marco_guerra

oops...I wanted to say: 'forgive my bad English'...!!!!

Marco

I'm with Jeffrey.

And...of course security policies won't succeed in making terrorism end, because it's obvious that it's not possible to keep everything under control, without some freedom restrictions that would be unacceptable, expecially in the US. IMHO it's important, anyway, to keep a certain climate, to make security more and more visible, even if this would import some inconvenients (like it happened to you, Ray - yes, I too would apply for a permission, it seems to me extremely reasonable).

Mr. Bender, who is so able to speak and uses that rude word so easily, what would he do, if he was chief of the security of a public place?

Freedom is the best thing we can fight for...but there is someone out there who laughs on how stupid we are, and uses this freedom to plan and act something terrible. So what is the right balancing?

Forget my bad English, but it seemed to me very important to contribute an answer to this question.

Marco

Thanks Russ! Yes, I think it would be a good idea...let's say...half a stop? I'll give it a try.

Marco

Patrick,

I usually shoot with tripod,cable release. I use Velvia 50, or, since FWIW it gives better results with my Leica lenses, Kodak EPR 64 (more natural color rendition, aven if a bit more grainy than Velvia) - color transparencies are better, IMHO, for such works.

Yes, I bracket a lot, and often get surprised by how little this affects the EPR results, in comparison to what happens with Velvia (which tolerates much less exposure variations), so it depends on how the film you use reacts to bracketing in those conditions.

In such light conditions, I found that 30-45 sec. at F 5.6 is normally what you need; if lighting is poor, you could be forced to double it, or triple it.

My two cents

Marco

I noticed, shooting during a wedding with the 'kit' I mentioned in

the subject line, (plus a kodak Portra 160 ASA) that I often get too

close to the subject (bride and groom, both standing, framing from

head to feet, with a little of 'air' between them and the edge of the

frame) for what the distance scale reported on the flash would allow

(3 mt), and, consequently, I obtained results in which the light was

a bit too bright...Has anyone experienced this? And, if that would be

the case, did he or she find any trick to avoid this? (I only own

that lens, so I can't mount anything longer...)

Any help would be appreciated

Marco

Chad:

if you had walked some few steps forward, you probably wouldn't have got that wire in the frame...but I like your pic!

Marco

Very nice pic, Sanford, but...two steps back..?

(at least it's what I would have done, so take it as my personal taste based judgment...)

Marco

What a combination!! I happened to take some night photos with a friend of mine who owns it (I saw beautiful macro photos he took with that lens...very, very sharp, sharper than my 105 AF 2.8 micro-nikkor - which had better color rendition, anyway), while I was shooting with my 90 elmarit M (current version) on my M6.

Well, Leica outperformed by far Tamron in any aspect.

I think it's a quite good performer, anyway, when used at infinity, and for portraits (yes, bokeh isn't that good); but it's excellent for macro works.

Marco

Paul:

I owned the pre-asph, and, after some shots of comparison, I bought the Asph. In my opinion is sharper (not only at 2.0), gives better tone separation and, in my shots, slightly better less disturbing bokeh. BUT it's a bit more contrasty, and, it's true, in a bright sunny day, it can give some problems (so do my 24 asph), if used with contrasty film (just as Velvia 50), that's why I prefer to use, with my Leica lenses, EPR64 - I really don't think Velvia 50 is the best for Leica (or vice-versa, put it as you like), though I tried it with Nikon and Zeiss lenses, and now it's the only transparency film I shot with those lenses.

Differences, however, are small, but , as Erwin says, they're there to be seen. If this is enough for you, and you need more sharpness at f2 go for the Asph, otherways, get the 4th version (you can't go wrong, in any way).

My two cents

Marco

Thanks again Armando (and, of course, to everybody which contributed an answer)!! I bought the 500cm with the 80 at a fair price, and picked up the 50 to try some shots, and evaluate the possibility of buying it too (I want to compare it with my Summicron M 35 f2 asph...). As you said, I can always move later on, now I want to shoot! I too have compared lots of camera systems to find out what was the best for me (and it costed soooo much - I guess that, if I had spent an half of that amount in rolls, now I would be a better photographer...), and I decided to add a MF camera to my 'collection'.

