hil3

The 50/2 is not only good, it's magnificent.

 

I second the suggestion of the Series E 100/2.8. Inexpensive and excellent - one of my favorite lenses. Also the 75-150/3.5. It may make the 100 redundant, except that it is so compact and light.

 

An inexpensive but average lens is the Nikkor 28/3.5. I don't venture wider than this, so can't help there.

OOPS! Hit the button too soon.

 

 

Also take a look at <A href="www.cameraquest.com">Steven Gandy's site</A>.

 

My opinion is that the F2AS is the finest manual SLR ever made. I like the - o + diodes in the DP-12 meter. The F2A model with the DP-11 meter is also pretty great if you prefer needle metering.

 

If the camera has not been used, figure on a CLA ($150-$250)as the internal lubrication has possibly dried out.

Also take a look at <A href="www.cameraquest.com">Steven Gandy's site</A>.

 

My opinion is that the F2AS is the finest manual SLR ever made. I like the - o + diodes in the DP-12 meter. The F2A model with the DP-11 meter is also pretty great if you prefer needle metering.

I use the 135/4 all the time at my daughter's soccer games at .72 mag. I don't find it any more difficult to focus than a 90/2.8, or for that matter, than an SLR with a MF 200/4.

 

I always try to pre-focus and wait for the action to get to that spot. I too wear bi-focals, but I see well enough without the glasses to be able to frame with them off and even well enough to line up the patches to focus. At f/8 or 11, DOF takes care of some of the error, but I prefer to shoot it wide open to throw backgrounds out of focus. I get mostly keepers.

 

Good sharp lens, great color rendition. A small challenge to use, with rewards making it worth the while.

I have 4 camera bags but they never leave the house. They are only there to store the 30 or so lenses that I never use. When I do leave the house I take:

 

Nikon F2AS with 50/2 Nikkor or

 

Leica M5 with 50/2 Summicron or

 

Leica M6 with 35/2 Summicron and 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit in my front pants pocket. (Just for effect. I never use it.)

Here's a chart that I find very useful for starting times:

 

http://www.phototec.de/e_rechner.htm

 

It's in German, but very self-explanatory.

 

I've settled on an EI of 400 for most everything. On the chart, I choose "Hold 1" as my normal development. Rodinal @ 1:50. Three vigorous inversions in 5 seconds every minute.

 

How you meter matters and will determine how you vary from these times. No difference between New and Old TX. Results scan well on my Nikon Coolscan IV as color negative using Vuescan, correct in PS7, print Black Only on an Epson 780 on Epson matte heavyweight paper.

"Sesame Street" photographer! Hilarious! Me too.

 

Built-in meter:

 

1. If you don't got time, light up the dots and shoot.

 

2. If you got time, bracket.

 

3. If you don't have a handheld light meter, get one and play around with it. Burn a few rolls and take notes. It'll teach you loads - more than any book, especially about the times 1. and 2. won't work.

 

No built-in meter; dead battery:

 

1. If you don't got time, guess.

 

2. same as above.

 

3. ditto

I have a Nikon Coolscan IV. The film feeder on the scanner was scratching my film. I now use the slide feeder with the film holder only.

 

The film feeder has rollers that go right over the emulsion. Drove me crazy for a while. Check your film before you put it through the scanner, just in case is not the camera or handling during development.

I get wonderful B&W results with my F2AS + 50/2 Ai'd Nikkor lens. There really is something special about that one. Nikon only made it from 1972 to 1974. Didn't care for any of the faster 50s from Nikon.

 

For color portraits, I gave up on the lengendary 105/2.5. My favorite portrait lens with the F2 is a (heresy warning) 100mm Series E later version with the metal ring. I have only shot color with this one. Amazing 3D "pop" with this lens. Great contrast, smooth out-of-focus areas, just the right amount of "sharp". And all for $30.00!

 

I've heavily pruned my Nikon glass collection to these:

 

50/2 Ai'd (almost always on the camera)

 

100/2.8 E (for portraits)

 

43-86/3.5 AIS (I know, I'm an idiot, but I love this lens!)

 

75-150/3.5 E (very useful and very good lens)

 

200/4 AIS (for my kids playing sports)

 

For everything else, there's Leica.

