marek_fogiel

<p><img src=" alt="" />The CLE is nice, mainly because it is so small, and also because you have the AE, auto release and you can actually see the 28mm frames easily even with the glasses on. Here the praise stops: the AE is not very accurate, and there is no easy way to lock the exposure on the fly, the RF (at least in my camera) is not very precise and goes easily out of alignment, and the focusing patch is not terribly contrasty, making it a PITA to focus fast. It is not anywhere near a Bessa R4A, and it is obviously not a Leica M7 either, still, I have taken some shots with it that I like:</p>

<p><img src="webkit-fake-url://4EF43C3D-29A6-4582-A54A-5DA8CC6D60AB/3505992099_0e129060da_b.jpg" alt="3505992099_0e129060da_b.jpg" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have not used these scanners myself, but for this kind of file size Imacon would probably be an overkill. I use the Nikon CS 9000 and at 4000dpi a 6x6 B&W TIFF scan comes out at 140 MB and a colour one at 420 MB. Also , as far as I know, the Nikon will be probably be much cheaper than any Imacon scanner in a good condition. The difference comes out at higher file sizes and/or if you want to scan 4x5 negs as well.</p>

<p>The C Sonnar suffers from focus shift and there are versions "optimized" for wide open or for f2.8, so don't buy it unless you know what you are doing, having said this I have both versions, as this lens is the best portrait 50mm ever made, but it is not an "all around" fast 50. Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH seems to be in a class of its own (also in terms of price), so if this is what you need, go for it. Apparently the only real contender is the MILLENIUM NIKKOR 50/1.4.</p>

<p>If I were you I'd try Freestyle Photo Supplies - Their Arista Premium 400 and 100 are rebranded Tri X and Plus X at half the price, plus you can get Rodinal, which works well in any dilution, but I like it particularly 1+50. For a "better" high acutance developer, if you feel like getting a bit more sophisticated, there are various Pyro developers, I use Prescysol EF, apparently same thing as Pyrocat HD. You can see examples of Tri X in Rodinal here:<br>

anf Tri X in Prescysol EF here:<br>

Both of these developers are delivering best tonality at EI 250. If you want a somewhat more sharp and less grainy Tri X, you can try Neopan 400, but it will be not as tolerant. Finally Neopan Acros in a good acutance developer is rocking, and I find it particularly useful when shooting late evening, as it has almost no reciprocity failure.<br>

Acros in Rodinal:<br>

Acros in Prescysol:<br>

<p>If I were you I'd try Freestyle Photo Supplies - Their Arista Premium 400 and 100 are rebranded Tri X and Plus X at half the price, plus you can get Rodinal, which works well in any dilution, but I like it particularly 1+50. For a "better" high acutance developer, if you feel like getting a bit more sophisticated, there are various Pyro developers, I use Prescysol EF, apparently same thing as Pyrocat HD. You can see examples of Tri X in Rodinal here:<br>

anf Tri X in Prescysol EF here:<br>

Both of these developers are delivering best tonality at EI 250. If you want a somewhat more sharp and less grainy Tri X, you can try Neopan 400, but it will be not as tolerant. Finally Neopan Acros in a good acutance developer is rocking, and I find it particularly useful when shooting late evening, as it has almost no reciprocity failure.<br>

Acros in Rodinal:<br>

Acros in Prescysol:<br>

<p>Look up Freestyle web shop, the Arista Premium 400 ASA they sell in 35mm is actually a rebranded Tri-X according to about everybody... And it costs much less than the original...</p>

<p>Try it the simple way:<br>

1) Get a f3.5 ROLLEIFLEX, any model in good condition will do. Old lenses are less contrasty and produce superb B&W tonality.<br>

2) Buy Tri-X or HP5+ and try to get them developed in D76, or even better, learn developing yourself.<br>

3) Get a print from a pro lab, else it will be meaningless. Do not expect clinical sharpness, but do expect spectacular quality B&W images, which is unreachable with the current digital capture.</p>

This camera thrives on a tripod, but you can adapt to shoot almost anything with it. I would not particularly recommend it

for street shooting though - a bit too big, too slow to focus, too noisy. You can try a roll of tri-x at ISO 800-1250 and

develop it in Diafine - this should give you a lot of latitude, and enough leeway to shoot handheld with the lens stopped to

f8.0 or more for the extra dof. I would try it for half body portraiture, and see how you like it. A 120 or 150 lens could be

useful down the road. For architecture you would want at least the 50mm, but the best choice would actually be the

SWC/M, which would also be much better suited for wider angle street work ( look up Lee Friedlander's work).

Your description:

" I want the strong contrast and very sharp image but with a smoother, softer, more even OOF."

corresponds with precision to Zeiss Planar - you will get other 2 good aspects too: a high microcontrast and extreme

resistance to flare. Don't waste your time with other glass - unless you want an older look with soft greys gradation ( but

less sharpness and more flare) where you could look at the rigid/DR Summicron. Here are a couple of typical Planar

shots wide open:

 

 

and here a couple that show you the sharpness and flare resistance:

 

Probably the real world differences will be small. FWIW the most sought after version is the Rolleiflex F with the 3,5/75

Planar, however in my opinion before committing to this type of camera, you should realize, that the result will be

technically excellent only if you develop the film yourself ( I am speaking about B&W), and either get a Nikon CS9000

scanner, or print in a wet darkroom. If you cannot do either, continue with your DSLR.

