aaron_johnston

Shill alert.

They're excellent lenses and work like a charm. In fact, at 1/10 the price of their Leica counterparts, I'd say they're the best dollar-for-dollar lenses made.

Well, Epson did put one on the R-D1 (though purely as an affectation.)

 

Flame away.

Can I get some opinions on photo labs here in NYC?

 

I just got back from wasting my lunch hour attempting to pick up prints from

Alkit near Union Square and was basically blown off by their uppity clerk. This

is after they scratched up a batch of slides the previous time and misprinted a

set for me last month. They've lost my business for good.

 

I've searched the archives and found that most of the threads re: New York labs

are either quite old and/or are filled with info about obsolete companies or

businesses that have moved but to who knows where.

 

I've used Adorama and the E6 was good but the prints were drugstore quality.

I've read that Duggal is the best one day and the worst the next. I understand

no one is perfect and that choosing a lab is a lot like choosing a politician

but I am really just tired of poor quality, poor service, unreliability, etc.

 

Who has the best batting average for prints and/or E6. Please, someone,

enlighten me.

More megapixels is NOT what Panasonic needs to be adding to their p&s cameras. I agree with the previous poster re: high ISO noise. Until they can manufacture a reliable sensor, I could care less if they cram, shove, shoulder, stuff, load, pack and smoosh megapixel-upon-megapixel inside.

We're thinking about a 16-35 and possibly having it calibrated if we feel our copy is considerably soft compared to the copy we rent.

 

Thanks for the 24mm TS-E info. The curiosity is certainly still there but we'll probably wait until our skills catch up.

 

In the meantime, here's why we love our 24mm f1.4L:<div></div>

Savas: Sorry I'm not the kind of guy who commandeers someone else's question for the sake of diverting it toward my needs. Also, I did search but wasn't actually looking for every/any thread vaguely to do with a wide angle lens. I find it funny that you can't seem to find the redundancy yourself (i.e. the myriad duplicate threads asking for the precise information that I am asking) considering your somewhat obsessive-compulsive relationship with...a website.

 

To everyone else, thanks a lot for helping to narrow this tough decision. We're going to rent the 14mm and the 24mm TS-E and see which lens seems to work for our needs.

The "same" inquiry? That's a convenient reduction for the sake of argument. That thread is about someone interested in the 16-35 vs. 17-40 debate. I don't even express interest in the 17-40 and my query is considerably broader and requests information on two entirely different lenses -- the 14mm and 24mm Tilt Shift. Now, if you're done with lazy reductionism, mind offering something substantive to the thread?

Thanks but we're looking to get one of the above EF lenses.

My wife and I have decided to add another wide-angle EF lens to our arsenal. We

own the 24mm f1.4L and want something just as wide (or wider) that will also

expand our options. I use a 5D and she is planning on getting one at some point

to (right now she shoots a Rebel XT.)

 

These are our choices:

 

14mm f2.8L: We own a Voigtlander 15mm M lens and love it. I understand this lens

has edge softness issues and seems to get mixed reviews. We figure we know when

and where to use it based on our use of the Voigtlander 15mm but we've read so

many conflicting reviews that we're not quite sure. Uses would be for

ultra-closeup images and landscape/architecture. We understand it excels at

certain things and should not be used for others. Still, $1800 is a bargain for

a truly well corrected lens at this focal length. The issue: is it truly well

corrected?

 

24mm TS-E L: We know nothing about how to use a tilt shift but we own a tripod

and are willing to learn. We worry that we won't "get" the tilt shift concept or

that, once we do, we won't really find it that useful. We're not pros but the

idea of owning a unique lens such as this is intriguing. Is it a waste to invest

in something like this if we're basically just messing around? We're open to

wildly creative possibilities but are nonetheless technical amateurs.

 

16-35mm L: I tried one of these and found it to be really inconsistant.

Sometimes images were sharp, sometimes they were soft. I have heard that this

lens suffers from sample variation issues and that there are quite a few lemons

floating around. Still, I think this would be the most versatile lens for our

needs if only I could get over this mistrust I have over the quality control at

Canon.

 

Any feedback or opinions would be more than welcome. We've done a lot of

research and have definitely narrowed it to these three lenses so

recommendations of other lenses may not be that helpful.

I shot a whole roll of NPS160 today and the only problem I had was the shutter release jamming after five exposures. After another love tap to the baseplate, it resumed functioning. I'll probably just send the camera in for repair. Thanks for all the feedback.

For my past feew rolls of film (all Fuji Provia 400f from the same

box), I've had a problem with my M7 reading the proper ISO speed via

DX (stated speeds range from 25 to 400). I have also had the problem

of the shutter simply refusing to fire after the 24th exposure even

though these are 36 exposure rolls. I gave the camera a semi-hard

whack against the baseplate and that seemed to convince it to continue

firing past the 24th frame but the DX woes continued.

 

I put a roll of NPS160 in today and it read the ISO fine on the first try.

