websterforrest

<p>Thanks Rick - so there is hope! WF</p>

<p>OK, this is a really nerdy question, but I have been using a breechlock FD 35mm f/2 lens for some time - (chrome, f/16, concave front element, not marked SSC) and it's great and all, but I often inadvertently turn the aperture ring away from the auto setting while I'm focusing or holding the camera and doing stuff. I know some of these lenses have the little button that locks the aperture ring ito the automatic position - but are there any of the f/16 concave ones which have this lock button? I'm thinking it may be something they introduced with the new f/22 optical design.</p>

<p>Thanks if anyone can help.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Webster</p>

<p>

<p>Hi Everyone,</p>

<p>Has anyone heard of the above? It was apparently a special edition brought out in 1996 - two years after what I understand was the end of production for the C330. </p>

<p>Here's a pic of it http://mamiya.tudura.com/camera/flex/1-12.jpg</p>

<p>Does anyone have any idea of how many were made? I think these things are usually just made for Japan…</p>

<p>I've just bought one with what is meant to be a 65mm lens - though the one mention of it I've found says the available lenses were only 55, 80, and 135 and 180.</p>

<p>Many thanks,</p>

<p>Webster</p>

</p>

Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks for your replies - they cleared up all my questions.

 

Have a great weekend - I will be taking my new Hasselblad out for a spin no doubt!

 

Thanks,

 

Webster

Hi Everyone,

 

I have just bought a gorgeous 501cm that came with a lens that looks

exactly like a CF 80mm but is marked only "C 80mm". There is also no

green dot and no F next to the B on the shutter speed ring. Obviously

this is not for use with the 2000 cameras.

 

My question is this - does anyone know when these lenses were

produced, and whether they are the same optically and mechanically as

the CF lenses (with the exception of the F bit). Is this the same

Prontor shutter? The serial number is 7835612.

 

Thanks,

 

Webster

Hi,

 

I would add my vote for the Yashica twin lens reflex (such as Yashicamat) idea. I stared medium format with a Yashicamat, and just the other day I was scanning some of the negatives and they were superb. You want to make sure you get one that has 'Yashinon' written on the front of the lens - this is meant to be the best lens. The cameras are long-lasting, and can still be fixed by competent repairmen. It's also very small.

 

-- Webster

Hi,

I used an RB67 for a few years. I had the Pro-SD version with K/L lenses - i.e. the latest versions of the body and lenses. I found the camera to be fantastically reliable, and to have wonderful optics. The 127mm lens is probably the best all-rounder, and never disappointed me in any context, whether portraiture, landscape, macro etc.

 

One thing to remember is that there is a very big difference between 35mm (or even 645) and 6x7 when using available light at moderate to low levels. One side of this is the speed of the lenses (f/3.5 is fast for 6x7, whereas with 35mm you can usually count on f/1.8 being your standard lens), and the other is the fact that the camera more or less has to live on a tripod unless you're shooting at quite high shutter speeds (with a 35mm camera and 50mm lens you're safe with anything above 1/60, but with an RB67 and the equivalent 90 or 127mm lens, it's more like 1/250 if youre using it hand-held). One thing to remember is that the RB67 is really huge - about the size of a shoebox. I have done my fair share of hand-held shooting with the RB67, but even with the rare but wonderful Multi-Angle Grip it is inconvenient to say the least. It's a bit like trying to hold a garbage bag open while you're filling it with hedge trimmings: it can be done, but it's a heck of a lot easier if you have something holding it up! If as you say you intend to use flash, the fact that the camera is fairly wobbly when used hand-held would probably be less important, both because of the higher shutter speeds you can use with all the extra light, and of course because of the effect the flash will have in freezing movement.

 

If you want to shoot medium format hand-held, I'd recommend either a twin lens reflex, or a Hasselblad. I have found the difference between a 6x6 negative and a 6x7 negative to be minor, but it can depend on what shape print you want - as a 6x6 negative cut to a rectangle is a bit like shooting 645: a fair bit smaller than the already rectangular 6x7. Personally I like square pictures. If you are fixed on 6x7 and hand-held, ask for feedback on the Pentax 67. I've never used it, but I've seen and held them, and they are much more 'handy' than the RB67, and the lenses should be of equivalent optical quality - but then again, if you use flash a lot, I think the RB might be better as, as far as I'm aware, the Pentax has a focal plane shutter - and probably has a very limiting maximum shutter speed for use with flash. As I say, I haven't used it, so I may be wrong.

 

The RB67 is reliable, but I have had mechanical problems with this as well as all other MF cameras; the optics are superb, but so are all the professional optics from the major manufacturers. My point is that the pictures will not be better because it's an RB67 as opposed to a Bronica or Hasselblad or Pentax, but the type of shooting the camera is best suited for is different between the brands. I'd say if you want to shoot hand-held in medium format, that either a Hasselblad or a Rolleiflex TLR would be a better choice.