I've owned an M-28/2.8 III version (49mm filter size) for about 3 months. I find it very sharp and contrasty. I don't use a bright-line finder with it on my .72 Ms but I think it would help to do so. The hood infringes on the viewfinder significantly, even with the vented hood, and takes some getting used to. Since my most used lens is a 50/2, the 28 is a much better complement to it than the 35/2 I semdom used. $1000 is too much to pay for this lens. $600-$800 is a better ramge for version III.

I don't get the "elitist" labels that get attached to photographic equipment, be it Leica, Nikon, Canon, et al. Must good photos be the result of the dirt-cheapest gear you can find in order them to approach becoming Art with a capital A? That idea is a perverse form of elitism on its own.

 

ALL of my Leica lenses were bought for less than I spend on a brake job for my "elitist" German car. EACH of my Leica bodies for less than a set of tires for the same. Cheap enough, AFAIC.

 

I could have bought the latest and greatest Nikon/Canon stuff. But a Leica rangefinder is what best lets me take my pedestrian little snaps of my family doing ordinary things on ordinary days. Am I under-utilizing my tools? I don't care and care less what others think.

 

I don't track my race car, either. My "stuff" is for my enjoyment doing the things I like to do.

I bought one from a forum member a few months ago and I'll tell you what I like about it!

 

Very ergonomic despite its size. Nice balance and heft.

Love the matched needle metering and accurate spot metering.

Rewind crank underneath is more functional than any other M.

The self timer.

Very smooth and accurate (Sherry K. at Golden Touch did the last CLA).

 

Ugly? I don't think so, but who cares. Having the M5 next to the M6 lets me keep color and B&W always loaded. All in all, that has been the biggest advantage for me. I am now almost completely weaned off my SLR kit (Nikon F2AS).

As a fan of 50's:

 

A 50mm lens and any body with .72 mag is a match made in rangefinder heaven. Lots of space around the frame lines in the viewfinder. I vote for the 50/2 III generation (aka "penultimate"). Same optics as the latest version, IV, which has no focusing tab and a pull out hood. I prefer the focusing tab and dislike pull out hoods, but all of this is very subjective. And there is nothing sharper on the market for 35mm photography, subjectively or objectively.

Criminy, you spell mathematical, ad hominem, monosyllabic, and even quiche lorraine correctly, but blow elegant. An elegant mathematical solution describes something in the simplest, clearest terms.

 

Leica photography is less generic and more descriptive than rangefinder photography, and thus "Leica Forum" is more elegant. (At least to us snobs in the know.)

I bet there are more "mediocre" boxes of crappy snaps in closets and under beds than there are "good" photos hanging on gallery walls every where.

 

I wouldn't trade one of my dad's snaps of me and my brothers growing up for Moonrise over Hernandez, even though I know which one is "better."

 

I have a lot of respect for people who post their work for comment on this and other forums. Ultimately, I think most of us just want to keep improving our technique so that we get closer to putting on a print what we saw with our eyes and minds. A lot of us bought into Leica to eliminate "crappy gear" from the equation. We are using manual methods because we want control over our output. What's left?

Quite a lot. Film selection, exposure technique, development, and so forth. Takes a lot of "mediocre" shots to get better at any of it. I can learn from someone else's attempts and experiments and not just my own.

 

For some of us know-it-alls, getting good photos is an intellectual excercize - no need to click the shutter, really.

HERESY WARNING ON!

 

Sometimes it's ok to use a flash.

 

HERESY WARNING OFF.

Alec,

 

For my M6, I use split rings.

For my M5, I use the rectangular eyelets - no rings.

For my F2AS, I use the triangular eyelets that came with the camera.

 

I am not persnickety about rub marks or signs of normal use on my cameras. I do mind bouncing the camera off cement. My M6 w/Leica strap slipped off my shoulder as I bent down to pick up a grocery bag off the ground next to my car. Lucky landing - the only damage was to the plastic tip of the rewind lever. My original leather Nikon strap failed when hiking in Yosemite ten years ago - the camera bounced down a ten-foot rocky slope. Again lucky. No harm whatsoever, just some dings, abrasion, and scratches that I now consider handsome.

