derek_stanton2

I used to have the 35/2. I now have the 35L. The L is better. Sharper from wide open up to f4 or 5.6 (as far as i compared

them), and the bokeh is better. But, now that i have the L, i rarely use it, because it's a large lens. With the 35/2, you can just

pop it on, walk around comfortably.... With the L, i feel like it's not a lens i want to use 'casually.' It's the size of a small zoom,

really, when i'm used to small primes and rangefinder lenses. So, if practicality is a factor, the 35/2 may be a better lens for you.

And, note this: even though the L is the 'better' lens, the 35/2 was equal to the Leica-R 35/2 Summicron when i owned them

both. And, Leica R folks are often quick to praise the Summicron, so the Canon 35/2 is certainly a pretty good lens in its own

right.

photovillage.com (good people - located in New York City)

kevincameras.com (no personal experience)

You will get far more for your gear by selling it privately. Clean it up, take accurate, fully-representational photos of

everything, from multiple angles, and sell it on ebay, or in the classified section of this site. You can definitely sell the

F100. What are the other lenses?

KEH is great, don't get me wrong. But, they can only pay a small percentage of what they will eventually (re-)sell the items

for, and that amount probably depends also on how many they already have on hand. Call them, perhaps, and describe in

detail the various pieces, and ask for a quote. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised, but the few times i've tried that angle,

i've always been disappointed, and then turned to ebay, where the results have almost always been positive.

A great number of professional photographers employ the same 'pop up' strategy. It wasn't blocked on my Safari. I imagine the design

will appeal to your target audience (art directors/buyers) more than internet forum folk. I'm a designer/art director, and i can certainly

appreciate your site. It represents you very well.

Design is very clean and nice, and the pages/images loaded quickly for me on a laptop from a hotel wireless connection.

As always, i love your imagery, Babar. As for the comment about 'too much grain,' sure - too much, like Sarah Moon, Deborah

Turbeville, Anton Corbijn, Ralph Gibson....

I might agree with one of the above comments - that the images could be broken down into smaller categories, rather than just Portfolio

1/2. Maybe you will, as you add photographs?

[You're not using the M for your color commercial work, are you?]

No two people can even agree on what the "Leica Glow" is.

Find some pictures by a photographer you like. Find out what lenses, films/developers he used. Buy the same things. If you get

glow, you can attribute it to the gear. If you don't, you can attribute glow to a circumstance or an accident. I don't think you can

take someone's word for it, without seeing an actual example of the 'phenomenon.'

I had one. Briefly. It's a really nice piece of glass. Sharp. Nice bokeh. It's very small, and barely intrudes into the viewfinder

(Zeiss Ikon).

Nothing "dull" about it.

In stock at PhotoVillage(.com).

"If you're shooting portraits at the 50 Summicon's close focus of 0.7 m you need to learn more about portrait photography."

Sorry, Alan, but that's just plain silly.

If they objective is Olan Mills/Sears Portrait Studio-style portraits, then yah, stick to the Kodak film instruction sheet rules.

Extended to medium format, the two greatest portraitists EVER were Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. Both shot Rolleiflexes

with 80mm lenses (equivalent to 50mm on 35mm film) WITH Rolleinar closeup filters attached to get closer than the

minimum focus distance. Forget about 50mm, there are some very prominent, published/exhibited photographers making

good careers out of shooting portraits with wide angle lenses at close range. "Distortions" and all.

Back to 35mm. Didn't Ralph Gibson base a period of his work on using the DR 50 cron at exactly 1m for all of his shots?

Peter Lindbergh shot almost everything with a 50mm Nikkor. Fashion and portraiture. Same for Santé D'Orazio.... I could go

on, but i just remembered why i'm supposed to be limiting my time in internet forums....

Here's my experience with the 50L

I bought one online, from a local dealer. It was shipped to me via UPS. I received it, and made some simple test shots to see

how it compared to the 50/1.4 i had owned for years. The tests were shot at 1.2 - 2.8, at close range, specifically looking for

focus accuracy, and sharpness. I also tried some out of focus stuff, to see how the bokeh differed from the 1.4 lens.

That particular 1.2L lens did not focus accurately at wide apertures. It front- or backfocused (can't remember which) by a

few centimeters.

