richard jepsen

<p>I recently bought a collapsable M mount Summicron 50/2. The lens is clean with no haze or coating issues and has a hood. I'm finding many images are wonderful using FP-4. The lens has fabulous Bokeh and tonality in bright light. However, if shadows are weak, overall tonality is too flat. <br>

Are my observations typical for this lens? <br>

Is it effective to increase development by 10% to add some sparkle? <br>

</p>

<p>The MP has meaningful improvements over the latter m6/ttl such as a curved mirror with a somewhat different shape and the mask. Together with the coated windows rangefinder patch whiteout is reduced. The mirror-mask system can be retrofitted in M7 models and I assume in M6/M6TTL too. The shutter was improved. The top plate retuns to brass with a all metal advance lever similar to the m2/3. </p>

<p>I doubt the M-mount, SOOIC/11116 (1954 - 1957) is as sharp as the modern Elmer-M 50mm f/2.8. The 1956 cron collapsible focused at the minimum distance is not as sharp as my 1970 Minolta 50mm Rokkor-X. The lens Bokeh is as good as it gets, better than my Rokkor-M 40mm and similar to my MC 58mm f/1.2. 11116's resolution is very high at apertures of f/4 and smaller. I recently snapped several B&W landscapes which included bare trees limbs. The image had a delicate pencil drawing quality to grass and limbs. Focused at 3-4 feet, there is defined yet somewhat unsharp image quality. It’s a nice option when you want that effect. <br />The Leica Viewfinder mentioned at f/4 there is no real image difference between the mid century collapsible and the next generation (1956 - 1968) rigid cron. At the two wider apertures, upclose, the rigid has the advantage in sharpness. <br />On the 50mm I use the 12524 rectangular hood, the one designed for the 35mm f/2 v4. I don’t know if the hood is adequate. However, I don’t have complaints with flair. I see a slight loss of contrast around a few limbs when the lens is pointed into the sky to include tree branches. It’s a vintage look and hardly noticeable. I notice the shadows or dark areas retain more tone. I assume this is due to minor flair. <br />For B&W the 11116 with mint glass has "that look". <br />The lens does not handle as well as my 40mm. On the other hand it was good enough for HBC and looks way cool. </p>

<p>Raid, I just purchased a mint collapsible 1956 M-Summicron for B&W. I read many folks aren't sastified with this lens. It may be because clean glass is very hard to find. The results I get are very detailed with great shadow detail. When the lens is pointed to the sky the darks in branches start to desaturate. Its minor and gives a 50s look. <br>

I think the strength of the older 1950s and 60s optics is B&W. What is your opinon of the collapsible. </p>

<p>Dirk Rösler | Japan Exposures <<a href="mailto:dirk@japanexposures.com">dirk@japanexposures.com</a>> provided the following explanation on F-stops. I wonder if changing focus will move the f-stop?<br>

"Not quite: The f stops are marked just like with any other lens. The <br />only thing different is that they don't click into place. If you have <br />ever used a view camera lens, it is exactly the same."<br /></p>

<p>The cost of a 28mm seems to be more than a used ZM or KM. However the size of the contax is much smaller. Can anyone comment who has one of the conversions and discuss the part about f-stops not having detents.</p>

<p>LPL 670 enlargers are a nice replacement for B-22s but are double the cost of a clean Valoy II. <br />Has production ended on the short neck bulbs??</p>

<p>Any issues with the Valoy II? I have never used one. I understand bulbs may be hard to find. However when I bought my 1c the seller gave me a box of OSRAM 4620 110 v bulbs. <br />Valoys are small but sturdy. I prefer the Leitz condensor/neg configuration and lack of alignment issues. The build quality is much better than a B22. </p>

<p>Thanks. We have Kodak holders but Ron identified an issue. <br />John, based on what you said 3x3 Ilford flat filters placed on top of the swing out filter arm would work. <br />Would a Valoy II be a good replacement for B-22s enlarging small format negs in a small community darkroom? I'm thinking Valoys IIs as they sell for over 50% less than a 1c which I own and love. <br />I am the single teacher at our local community darkroom. I wish to recommend the replacement of 5 beat up B-22s which leak light and have questionable alignment. The darkroom is used only for instruction vs rental. No one enlarges past 8x10. We can use one clean Bessler 23C for the rare times a student wishes to enlarge medium format negatives. </p>

<p>The Valoy II and IC have a red filter which swings into the projection light path. Can you

remove the red filter and use the filter frame to support a VC filter. What is the best

approach to jury-rigging under the lens filtration?</p>

<p>"I also have 35mm lens and don’t like its result either. I am not seeking a good camera, but a result "<br>

"The reason why I use a 85 mm to do street photography are that I was not able to get close to people and I like shooting with people than an environment."<br>

After re-reading your posts, it's not an equipment but a vision/composition problem you may need to solve. Look at pictures, read a lot, and practice. When people are the subject, often you need a relationship where they look you in the eye vs you shooting the back of their heads. Faces, eyes and expressions are always interesting.</p>

 

<p>The Nikon F100 is more than adequate to learn photography. As others mentioned, it makes sense to buy a lower priced rangefinder such as the Konica S2 to determine if the RF tradeoffs are acceptable. My 1967 Minolta SRT pre-focused is as effective a street shooting tool as a Leica. <br>

You don't need a fine camera or exotic location to take good pictures. The person behind the camera makes the real difference. <br>

If money is no object get the MP. The build quality is slightly improved. <br>

</p>

<p>Marco<br>

TRI-X rated at 200 developed in D76 1:1 at published times for 20c using 3 inversions each 60s will produce nice negatives for a condensor type enlarger. Rate TRI-X at 250 if you develop with XTOL 1:1. The negative is the foundation to achieve full print tonality. </p>

 

I'm not sure what leica glow is. If it is flair, that normally does not help an image. The previously mentioned Mike Johnson article is excellent for achieving quality B&W images.