I live in northern Italy, in Brescia (in the middle between Milan and Venice), so it would be easy to meet!!! Let me know when you come next time, so we'll try to manage something!

Send an E-mail to: photo_guerra@hotmail.com

Best regards

Marco

Armando:

thank you for your straight-to-the-point contribute...I'm a bit ashamed, but...I can't find the word 'underwhelmed' on any dictionary I found...does it mean that the 50 is worse than the 80 (always referring to those parameters I mentioned)?

Thanks everybody

Marco

Thanks everybody!

Yes, I tried some shots with the 80, and I too don't think there's a terrific difference between this one and a good, let's say...50 mm for the 24X36 format, in terms of sharpness.

Now I need another advice...the store where I found that 500CM has also a 50 T* f 4 in good conditions...do you experts think it would be better in sharpness than the 80? I read somewhere that it's a lens that was redesigned many times, and Mr. Armando wrote that the CLE is the best version. Should this 'CLE' be printed on the external ring of the frontal lens, or can this lens be distinguished in other ways?

I also read that it's affected by distortion - well, the 80 I tried is noticeably affected by that: should I expect the same amount?

In your opinion, should this lens be used for group portraits (eg bride and groom)?

Thanks again

Marco

john, I like very much your shots (and, particularly, 'common girl')!!!

Grant, isn't it a bit too dark? (maybe it's my pc screen).

Nice work, guys!!!

Marco

Thanks to all for your answers...

I think I'll give 80mm a try...maybe it's the best choice I can start with. Anyway, for those who say that all lenses are top quality, or 'all lenses are good', etc...I tried some rolls with a 120, some years ago, and it did not impressed me at all, it did not show that difference I expected, compared to what I could obtain with 35mm format.

Now, as I am convinced there's something better in commerce than that lens, I only wanted to take profit from your experience, and know wihich are the best lenses (sharpness, color rendition, tone separation) I can look for. It's not a question of focal length. The best in all senses does not exist, that's OK, but, reading some different answers would have given me some indications.

Forgive my poor English, I hope now is more clear...

Marco

Hi to all - I come from Leicadom, and wish to buy a Hasselblad.

I saw one in mint conditions, and it's a 500cm. It comes with an 80mm

planar 2.8. Since I read somewhere in this forum that this lens isn't

the best in the Zeiss catalogue, I ask you MF gurus which are, in

your opinion, the best lenses (sharpness, color rendition, tone

separation, etc.) for such a camera.

I would use it mostly for wedding photography, and would start with

one lens, (would keep my M6 with 24, 35, 90, and Nikon 801s with two

fast zoom and 20mm) thinking to add something in the future.

Any help would be appreciated - thanks a lot

Marco

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most of the folks here...I tried both, and...I think the difference is more then an opinion, between these lenses. Yes, the pre-asph is lighter, cheaper, smaller...but the asph is better under many aspects (visibly sharper at all apertures, better tone separation, and, yes, in the light conditions I shot under, better bokeh - by the way, there's some past thread about this, here in photonet, and those results too reach the same conclusion).

One can prefer pre-asph color rendition, which is a slightly warmer, in the photos I took, or like the more neutral one of the asph, THIS is up to personal taste, NOT the other parameters I mentioned.

If money is not a problem, there's no question, IMO, get the asph (I did).

The pre-asph is a wonderful lens, anyway, and, should you choose it, you will not regret it. But you asked which is better, and this is a different matter...

My two cents

Marco

I agree with all the guys which have posted their answers - but, if you want to know what Erwin Puts says about it, I will tell you that, in his opinion, this lens is at its best at F 4. I haven't used it a lot yet, but, IMHO, I can't see so much difference in photos taken with one F stop or another, that wasn't different depth of field - I must say I try to avoid F 16 or more, so my experience is limited, in some way.

For what I experienced (I also made a comparison with 35 mm pre-asph, with a 35 F 2 AIS Nikon, and with a Zeiss distagon 50 F 4 for Hasselblad) it's an outstanding lens - under any aspect.