I returned the lens to the store, in person, in order to try other samples. At the counter, i tried similar focus/sharpness tests,

with two other samples. The second lens also had the same mis-focus issues. The third sample seemed to focus

accurately. But, even when it was in focus, it was still not as sharp as my old 50/1.4.

The bokeh on the 50L, however, is even nicer than that of the 1.4 lens, and i've always liked the 1.4 lens.

I desperately wanted to keep the 50L, as i had been posting online my desire for one well before it was even announced.

But, because it did not outperform my existing lens, and at the expense of both money, and size/weight, it made no sense

for me to keep the L.

If you read dpreview, there are many conflicting opinions on this lens. There are a great many who, like me, suffered too

many problems and feel the lens is not worth the headaches and required workarounds. Then, there are a few people who

are delighted with the lens. But, i rarely/never notice any positive opinions when that person ALSO has a good sample of the

50/1.4 to compare. The people who like the 50L seem to be judging it on its own merits and not making any value

judgements.

As well, there are threads about people having the lens calibrated to their body by Canon. This was something i also

explored. I asked Canon about this, and was told that it could be done "to factory spec." But, when i asked how i could

receive two NEW lenses that were not calibrated to factory spec, i was told that perhaps issues occur during shipping.

Perhaps due to vibrations or somesuch. That's almost a reasonable explanation. But, then, i asked, If i send the lens to you

and you calibrate it accurately, why wouldn't the same vibrational issues occur in transit when it's returned to me? And, what

about further transport? As i intended to use the lens during frequent, long flights, i imagined that would, again, be a problem.

In the end, i've abandoned hope, unless Canon specifically addresses the issue. I've read that people should NOT expect

the lens to focus accurately at close range, and that's the way it was designed, and that that problem was a necessary

design compromise — things of that nature. Which are, frankly, ridiculous rationalizations.

You may want to try a different focusing screen. I now have the EE-S installed in my 5D, and it seems to make a difference

when using other brands of lens via adapter. Still, though, i think you might be better off finding a really good sample of the

50/1.4, or trying the new Sigma 50/1.4, unless you're convinced you absolutely need f1.2. But, really, who does? How many

books or exhibits have you seen with images shot at 1.2?

Hi. Revisiting this thread, incidentally while looking for something else, and i can now add a response to this old dialog.

I had the EE-S screen installed, but hadn't tried it with non-Canon lenses until yesterday. With the EE-S, i was unable to

reproduce the freaky out of focus problem i used to have with the standard 5D screen.

I'm expecting a Contax 28mm lens next week, and i'll try it with a more critical eye, but for now, it seems the EE-S alleviates

my concerns.

Thanks to all for the suggestion/recommendation.

"I just don't get the appeal of lenses whose DOF wide open is fractions of an inch."

<p>

<a href=" Oshima [Link]</a>

I've seen very nice bokeh from the 50/1.8. And, also, some that's not so good. Perhaps it's fairer to say that the 50/1.8 is just

more inconsistent in that regard. But, that's true of a lot of lenses, including Leica Summicrons, which are almost almost praised

for that characteristic.

I'd advise you to get the 50/1.4. But, test it. Swap it if you're not happy with the sharpness at f2 and smaller. Mine is very good

after you get out of 1.4, and fantastic by f2. As for focus speed, since it's my main lens, it's the standard. Anything faster than it,

i can consider fast. Anything slower, i consider slow. I don't think there's anything wrong with the speed once it acquires

something to latch onto. But, it's not the best lens in terms of being able to latch onto something.

"Uh oh, it's turning into a bokeh whoring thread.... ( have yet to attempt the dumb hearts myself )"

Yeah, we should never discuss any area of the image that doesn't fall directly beneath the AF sensor. Even if, perhaps, it

constitutes 90% of the image. Lens manufacturers should probably just do away with the larger apertures anyway. We should

have preset lenses, with fixed f16 apertures. Auto ISO for exposure control only....

Fang, 0. Others, 1.

I was enjoying the fight, but then Fang went ahead and shot his foot off by posting a JPG. And, not a very impressive

example, either. Herr's right: "different planet." And, i'm not advocating the M8. I'm just saying that no competent

photographer should be basing an argument on JPGs.

But, Mr. Blakley, i gotta take exception to your comment, as well:

"The M8, as you might know if you'd bothered to read the specs, doesn't shoot at 1600; it shoots at 1250 or 2500. I don't

use those ISOs; I don't have to because I'm not limited by slow lenses. I do, however, shoot a lot at ISO 640 under low

indoor light. Here's one of those, at 1/60."