 

All evidence seems to point to a fault with the Provia but I thought I

would ask anyway just to be sure. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, everyone. I am beginning to suspect my Nikon 500ED film scanner may have a part in it. I do not have a loupe or a light table (I shoot negatives 90% of the time) and I cannot notice the edge softness quite as much as I do on screen. Still, I will fiddle with it some more.

 

I think my major concern was the fear I had a bad lens but edge softness does not seem a likely byproduct of sample variation and the glass looks fine.

I recently purchased a 28mm Summicron-M ASPH lens used and looked over

my first slides taken with it (Fuji Provia 400f/Leica M7.) At any

rate, I notice a lot of edge softness and am somewhat surprised by the

results as this was not a major issue in any of the reviews I read.

The glass looks very clean and I bought it from a reputable dealer.

 

Can someone else with experience using this lens tell me if they have

experienced similar problems?

Hi, Mark...

 

We spoke yesterday at Tamarkin (I was buying the M7 .85). At any rate, I have noticed a rather significant difference between the .85 viewfinder and the .72. (I basically put a 50 on my .72 body and a 50 on my .85 body and kept looking through the viewfinders.) Considering our conversation from yesterday, I think you'd be happier with the .85 finder. You don't seem to have much interest in going super-wide so the loss of the 28 frmaelines wouldn't be a problem. Likewise, I found the 50 frameline to be much roomier in the .85 finder and if you ever wanted to go tele, the 75 and 90 frames are much more usable at .85, too.

Out him here and now. He could well be making more 'deals' as we speak.

I am going to buy one these but I am not yet sure which. Any advice

would be appreciated.

 

I don't shoot many portraits and I'm really into low-light

photography. I usually shoot Tri-X 400 and sometimes color 100 films.

I understand the 75 is a little soft wide open but in a

painterly/narrow-DoF way. I enjoy this look quite a lot (I also own a

Noctilux.) I am wondering if I would be able to achieve good results

in this style with the 90 wide open. From what I have read, the 90

ASPH is a very sharp lens but does it have particurly distinct

bokeh/wide aperture appeal?

Thanks! The negatives are fine so I guess it must be the printer I used. Now I can sleep tonight.

I just got my first set of prints back and there is a black spot in

the same place on numerous prints. It's muted but identical in

location, size and shape in each print it appears in.

 

I have two lenses and have deduced that there must be a problem with

one of them. I bought a used lens from B&H that looked clean under

examination but under more ambient lighting I can see a pin-sized

blemish on the rear element. It appears more like a discoloration than

a crack or a hole. I am wondering if this is the most likley culprit.

 

The film is Kodak Tri-X b&w 400 and the camera is a Leica M7. The

suspect lens is a Noctilux. I used a reputable lab, not a drugstore.

Map Camera in Shinjuku has a case of Leicas about six feet long and four rows high. You name it, they have it. As for prices, I tend to agree that they are higher than here in the U.S. and it makes little sense to buy anything in Japan unless it's a rare item you simply cannot find here.

 

If you do buy anything, be sure to bring your passport as many shops offer tax free prices for foreigners. They'll staple a note to your passport indicating how much you spent and you simply hand this to customs at the airport when you leave. Makes a big difference.

Whatever you do, avoid Discount Camera on Kearny. Total salesman shark tank.

 

The folks at Adolph Gasser are nice but have a somewhat limited selection of stock on hand.

I don't know that there is any clear manufacturer incentive for consumer models to go higher than 7.0/8.0 megapixels right now. Given that there are already 16+ megapixel pro cameras, it certainly is technologically possible. Whether they can get this resolution into a tiny image sensor is the question.

 

For the average consumer, I think size and design are bigger overall selling points than megapixels. Considering that many of these people still tend to see digital cameras more as gadgets, I don't see manufacturers compromising the sleek and cool element just to accommodate larger image sensors and megapixel counts.

 

Also, with such a wide variety of product out there, manufacturers also need to maintain a good spread to maintain visible differences between consumer, prosumer and professional cameras.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to try out the P mode on my next outing. For the most part, I tend to stick with auto modes because I don't use the camera often enough to create a steady learning curve for myself (nor do I have the time to take classes to become a learned photographer.) I use it seldom and need good results often.

 

I am thankful to digital technology for allowing me even this far into photography. I don't know that I agree with everything in Steve's "idiot mode" debate; I'm not sensitive to semantics but I also don't feel that these modes were created for abject dunderheads who don't want to use their brains. I took the following pic on an "idiot" mode setting (w/ Canon 28-135 IS) and am pleased with it nonetheless.

 

http://www.endustry.com/blogpics/balletwindow.jpg

I've used a 10D for a while now and shoot mostly in auto or one of the

preset dummy modes Canon includes on the dial. I do this because I'm

an amateur. Anyhow, why is it that the 10D will not allow saving in

RAW from these modes? If there's a way around this, please let me

know. If there is NOT a workaround for this, can someone tell me if

the 20D also works the same way?

Thanks for helping a budding amateur out. I've tried practice shots on my 28-135 with IS off and found mixed results. The f/2.8 combined with the heavier weight of the lens are definitely encouraging factors. As for trying out the lens, I feel bad wasting a dealer's time because they can never come close to matching online prices. Maybe this is something I need to get over, though.