to the Contax?

May 25, 2005

Hello all,

Really need some opinions and reviews/views about the above lenses. I

want a Tele for my Contax 139Q and hope to use a 2x TC with it to bump

up the focal length. Regarding the above lenses, the Contax is an

older lens from the late 70's and is a prime but the Tamrons are

current. Tell me what you think about the above three as best pic?

1 - Colour?

2 - Resolution?

3 - Sharpness?

4 - Flare/Coatings?

5 - TC compatible?

6 - Bokeh?

Any advice or views greatly apreciated. Essentially I want 200mm plus

so the shorter lengths of the Tele Zooms are not an interest for me

really. I just want the best 200mm for decent money that I can use

with a 2x given all of the above considerations of sharpness etc included.

Thankyou all!

May 24, 2005

Very nice shot, the USM certainly brings it back. I'm very much looking forward to using this lens now. So I assume that every 2x double the respective focal length ... 200 + a 2x becomes 400mm correct? I know you can get 3x's also, have you couple anything more than a 2x to the TT 200mm before?

May 24, 2005

Ahhh, actually I was going to say the image looked soft, quite different to the other images you posted. I take it that the original image is sharp and this is just a scanning issue, no?

May 24, 2005

Kai ..

Thanks again, great info! I'll go for the TT 200mm I think and get hold of a Mutar down the line. The bokeh on that lens looks very nice actually, thanks for posting these images for me.

Here's an image I shot in the south of France with the Yashica 24mm ML.<div></div>

May 24, 2005

Ok so just doing a little research, I assume then that the 2x Mutars are the way to go then? Can you go bigger than 2x on the same lens like sticking two 2x's ontop to get 4x or is this a no, no?

May 24, 2005

Hey Kai!

Thanks for your comments in all this, very helpful indeed. I have found a 200mm Tessar from a reputable dealer which I might well go for actually. I am a big fan of Yashica ML lenses, some are hit and miss but I have a 24mm ML and 50mm ML which are both unbelievably sharp, have wonderful resolution and exceptional bokeh. I had a friend who wanted to trade his Zeiss glass for my Yashica glass ... I declined ofcourse. ;)

With regards Tele Converters ... what can I use with the 200mm Tele Tessar? Forgive my ignorance as I have never used them before as my work has always been in the wide focal lengths.

May 24, 2005

Thanks for that!

I have found a Tele Tessar 200 f3.5 for about $299 in ex + cond ... fair price? This actually looks like a good lens but I can't find any sample images at photosig. Any chance you have some shots taken with this lens I could see? If I buy this lens what are my options with tele converters? Regarding solid tripod, I have one and always shoot on a tripod with cable release.

Thanks again!

May 24, 2005

Whats the deal with M42? I have never heard of these but found a 300mm F5.6. Will this lens mount on my Contax 139? I have a Tamron adaptor but have no idea ...

A. If these lenses are any good and ..

B. If I will need a totally different adaptor mount for this lens.

C. What type of ext tubes or tele converters can I use with this lens?

May 24, 2005

Thanks bro ...

Well I am seriously giving more thought to finding a non CAT Tamron or some other Yashica lens thats not budget busting in order to get a good value telephoto and need some advice on all this. I was looking at the Tamron SP-500mm F8 ( I heard the Sigma 600mm Mirror was also good which is why I asked about coupling issues ) which will go fine with my Contax 139Q but I am seriously wondering whether I should be looking at a proper Telephoto and avoid the Cat lenses. I am fully aware of the pros and cons of a Mirror lens but the question is rather what affordable alternatives are available to me in Tele's that will mate with my Contax ... other brands besides Yashica and Tamron?

Suggestions please gents!

The only one I know of is the Tamron 400 SP/4 ... What other budget optics would get me up to 500mm with good results? I'm happy as you said to buy a shorter focal length with good glass that is fairly fast and add a converter to get more pulling power?

Thanks!

May 23, 2005

Juat curious if there is a way to couple a Sigma 600mm Mirror lens to

my Contax 139Q? I know I can mate the Tamron 500mm SP f8 using the

adaptall system but have no real idea if it is possible with the Sigma?

Posted May 20, 2005 · May 20, 2005

Dan,

I understand my friend but actually I didn't just arrive, I've been registered at Graflex.org for 2.5 years but forgot my old user name and password so registered again. Having said that, I re-registered a few days ago and had not seen that article since it's been about that long since I had re-visited the website.

I am not tired, as you see.

Best, Simon.

Posted May 20, 2005 · May 20, 2005

Dan,

Errr, I didn't say it was new ... just interesting and a nice support of old camera's in the modern world of digital and news. I only just found it and enjoyed it and thought others might enjoy it also who have not seens it or come across it at graflex.org ... nothing wrong with that is there?

Posted May 20, 2005 · May 20, 2005

They may be ... but it also looks like the effects of extreme light drop off with certain Graphic lenses. In any case if you go through the images on his site you will see a large range of B&W's which are clearly taken with old styled film camera's ... not attributed though. What gave it away was he mentioned using TriX with the Graflex in the article and I think those images have TriX in the corners. Thats essentially the celebration here but if I am wrong thats fine too.

Best, Simon.