 

As far as mirror vibration goes, every medium format SLR I've used gives a little jump when you release the trigger. The only way to avoid problems caused by this at slowish shutter speeds, other than pre-releasing, is to use a TLR or put your SLR on a tripod; so I'd say if you're set on an SLR, the mirror slap is equivalent to other makes.

 

If your final decision comes down to money, get yourself an older RB67 body, back, and finder - but a new model lens (marked K/L), as the optics and mechanics are improved. In terms of value for money, you can't really beat an RB67 - the question is will it suit your shooting style?

 

The best way to find out is to get your hands on one and give it a try.

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster Forrest

Hi Everyone,

 

I hope you're all well. I just bought a Hasselblad body with a screen in it that looks a little

different to my existing screens. It's got the four black lines in the middle in the shape of a

plus sign, there are no focusing aids such as microprism or cross-hair. The entire screen

is matt with the faintest visible fresnel lines. So far this is the same as my other screens.

But the

thing that is different is that there is a large (i.e. approx 41mm diameter) circle wherein

the screen

is slightly but distinctly brighter. It's a perfect circle, so not some stain or anything. This is

the first time I've seen this. Can anyone tell me what this type of screen is called? It came

on a 1982 (RH) body if that's any help - and I believe it is the original screen for this body.

 

Many thanks for help with this rather geeky question.

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster Forrest

London

Many thanks to all of you for your honest replies. The consensus seems to be it's not a match made in heaven but in a pinch it's not going to be a complete disaster either. I have one of the 35mm viewfinders (a nice old Canon one that's very well made) that I've used on my screw-mount Leica and was hoping to take advantage of the M's single viewfinder /rangefinder window. At the end of the day, if I want to know exactly what is or isn't in the frame I suppose I can always use my Nikon F3!

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster

Hi everyone,

 

I have a question about the viewfinder in an M3. I will soon be the

owner of an M3 and would like to use a 35mm lens with it. I am aware

that the M3 does not have framelines for the 35mm lens. My question

is: is it possible to see the field of view of a 35mm lens in the M3

viewfinder nevertheless? I'm not sure whether the 50mm lines are very

near the edge of what you can see through the viewfinder. In other

words, I wonder whether the viewfinder's own field of view might

possibly be wide enough to see what the 35mm will photograph, but

without the benefit of framelines.

 

To prevent a few answers: I don't want to use the accessory 'glasses'

or 'eyes' that can be had with some 35mm lenses made for the M3 - I'd

like to use a modern summicron.

 

Many thanks for your responses.

 

Webster

If you want to do it in the centre of London - i.e. West End, then Sky is good. Personally I use Forest Photographic in Walthamstow - about a three minute walk from the tube station. It's much much cheaper. They're a Fujifilm Pro outlet, as opposed to Fujifilm minilab. Sky Photographic is a really full-scale photo place and is just behind Oxford St. Best of luck.

One of the great portrait photographers.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4427752.stm

Hi,

 

I have a large collection of old B&W film that I would like to scan

on my film scanner. I have found that some scan extremely poorly, and

others scan less poorly, but still poorly.

 

I have heard that scanning B&W film using the 'colour positive' film

setting is the best. Does anyone else have any techniques for getting

the most natural result (not blown out highlights and pitch black

shadows) from real B&W film in a dedicated film scanner? The scanner

I have is the Nikon Coolscan V, which I really like for all other

kinds of film. Also, I have noticed that t-grain films such as Fuji

Neopan Across give the worst results. Unfortunately, these are really

the films I'd like to scan.

 

P.S. This post does not relate to pseudo black and white films such

as Fuji Neopan 400CN or Ilford XP2, both of which I have scanned with

excellent results. I'm talking about my traditional black and white

films.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Webster

Thank you everyone for your informative and objective input - once again a very useful exchange of information and viewpoints.

 

Thanks too for taking the time to answer /upload photos.

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster

Hi,

 

Does anyone have any experience of any of the Flextight scanners? I

am thinking of how they fare with colour negative, colour positive,

and especially black and white films (such as Fuji Neopan Acros 100

and other 'traditional' B&W films like Delta 100 or Kodak TMax).

 

I have a Nikon Coolscan V which is great for colour neg 35mm, but

lousy at traditional B&W and I'm looking for a dedicated film scanner

for this application in particular - must be for both 35mm and MF

(6x6).

 

Any input would be appreciated.

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster Forrest

I would definitely suggest you take one very important accessory: some insurance!

 

WF

Hi,

I have had the f/1.4 version and shot extensively with it. I also have the f/1.8 version (both AI-S). When I owned them both and used them concurrently (the 1.4 for lower light) I found that even stopped down the 1.4 was not as contrasty as the 1.8. I ended up selling the 1.4 because in the end I never used it. The 1.8 is virtually the same speed (I think it's half a stop difference, is that right?). Unless you are shooting slow-speed slide film in low light, you are not likely to miss the 1/2 stop. Since selling the 1.4 I have never missed the extra little bit of speed, and have greatly enjoyed the higher contrast and extra bite of the 1.8. I consider the f/1.8 version of this focal length to be one of the very best lenses I have ever used. The fact that they are so cheap is just another reason to get one.

