yog_sothoth

<p><a href="http://www.essexcamera.com/">Essex Camera</a> can do it as well. </p>

<p>While I am a big fan and frequent user of Contax cameras, the lenses have gotten really expensive lately. Based on your specs and current prices I would suggest the Olympus OM-4. They are small and the lenses are not terribly expensive. </p>

<p>I really don't like the viewfinders on Canon cameras. The t90 has something like x0.77 and 94% coverage, which is weak compared to a Conta.x 167mt or an Olympus OM4. The OM4 has 97% and a magnification of x0.84</p>

<p>The Yashica FX-Super 2000 is a gem, as it is very small and light. If I were to make a list of "Must Have" cameras for Contax shooters I would put this on the list. It would be interesting to use the Yashica and a Contax S2 or S2b side by side. The S2 is likely better, but the Yashica has a lot going for it.</p>

<p>Keeping in mind that the concept of money is a shared illusion. In any case, I had to use much less of my "money" when I bought these lenses than they cost now. I wish that I had picked up a 45mm pancake tessar when they were cheap. </p>

<p>Mechanical cameras break as easily as electronic ones. It depends on quality and treatment. My Yashica D's have died with mild use but my much older Rolleiflex chugs on. A lot of electric cameras will likely work fine in 30 years if they are treated well.</p>

<p>and two from my Contax Macro 60 2.8, one on an RX and one on a Rebel T1i. This lens made me sell my Canon 100 f2.8 Macro. I really prefer the focus mechanism and precision of the Contax. It is spectacular on a crop DSLR with live view.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8428232-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="525" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9920746-lg.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="520" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Contax 50 1.4 on the same RTS:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7252426-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="524" /></p>

<p>I have noticed that the lens prices have been going crazy lately. I use them on my Canon dlsr every once and a while. </p>

<p>If people want pictures, here are pictures.</p>

<p>Contax 35 2.8 on an RTS<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8171012-lg.jpg" alt="" width="463" height="800" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Those of us who like our Zeiss lenses cheap finally have a home of sorts. I am looking forward to running around with my 167MT and my 28-85 this weekend. That combo works well together, even if the body is a bit small for the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Check Wuestefeld Hat's, I like that place. They have two stores in Berlin.</p>

<p>As someone who accidentally destroyed a very nice camera by taking it on a bumpy bike ride, I have to recommend the Argus. Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes are too good for dangerous trips. For non-bumpy service I would go with the TLRs. </p>

<p>Fun Stuff</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12859535-lg.jpg" alt="" width="474" height="650" /></p>

<p>He leaves out the fact that the developer for the film only works if you agitate it in the correct direction. Only someone with precise knowledge of the developer directionality function can develop the film properly. Most unskilled field testers will get fogged film with no image. </p>

<p>I am waiting for the 35mm Leica version myself. It is mostly plexiglass, but it costs $10,000.</p>

<p>Dilution B. I have been shooting with Tmax 400 and 100.</p>

<p>So, I normally use Xtol, but I am playing with HC-110. Xtol seems to be pretty simple, you meter the shadows and put them two stops down and things usually work out pretty well. Also, you can use box speed for the film. If the scene is low contrast I tend to overdevelop to spread things out.</p>

<p>With HC-110, this seems to work less well. Is it better to meter the highlights and put them two or three stops up? You really want the image to be in the higher zones than the lower zones with HC-110. It seems to drop off fast at the low end.</p>

<p>I am thinking of shooting a roll or two with the films set to half speed and metering the highlights with an exposure compensation of -2 and see how that turns out. How do people recommend metering and shooting with HC-110?</p>

<p>I give another vote for the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. That lens is amazing. It is fast and good for indoor handheld shots. Good luck finding one though. You need to sign up for email notices and buy one the moment it comes in stock.</p>

<p>A very good Water Harpist. </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12812033-lg.jpg" alt="" width="650" height="628" /></p>

<p>The light by the window was too perfect. Canon T1i with a Tamron 17-50.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12751892-lg.jpg" alt="" width="433" height="650" /></p>

<p>I am trying to avoid the lenses that are just plain bad. I may try the sharpy and scotch tape trick on a suitable cheap zoom.</p>

I was thinking of an old Soligor telephoto zoom that I used to have back in the day. It made anything close up look like a hallmark card. That lens is

long gone. I may get a cheap used third party zoom and goof up the front element.

<p>So, which cheap lenses give consistently dreamy, heavily vignetted, and/or glow-y photos? Lots of people work to get sharp lenses with great IQ, but has anyone stumbled on amusingly bad lenses?</p>

<p>Sign up for the email alert and buy one as soon as they are available. The lens is worth the wait. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Get's it done, that's about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That isn't enough? Are you trying to optimize the photographs or the photo-taking experience? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Canon 50 1.4 is a very good lens and is not going to be your limiting factor. If you want exotic, high end, and inexpensive the Contax C/Y 50 1.7 is amazing, but requires an adapter and is manual focus and stop-down metered.</p>

<p>If you want a small profile, get an S95 or a G12. The current canon SLR cameras are really ideal for use with a zoom lens. Canon has some very nice f1.4 primes that have significant advantages to zooms in some circumstances, but they are not small. </p>

<p>When I want small and versatile I use a G11 for color or small 35mm film cameras for black and white. Both can make very nice 8.5x11s. Jacket pockets can accommodate a rangefinder body and three lenses without grief. One EOS zoom will do you better than three EOS primes for size and weight. </p>