johndc

"We all know (I think) that the D200 has a soft focus, something the amateur market likes, from what I've read."

 

Wow. I suddenly feel so... amateur.

In my opinion, HP5+ in Diafine looks ugly.

 

Develop both rolls in XTOL at the 1600 time. The 800 roll will be higher in contrast but that's a minor problem, in my opinion.

I tried it -- and I laughed.

I wouldn't say it's a D50 killer either, but that SB-400 looks promising.

You're not going to want to hear this, but there's nothing wrong with your lens. The 18-135 is designed to be a piece of crap -- sounds like everything is in order.

This method occured to me years ago when I was trying to record the sound of my dial-set compur. Unfortunately it didn't help much. Slow shutter speeds I'm able to judge by ear, and fast shutter speeds require the use of the photoresistor/diode circuit. But it's fun none the less.

Dale- The 28-75/2.8 is a VERY nice lens. Alot of wedding photographers use it in lieu of similar offerings from their OEM because it is a) optically excellent, b) much smaller/lighter and c) less expensive than OEM lenses in the same f-stop/focal length.

 

If you're looking for a lens you can use as a walk-around as well, take a look at the Tamron 17-50/2.8. It's basically the digital version of the 28-75, and has the same smaller size, cost and optical qualities as the original. Not to mention, it looks right at home on the D50 -- you'll never look at your 18-55 kit lens again.

I too am puzzled by the non-parallel zone of focus. Looks like a swing to me.

It could be because the light out of the back of the retrofocal lens is less collimated than the light from a telephoto design. I'm just hypothesizing here.

There are a number of custom made high speed cameras that use the f-mount. I remember we rented one once for work and they gave us the 80-200 and the 60mm macro with it.

The 105mm VR is an AMAZING lens in terms of build quality, contrast and resolution. That said, because it _is_ a macro, it's not going to "snap" right into focus like a 50/1.4. IMO, it works best in MF mode. With depth of field as shallow as it is in macrophotography, the AF never puts the focus exactly where I want it anyway, and I always end up using MF.

 

The only "focusing problem" I've ever seen with this or any other macro lens is people not understanding how to focus them. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's the truth.

Rich that is a very generous offer, thank you. Unfortunately I wouldn't be able to take advantage of it as I live in New Jersey. But the idea is a good one -- One day after the holidays perhaps I'll trek into NYC and see if any of the used dealers are feeling generous. Thanks again, though!

Thank you CPeter. That is alot of information but it's very insightful. Perhaps I'll have to rethink the whole thing, keeping my 'cord for one purpose and getting the 2.8 for another need entirely.

To answer your question, Mark, the reason I want a 2.8 is because I want a faster lens, as opposed to wanting it just because I want it. I shoot alot of stuff indoors in available light, and I often find myself craving that extra 2/3-stop. My personal preference leans more towards a soft OOF character than it does towards edge-to-edge sharpness, so after reading Kelly's posts, I may try looking for a 2.8A with a Tessar.

 

Kelly, what makes the Hasselblad Planar different than the Rollei Planar?

 

Thanks.

Thank you Brian for answering my question.

If you had read my post more carefully, you'd have noticed that I didn't ask "Which is best?", I asked "Which is more like the Xenar?" While both questions are ripe for subjective answers, the latter is alot less likely to cause heated exchanges and WYCTB (Words You Can't Take Back) than the former.

 

So, back to the original question...

So I currently have a Rolleicord with an f/3.5 Xenar lens. I want to get a

Rolleiflex with an f/2.8 lens and I'm trying to decide between the Xenotar and

the Planar. I really like the look of the Xenar, particularly the soft rendering

of OOF points. My question is, which of the two newer lenses (the Xenotar or the

Planar) is going to be closer to the Xenar. Naturally, I would think it would be

the Xenotar, but I've never shot one so I don't know for sure. Is the Xenotar a

"modified" Xenar or is it completely different?

 

I have shot the Planar on the Hasselblad, and I have to admit I didn't like it

all that much. It was very sharp, but the bokeh seemed harsh to my eyes. Is the

Xenotar softer?

 

Thanks!

Are Maxwell screens available for Rolleicords (specificaly a Vb model) or are

they only made for Rolleiflexes? If so, would a screen for a 'cord work on a 'flex?

 

I'm using the 'cord right now but find the image rather dark on the GG. I'm

thinking perhaps I can upgrade the screen now and later when I can afford the

2.8F I've been wanting for years I can have the screen installed in that.

 

Thanks for the help!

I use one on my X-700 with the motor drive and it works really well. It does "bounce" a little bit, but I'm not doing jumping jacks with it so I don't really mind.

 

And yes, I realize this is a Nikon forum but we're talking about straps here so I don't think it matters.

The new VR 105mm Nikkor is an astoundingly sharp lens. I've used both the 90 and 180mm Tamron and they are outstanding but the 105mm VR beats them both by far, even with the VR turned off.

 

That said, you can't beat the Tamron when it comes down to the quality/price ratio.

I saw that once in an old LF lens -- caused by a doublet that had become de-cemented. the interface between the two elements was no longer perfect and there were sort of newton's rings things going on, but you could see that clearly when you held the lens up to the light.

 

Can't think of any reason why this is occuring in a new piece of glass like the 17-55dx, though.

If your shutter is running slow, it's probably just a little dirty. The easiest way to clean it is to remove the glass and place a few drops of lighter fluid in there, then operate the shutter a bunch of times at the slowest setting (1 sec.) until the action matches a reliable stopwatch.

Also understand that the Optar is a press lens and that it was only designed for limited rise/shift and not so much for rotational movements (swings and tilts). When you swing or tilt with such a lens, abberrations in the out-of-focal-plane areas are more pronounced. This <i>can</i> have some very desirable effects, but it can also be a nuisance.

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMbook18.html">This site</A> has some great animations illustrating what happens to the focal plane when you swing and tilt.

My family has a history of buying Minolta cameras, starting with the SRT-201,

then the X-700 and finally the Maxxum 7000. I have inherited the X-700, which I

love, and I'm wanting to take some flash photos with it. We used to have a

matching 280PX flash head, but can't seem to locate it anywhere. However, I have

gotten ahold of the Maxxum 4000AF flash head. What I want to know is: will the

TTL on the X-700 work with this unit or should I just go ahead and buy an

x-series flash (prob the 320PX). Thanks!

"acutance isn't everything"

 

really? thanks for the news flash.