 

I use a Leica M-35mm v2, Minolta M-40mm, and Leica M-90mm Fat Elmarit. The 90mm has low contrast but produces nice portraits. My other cameras are a wonderful Rollei TLR, 80 Planar, Bronica RF645 (3 optics) and 2 Minoltas with 1970s lenses. Minolta and Leica glass are known for their similar Bokeh, the reason I bought Minolta. There are no differences between Leica B&W negatives and Minolta except the Elmarit 90mm has the lowest contrast.

 

More important to images is the 3-D plastic effect seen in many older lenses. This look has a touch of ambiguity, part of the charm. The camera optic which often renders a smooth 3-D look is my Rollei TLR at f/4. When you see it your hooked. My Minolta 58mm f/1.2 and Leica 90mm have the look. Other lenses retaining certain aberrations have it too. But non of my other lenses produce the look more often then the Rollei. The look involves sharpness, enhanced by the larger medium format negative, good edge contrast and smooth Bokeh. Moderate contrast is part of recipe.

 

I once read the more perfect optics become, the less interesting pictures they produce

For the most part, one will not see a meaningful difference between modern Leica glass and current M mount Zeiss,

Konica, and probably Vlander products. If we are discussing B&W film and enlarging, older Leica glass has

less contrast and a different fingerprint. My 90mm Fat Elmarit makes beautiful B&W images. The Elmarit will flair if

pointed to the sky but also records shadow details and smooth bokeh. The 40mm CLE optic is

similar to a cron 35mm version 2 or 3 in sharpness, contrast and bokeh.

Minolta's 1960's MC lenses were manufactured with Minolta's proprietary Achromatic Coating. This was before Nikon multicoated.

 

The first lens-coating method in the 40s was a single very thin layer of a transparent material such as magnesium fluoride. This improved picture quality. However, a single coating is not effective at all colors of light.

 

Improvement was obtained by using multiple coating layers of different thicknesses, so reflections are reduced at all colors of the spectrum. Minolta applyed multiple coatings starting with the application of two layers called Achromatic Coating. They continually improved their coating process. Minolta was competitive with Nikon, Cannon and Pentax, and Leica.

 

Rokkor X lenses were manufactured in the 70s when Minolta was going head to head with other firms.

Years ago I bought a MC 58mm f/1.2. I consider it my best lens for portraits. It's bokeh is better than the Leica mount 40mm f/2 for the CLE. Specifically, for B&W the contrast is moderate and the circle of confusion rings are not bright on the edges. The long normal focal length has good enough perspective.

 

The MC 58mm has an image characteristic similar to the Leica Elmarit 90mm f/2.8.

I own the RF645 with 3 lenses. There is no practical distortion in any of the lenses. The glass is superb with great bokeh in all 3 optics. Since the RF only has a 45mm, 65mm, and 100mm you will need to decide on what you want the camera to do. I find it is a great choice for general photography and environmental portraits.

I have owned the RF645 since it first came out. It is a great camera and I think a future cult classic. I bought the 100mm/f4.5 lens when it came out and believe it's the ideal choice. The 100mm is capable of a shallow dept of field with beautiful blurred backgrounds. A 135mm frameline would be smaller and lens larger than the 100mm. Most folks don't know the 100mm has a close focusing zone which allows focus at 1.2 meters and magnification of 1:10. The Gauss-type design is 7 elements in 6 groups and results in a more compact design. Weight is 450g, diameter 76mm and length 83.5mm.

Wow, this is a great forum for sharing info. Many thanks.

Will the heavystar 40mm hood fit a 40mm Minolta CLE M-Rokkor? Crap I lost the

rubber hood.

Smooth OOF effects enhance some images. Boke is a subtle, overlooked by the unknowing. I've observed uninformed viewers inability to explain why an image appeals to their eye. When you point out compositional elements such as repeating patterns or geometry, they have words to express perceptions. Boke is similar. Examples can be seen in August Saunder's photos from the 20s which show how an imperfect lens strengthens an image. Check out the photo, Bauer(aug dem We zur Beerdigung) Westerwald (1926) found in (August Sander 1876-1964) ISBN 3-8228-7179-6. Sometimes expensive optics get in the way of a good image.

Bill hit it on the head. The Leica is good for low light and travel. If you shoot landscape the SLR is a better tool.

Does anyone prefer the Valoy II to a 1C? Kinda a silly question as most would say a 1C is nicer but I don't use the auto focus feature and I rarely enlarge more than 5x7.

Does the grey Valoy II have the red leitz logo. There was a mint grey Valoy II which sold on E-bay 18 Feb that did not seem to have a filter tray. Having a tray is a positive. The problem with the easel is similar to what we experience with B-22s at the local community darkroom and is a bummer. However, most of my small format prints are 5x7.