The first sentence is essentially moot. One should be able to make comparisons between cameras, even if Leica chose to

use a different set of ISO 'standards.' And, i'm not sure who you believe IS limited by "slow lenses." The Canon 5D was

being compared. Canon has a 24/1.4, 28/1.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and 85/1.2. On the whole, it's more like Leica that is limited by

slow lenses.

I wouldn't buy an (old) TLR on ebay if it were my first experience with that form/format/model. KEH is great. I think i would

also trust www.kevincameras.com for Rolleiflexes.

"hand-holding a TLR is MUCH more natural than hand-holding an SLR. No mirror slap and you are holding the camera

against your chest instead of out in front of you with your arms."

Gotta disagree with that. What's "natural" to one individual is what that person is used to or expects, and that has to take into

account his lifelong experience with cameras. If a person has always used an SLR, that's what's natural. Rangefinder?

Same thing. Secondly, i can't imagine that looking down into a groundglass could be more natural than looking FORWARD,

directly at the subject matter. And, that doesn't even take into account that the TLR's groundglass is laterally reversed. How

can that be more natural? Sorry to 'pick' - i understand your point, but i completely disagree with it. : )

"Its not the new lenses that have defects; its the brains of folks who magnify things that dont matter."

Simplistic, narcissistic thinking. Evidently, you're not really aware of what "matters" to a significant number of people. Your

opinion makes a great deal of sense. If only Everyone thought as you do and has the same experiences and needs. I'm

happy, though, not to live in that world.

You're asserting that a lens with a physical defect that does not affect imaging has the same value as one that has no

observable defect. And, that assertion can only be true if 'midnight' swears a blood oath to never need or want to sell it, or if

he can find a buyer who holds the same opinion as you, or if the eventual buyer IS you. That, alone, is a silly premise. There

really isn't any need to go further.

Whether you paid $300 or $70 for the scratched Summarit is inconsequential. And, actually, paying 'less' for it furthers my

point. Would you be so very cavalier about scratches when the price is $3000, and the lens is supposed to be NEW? My

guess is that it would depend on quite a few factors, all of which are personal and are attached to the specific buyer.

Thinking there should be some singular code to regulate every person's buying decisions, and that that code should be

drafted by one random person is, well...i've already said it.

Contax 645AF works in Aperture Priority, with or without the prism attached. With a waistlevel finder, though, it's only in spot-

meter mode.

Mamiya 645 (manual focus) works in AP, but only with the AE prism attached.

Mamiya 645AF has a non-detachable prism, and it works in AP.

Pentax 645/645AF, both with non-removable prisms, both work in AP

Hasselblad H1 works in AP. I think there may only be one prism available.

Mamiya RZ/RBs work in AP with the appropriate prisms.

Pentax 67 works in AP with the AE Prism finder.

If you consider 6x6, the Hasselblad 203 and 205 both have internal meters. The Hasselblad 500 series does not.

Rollei 6000-series has internal meters.

Rolleiflex GX and FX TLRs have internal meters, but you must dial in both shutter speed and aperture to match the metering

bulbs. Not AP.

Spending $300 for an old Summarit seems completely unrelated to spending $3000 for a new 50Lux-ASPH.

It's a matter of both principle and value, and not a matter of photographic potential.

Mr. Midnight, i would be similarly concerned. I've never looked as closely at my new lenses, but perhaps i will begin to. Still,

even after you find your scratchless lens, TEST IT. I bought a new 50Lux-ASPH, and compared it to a ZM 50 Planar, Canon

EF 50/1.4 and a Jupiter 3. The new Leica ASPH lens came in dead last. Not only did it underperform relative to the other

lenses, but it was unusably soft at the apertures i tested. Long story-short, it was sent to Leica (New Jersey > Solms)

TWICE, before i eventually (4-5 months later) received a replacement copy. The 'good news' is that a good copy of this lens

is fantastic. I just hope you can deal with the ordeal possibly required to get a good copy.