 

There are different versions of a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 - even AI-S. Some are new and flatter and lack the rabbit ear prongs. I'd make sure I'm getting the larger lens with the rabbit ears. The mechanical construction is significantly more robust.

Almost all of the entire state of Florida is overrun with tourists. You should try some of the small coastal towns near Daytona - there can be a lot of interesting gaudy decaying residential and commercial architecture. If you are interested in nature try Okefenokee (sp?)

This is a very good question - so no need to feel bashful.

 

Another reason to consider a prime lens over a zoom lens is that not having the instant

zooming ability can also 'force' you into thinking more about how to frame a picture: with

a zoom it's easy, just zoom in or out until you get the framing that looks best. With a

prime, you may find that you develop the habit of looking out for new ways of presenting

a scene which are created by the limitation of having only one focal length.

 

Don't forget, Henri Cartier-Bresson - who many people would regard as one of the very

best photographers of all time - used the same lens for the vast majority of his work: a

50mm lens on a 35mm camera. His was a Leica, but the optical quality of that 1930's Leica

is not even as good as today's 50mm prime lenses from Canon or Nikon; but he made it

work for him by learning its strengths and weaknesses. A single prime lens can actually be

very LIBERATING, rather than restrictive. And the best part is, they are invariably cheaper

than the optically-inferior zooms anyway!

 

Best of luck, and enjoy!

 

Webster Forrest

Hi,

 

I am also surprised that the performance is poor. I am not making any assumptions about the product itself, because I had read a lot of very enthusiastic comments here on photo.net about this lens before buying; so I'm clearly not surprised that many of you have an experience which is very different from mine.

 

To answer a few questions above: it was bought new in Florida from a normal sort of high street photographic store of some kind (I live in London so too far for a return!); It's not the negatives or film or processing at all, or even some pressure plate misalignment or something in the body, or even the scanner, because among the shots on the same rolls are shots taken with a different lens: a very nice collapsible Elmar, and all those shots appear as normal for that lens.

 

But would anyone be able to give a 'subjective comparison' or non-technical (i.e. not lpmm) impression of how this lens would compare to something like a Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.8 or AI-S 28mm f/2.8, the latter of which is one of the very finest lenses I have ever used, the former of which is also truly first class. I'm putting this question out there to the people with good experiences with this lens.

 

Thanks!

 

Webster

Hi,

 

I bought a Voigtlaender Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 lens (not the pancake

one but the larger one) for use on my Leica III and have a few rolls

of film (Fuji Neopan 400CN) back and scanned (Nikon Coolscan V ED). I

was very surprised by the result, as there was really no detail in

the photos. I have shot with a few different 35mm systems, and have

never had negatives this lacking in detail. They are not out of

focus, just look like they have been unsharpened or something and are

evenly low in detail and are fuzzy. I get more detail from my

Industar-22!

 

Could anyone provide a comparison of this lens to something like a

Nikkor 50m ai-s f/1.8 or Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 - these have been my

previous mainstays in 135. I have used the same film and scanner with

the 50mm Nikkor and had results I could enlarge to a very large sharp

print so know that film and scanner are well compatible in this case.

 

I am assuming there may be something wrong with this lens - but it's

brand new (unfortunately bought overseas so there's no chance of me

taking it back to the shop...). Mechanically it's very fine, and

there is absolutely nothing apparently out of place.

 

Many thanks for your help.

Yes.

 

(How's that for a quick question and answer?)

 

--Webster

My favourite is my old Yashica-Mat which I never use any more. It's the lightest MF camera I have, has a (Yashinon) lens which has never ever ever disappointed in any respect, is the quietest camera I've ever used, and is the only MF camera I've ever owned that has never broken.

 

So why don't I use it? Well, a Hasselblad /RB67 /M645 /Rolleiflex SL66 /C330 is so much 'better'. Right?

 

Webster

You have to take a picture.

 

When the shutter release is gently depressed to pre-release the mirror, it is not possible to restore the mirror other than by completing the shutter release and winding the film advance on.

 

You may consider this a loss, but consider the possible risk to the mechanism of the camera if tampered with, in comparison to the loss of ONE exposure on your film!

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster Forrest

Hi,

Just a quick note, to those who may not know already, there is to be

a large retrospective exhibit of Dian Arbus's work (including prints,

contact sheets, notes, etc.) at the V&A from 13 October 2005 to some

time in January. Here is a link to the V&A page:

 

http://www.vam.ac.uk/exhibitions/future_exhibs/arbus/

 

Best wishes,

 

Webster Forrest