 

Upstraps absolutely glue the camera to your shoulder. Incredibly comfortable. No hunching, twitching, or constant re-adjusting. Works for me, YMMV.

Looks interesting. Looks bulky, though.

 

Best straps I've ever used are from www.upstrap.com. Very light weight. Amazing grip. You could wear a Vaseline jacket and the thing won't slip. I've got them on all my cameras now. Bend down to pick up a briefcase, or a lucky penny off the ground - the strap won't budge. No contortions to keep the camera on your shoulder.

 

[i have no affiliation, etc., etc., with this vendor.]

Richard,

 

Sorry I did not get back to this thread for a while. My source for the settings I mentioned is <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml> and links from that page. I don't think any of this is exactly off the map or ill-considered. Works well for me.

My best results recently, with continuous experimentation, are with the following workflow (not mine - borrowed from someone's website but I can't remember who):

 

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED and Vuescan. Tri-x or Reala negs, usually. Both scanned as color negs, 48 bit setting in Vuescan. Convert Tri-x color scans to B&W any way you prefer.

 

-Scan at 2900 (highest rez with the IV ED) applying sharpening with the scanner thru Vuescan.

 

-Crop, Save, Dust, Save, Do tonal corrections, etc., Save.

 

-Resize image for printing (360 ppi works for me).

 

-Apply USM, 20-60-4 settings (yes, radius 60 - not a typo). Does a nice job for fine local contrast. Gentle, clean differentiation.

 

-Apply USM again at 500-.5-0 (also not typos). Re-apply this one setting (Ctrl+F) until your are satisfied. For me, usually twice, very rarely 3x.

 

Try it! Never looks oversharpened, no halos, no noisy skies etc., and especially does not turn my beautifully grained Tri-x negs (Rodinal 1:50) to clumps of popcorn. Quick, easy, consistent, and repeatable. I never have to save the downrezed sharpened files since resizing for any print format and re-sharpening prior to printing is so straight-forward.

Wow! Debating the merits of an F2A (DP-11 finder) vs an F2AS (DP-12 finder) on the Leica forum. Life is good.

 

I still use an F2 that I bought with the DP-11 finder new in 1977. I also have had a DP-12 for the last 4 years. I prefer the - 0 + red diodes of the 12. Faster to use and I think the meter is more responsive. The meter on the 11 has a slight lag. That is, as you change speed or aperature, the needle starts to move just slightly after the adjustment. It's not a matter of needing calibration. The meter is at factory spec.

 

Having said all that, matched needle metering gives you more immediate information. You see right away if you are under or over exposed without having to be close enough to light up the next diode.

 

The DP-11 is in storage. The 12 is always on the camera.

 

Oh yeah! Definitely a Nikon F2. Best SLR body ever made. For me, Leica did not exist when I bought the F2. Had a Nikkormat in the early '70s. The decade of the SLR. Rangefinders were old technology. Only crusty old reactionaries used them. I would not have touched a Leica with a ten-foot pole. After all, that's what my dad used.

Always use hoods, never use filters (any more).

 

I've only damaged two lenses in 30-odd years, both times due to fungus eating the front elements. The lenses had sat in a camera bag unused for a couple of years. I could be wrong, as is my custom, but I attributed it to a greenhouse/hothouse effect created between the filter ("protective" skylights, in my case) and the front element.

 

(Something new for the extremly paranoid to worry about! Air out your protected lenses every once in a while.)

[turn sarcasm on] Two lenses are way too many. One's all you need. Weld it on to the flange and get rid of that bothersome interchangeable lens feature [off].

 

If I could only keep two, right now it would be the 28 elmarit and the 50 summicron, but I would regret not having a 90 or 135 when I needed one, and I often enough do. And then a 35 is an awful handy walk-around lens.

 

I started with a 35/50/90 and found the set-up limiting on some occasions. Unlike a lot of forum-ers I have a 135 I actually use with my .72 and get the results I want.

 

Start with one, 35 or 50, and get them as you need them. [And then another body, need one for chromes, you know...and then an .85 for those longer lenses...and a collapsible lens on an M3 would be cool...]

Aren't there two pancakes?

My time for this combination is 13.5 minutes, with three inversions in 5 sec every minute. YMMV.