Craig, i don't mean to speak for Edward, but i also shoot rangefinders, including Leica and Zeiss Ikon. But, i've always

preferred viewing through an SLR. Rangefinders have their charms, though. For one thing, if you're a 'camera nut,' the

cameras themselves are just 'nice' to use. Secondly, not having a mirror that needs to flip up to expose film means there's

no impact to affect slow shutter speeds. So, you can shoot handheld at 1/15 or so, and get better results than with an SLR.

At least, in theory. My hands aren't so steady, so i probably see less of an advantage in that respect.

Then, there's the lens range. You can use anything from the 1930s to current day lenses. And, all of them have very

interesting "characters." Lots of RF users are equally interested in history and historical photographers, and it's a bit of a

'thing' to use some of the same gear, toward getting a similar 'vintage' look.

There are photographers who prefer a RF viewfinder because the framelines allow you to see the area around what's

actually being captured. Some people see that as an advantage. I think it's a bit of a compositional nuisance....

Personally, i think SLR autofocus is the best method for me. But, focusing a rangefinder is easier than manually focusing an

SLR. It's more of a 'finite decision' to arrive at focus - the patch is either aligned or it isn't. With an SLR, i'm always racking

back and forth: is it sharper here, or is it sharper here?

Oh, the big problem with rangefinders is that they're not accurate with telephoto lenses, especially over 90mm. And, with

wide angle lenses, you need an auxiliary finder in order to have the appropriate framelines. Generally, a 35mm lens is fine,

but the standard Leica won't have framelines for lenses wider than 28mm, for example. On a .72 Leica, the frameline pairs

are: 28mm + 90mm; 35mm + 135mm; and 50mm + 75mm.

See this link:

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/camera/leica-m6ttl-camera/383669/

@Dave:

Edward seems to already have Nikon lenses and may not be interested in buying+carrying a different, yet still redundant

set. As well, my experience with Leica-Rs didn't yield any results that were better than similar experiences with Canon and

Nikon SLRs. The R- lens line is nice, but not consistently as fantastic as the M- series. Regarding the R5: it's a nice,

compact body, but there is so much mirror impact with that camera, i found it shocking. The whole camera jumps in my

hands. A moment later, when i picked up a Contax Aria, i was thrilled at how smooth it was..... Later, i acquired a Nikon F80,

and it has to be the smoothest mirror+shutter i've ever used, challenged possibly by a Contax RX.

PDF manual for the magazine can be found here:

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/hasselblad/hasselblad_a12_a24/hasselblad_a12_a24.htm

The F100 is one of my favorite film SLRs. But, if you want to spend considerably less, take a look at the F80/N80. It's like a

mini-F100. It won't meter with the manual lenses, but with those two AF lenses, you'll have a very compact kit. The body itself is

very small, and light, without feeling cheap. Functionally, you won't be missing anything. I recently got a mint version for about

$100.

I would suggest you get the TYPE of camera you want, rather than what might seem like a good deal. For example, a TLR is

a wonderful camera for a lot of people, but working the way it forces you to might turn you off, and that would be neither a

bargain, nor a representative medium format experience.

I would check KEH for pricing guidelines, find the system you want, and then try ebay and craigslist to find a bargain, if you

can be a little patient. And, while you're looking, you might find a bit more money to devote to the cause.

I, also, would avoid the Seagulls. I've seen nice results from Yashica 124g TLRs, and they have the benefit of a built-in

meter. But, look, also, at Mamiya 645, and Bronica 6x4.5 and 6x6 cameras.

"I shot the same subject, and when i scanned the results, i found no significant differences between the two negatives when

enlarged to almost 11x14."

You need a better scanner, then. I find MF optical prints to be vastly superior at 11x14.

If you read the whole of my post, you should have noticed that i qualified that statement. Film choice has a say in any

potential differences. I already mentioned the scanner issue. As well, we are talking about 'street' photography, not 'best-

case-scenario' work where you're able/likely to use a tripod, cable release, etc. to take advantage of MF's inherent

advantages. Under the circumstances in which i shot those two frames, also the likely manner of working for the person

who posted the original question, my statement stands. And, no, in that specific instance, the MF scanner was not the

limiting factor. Examining detail with a loupe, down to the grain level, there was no significant advantage with 6x6.

And, again, whether or not MF optical prints are better at 11x14, if you are able to shoot a slower, finer grained film with

35mm because the lenses are faster, then the Practical differences are minimized.

The only way to know if it would work for You is to try it. Find a used but clean sample at a good price. Use it for a couple of

months. If it's not right, sell it for (close to) the same price.