Marco

Thanks Bob - i'll make an attempt...

Marco

...wow...! Thank you, guys! I think I'll give a try with the 'petroleum jelly', even if it scares me a bit...by the way, Bob - is this jelly equal to vaseline, as I understand from what you write in your answer? (forgive my ignorance...)

Marco

Hi to all - I own 35 asph, 90 elmarit (current version) in silver

finish and 24 asph black, with a chrome M6. All the lens are brand

new, except the 90, which is in perfect conditions. Before I bought

the 35 asph, I was happy with a black pre-asph, until I did an

accurate comparison of the photos I took with both, and saw a

noticeable difference, enough to convince me to make the change. What

I noticed is this: on both my silver chrome finished lenses the

movement of the focusing ring isn't as smooth as it is on the black

ones (including the previous 35 I had, and a summicron 50 I owned

some years ago): if you make the ring move from 0.7 to infinity, and

back, you won't notice any problems, everything has the same

smoothness from the start to the end; when it comes down to minimum

adjustement, such as when you're focusing, you feel some

minimum...jamming of the thing. I'll try to describe it more

accurately (I wish my English was good enough): when focusing, i.e.

with minimum adjustements, the ring sometimes stops, always in

different places, so I have to put a bit more force on it to make it

move; when it does, it goes beyond the right point, so I have to turn

it slightly back. The temperature at which I use the lenses is 15-25

degrees upon zero; the lenses have no sign of hits on them, not even

minimal ones; the problem occurs on the whole range of the movement

of the focusing ring.

No problem at all with the black lenses.

I only wanted to know if anyone had the same experience, and if,

using the lenses, this problem could disappear, or if a CLA is needed.

In the normal use, I can focus exactly where it's needed, so this

doesn't bother me, and the photos are GREAT - only it's a bit

disturbing.

Any comments?

MArco

Once more, thanks to all for your answers

Marco

Bruno:

you're perfectly right...every day is a good one to learn something - thank you

Marco

Grant stated that the OOF part of the first picture is distracting. I agree, and would add that it's not a question of good or bad bokeh, but of depth of focus. The details are distracting because they're not enough OOF. A 35 mm is not at its best, when used to take portraits, and, IMO, because of its greater DOF, if compared, for example, to the 90mm. So, if we are forced to take the shot with that focal length, we have to accept some weaknesses in the final result.

I own a 35 asph, and, before buying it, I compared it to the pre-asph, noticing that the bokeh of the 'king of bokeh' (pre-asph' nickname-or was it referred to another previous version?) was surprisingly worse than that of the aspherical (which, IMO, is neutral - not very good, not bad).

If I ever wanted (better, if I was constricted) to take a portrait with that lens, I tried, if possible, to increase at the maximum the distance between the subject and the rest of the field.

For my personal taste, I look for the maximum DOF with wide angles, and use 50 mm, 90 and longer to take portraits with very small DOF.

My two cents

Marco

Ray, I'm at my first day on Photo.net. I didn't post a single photo, yet. Hope this will not matter!! I'm not trying to defend who posted this topic (if it was me, I would already have replied to one who calls me 'troll', or, even better, 'stupid'). Anyway, in nearly twenty years of taking photos I met a lot of people which didn't pay my same attention to the technical aspects of the matter, and was more interested in the artistic part of it, others that were different in another way, and so on...but I never judged them, even if they asked silly question, nor I considered them good or bad at taking photos. So IMHO is reasonable that if someone takes two shots in a crowded store and thinks that a shutter is silent, when he (or she) takes another shot in a silent church, he (she) can eventually notice much more noise, without being stupid.

I already contributed an answer to the topic about flare, and I did it because I only thought that (IN THE CASE I WAS RIGHT) the person who posted it hadn't enough experience to evaluate the problem, not that he/she was a troll, nor a silly person.

And this, anyway, it's only my opinion...

Marco

That's a very nice new, Al...And it explains - perhaps - why Fuji and Kodak came out with Velvia 100, Ektachrome 100 and so on...

I agree completely, in any case.

Marco