<p>

I had a Mamiya 6, at the same time as a Leica M7. I found the Mamiya was EASIER to focus than the Leica.

<p>

What i didn't like:

<p>- I wanted to shoot travel portraits, with shallow DOF. The 6 and 7 lenses are slow, and don't really permit as much subject-

background separation as i wanted. As well, they don't focus close, so shallow DOF is even more difficult to attain.

<p>- Bokeh was not good, at least, not from the Mamiya 6's 75mm lens.

Other than that, it's a very nice system. I don't believe you're going to get much 'stealth' from them, though. No matter how

quiet the shutter. It's a very large camera, and to non-photographers, it's 'odd-looking.'

<p>

If you shoot 'street' without scale focusing your Leica, i believe you can work the same way with a Mamiya. DOF with a

medium format camera is shallower than with 35mm. But, these lenses are slower, so you don't have to worry about

shooting at f1.4. F4.5 on an 80mm lens isn't that shallow at normal 'street' distances. As well, medium format is more

'forgiving' of slightly imprecise focus than 35mm is. If your focus with a 35mm camera isn't 'dead-on,' it just looks like it's out

of focus. With 6x6/6x7, you might still have a nice negative - not a throwaway.

Here's, perhaps, the main reason why i sold the Mamiya 6:

I was shooting Tri-X with both the Mamiya and the Leica M7. I shot them alongside each other, when traveling in Brazil. I

shot the same subject, and when i scanned the results, i found no significant differences between the two negatives when

enlarged to almost 11x14. I was using the fantastic Leica 35mm Summicron-ASPH. Now, Tri-X is not a high-resolution film.

I'm sure that if you shot a more fine-grained film with both cameras, the larger negative would prove superior. But, for my

purposes, Tri-X didn't give me any gain in the 6x6 versus the amazing ASPH lens.

<p>

Similarly, because the Mamiya lenses are so much slower than you're used to with 35mm, you may find you need to shoot

faster/higher-grained film, just to get the same working shutter speeds and appropriate apertures for your purposes. And, so

you have to weigh whether, for example, ISO 100 with a good 35mm lens is significantly inferior to ISO 400 with the MF lens.

<p>

I don't know what your idea of "street" is. There are some photographers i like who are shooting Mamiya 7s, but not many.

And, their work is generally more composed than 'responsive.' More like portraiture, less like Winogrand. Links below. In the

end, maybe you need to reconsider why you want the larger negative. When i tried to shoot 'street,' i had in mind a certain

look: I liked Ralph Gibson and Josef Koudelka, for example. I wanted my pictures to look like theirs. I also thought maybe

bigger could be better. But, there's a reason why it hasn't been done much/consistently. It just might not be the Most

Appropriate Tool for the job. In the end, i realized if i wanted something to look like something else, the best solution is to use

the same tools as what has already been established. But, i wasn't trying to create a new aesthetic. If that's your goal, you

will need to experiment.

<p>

Take a look at Kathleen Laraia McLaughlin:

<a href="http://www.photoeye.com/gallery/forms/index.cfm?

image=1&id=185304&imagePosition=1&Door=2&Portfolio=Portfolio2&Gallery=2">KLM at PhotoEye</a>

<p> and

<a href="http://www.klmphoto.com/Gallery.htm">KLM</a>

<p>

and "Stpiduko":

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/eamon/sets/72157604091210913/">Eamon on Flickr</a>

<p>

But, look at Stpiduko's work with the Nikon+28mm+Reala. In my opinion, that's the more vivid, interesting work. And, it

almost invariably appears sharper than anything he does with larger formats.... Reala (100) with a sharp lens looks 'better'

to me than the ISO 400/800 film with the Mamiya lens, even though the Mamiya lens is world-class.

<p>

You, lastly, have to weigh the output and reproduction stage. I have a dedicated Minolta 35mm filmscanner. But, i used

(only?) a flatbed for medium format negs. Perhaps the difference between the two negs would be greater if i scanned both

on an Imacon/drum? You will probably find you need a greater scanner investment to get the most out of medium format.

But, then again, for 'street' work, you're not working with a tripod, under ideal conditions, and so, again, the differences

become smaller.

<p>

I don't think there's a simple answer. So, that leads me back to my original statement ﾗ try it. : )