No, I have modified the standard MF carrier to use it with the anti NR glass I bought for my Epson V750 - with most films

there were still issues with the "sagging belly" in the middle of the frame, so I gave up and bought the double glass non

rotating carrier - I shoot almost only B&W, but I have not seen any Newton rings even using the carrier without any

additional masks or strips. The nly problem remains the dust which inevitably accumulates on so many surfaces.

I have just had a long look through a book by Gianni Berengo Gardin - I believe most of his best shots were done with a

28mm, most best shots of HCB have been done with a 50mm, YOU have to decide if you want to see less or more.

For landscape, the "natural" companion for your 80 would be the 50mm - I'd recommend the FLE version which is more

versatile for close shots - if you want to go wider, bite the bullet and get the SWC - the SWC/M T* version as a minimum.

Take a look at some photos by Charlie Waite, Gerard Laurenceau, Michael Seewald, Ladislav Kamarad, Michael Kenna,

etc, and see how you like the perspective.

Edgars,

From my experience, and I have both the 35/2 Distagon ZF and 35/2 Biogon ZM, both lenses have great sharpness,

good contrast, nice 3d rendering and bokeh. The ZF version is maybe a tad sharper between f2.0-2.8 in the center, but

the Biogon takes over by f2.8, and is also more distortion free and weighs half as much as the Distagon. The 3D

rendering and pleasant OOF passage are something you have to see yourself - it can depend on the f stop and type of

film or sensor, and it will also be different in B&W and colour. Both lenses are exceptionally free of flare. For street

shoting, I would certainly recommend a film rangefinder, possibly the Zeiss Ikon with the 35/2 or 35/2.8 Biogon, but there

are cheaper options too, like a Bessa R2A+Skopar 35/2.5.

Here is a comparison of the size of the 2 35mm Zeiss lenses:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1144/1042302856_4940c194dc_b.jpg

and here's an example of the 35/2 Biogon at f4.0:

here another f4.0 shot, this one at infinity:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/1217248456_2e876afc88_b.jpg

and this one shows you the flare resistance:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/2189745407_c01ce7557a_b.jpg

Steve,

Take a look at this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157602216140269/

and this:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51742

and this:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/86731438@N00/pool/tags/ZeissCSonnar50mmf1.5

David,

The Hassy in B&W (which you HAVE to develop yourself) is beyond the reach of any digital camera simply because of the

tonality. In colour the difference is smaller.

As to the scanning, the Epson V700, if you equip it with doug fisher's adjustable holders with glass, will help you get a

decent scan with a real 2200-2400 dpi resolution, but you will not get more than that - so you can still challenge the digital

files for up to 5000x5000 pixels, however a Nikon with the glass holder is a must if you want to get something close to the

real quality of your negs.

If you want a highly competent reference point on the landscape use of this lens, you should look

here:http://www.horolezec.cz/

Ladislav Kamarad is one of more technically demanding users of Hasselblad V system ever... Another great landscape

photographer of superb technique who has used this lens is this one:http://www.christopherburkett.com/home.html,

although apparently he sold this lens at a certain point.

 

I believe, you should start with the normal version, and see if you feel in any way limited in the quality of your pictures

by the lens - which I doubt, honestly, perhaps this could only be the case if you want to print very big.

I am using it along with many other V lenses and I don't feel it is inferior for what it delivers to me, but then I mainly

shoot B&W. I know guys like Charlie White or Michael Seewald are using this "normal" lens, and frankly I can hardly find

any fault with their images...

Well, there's an additional question : do you shoot mainly colour or B&W ?

For B&W I'd get a rigid or DR Summicron . if you need faster speeds, use Tri-X in Diafine at ISO 1600. for colour I'd get the

Planar 50/2 or Millenium Nikkor/Summilux both f1.4. If you want a fast 35mm lens, go directly to the 35/1.2 Nokton - big

and heavy buy very versatile and with great image quality.

Check if your Nikon has the DX readout, if yes, you have to compensate on the +- dial, otherwise you can simply set the

ISO dial to the desired speed. As far as Tri-X in Diafine, it will give you perfectly useable results exposed anywhere

between ISO 400 and 1600 on the same roll, I have even exposed it at ISO 200, and it is acceptable, although the drop in

sharpness is evident. If you use a through the lens average metering, you will probebly be best off to set the speed around

ISO 1000 in most cases. Just try it, it works well especially if you scan and can adjust the contrast in post processing.

BTW, look at this guy's site:http://figitalrevolution.com/?s=tri+x+diafine

I have updated my M7 vf to the latest one lately directly at Solms, and If I recall correctly it cost about EUR 350.

If you wear glasses and use a ,72 VF, the right solution is not another Leica, but the Zeiss Ikon. With a 0.74 VF which is

much bigger and brighter, and has a much bigger entrance pupil, you will see the 35 and 50mm frames like a dream, and if

you press your glasses close, also the 28mm. You will have a great camera for 1/3rd of the price of the M7 - I use both,

but the ZI is certainly much more versatile.

The answer is pretty simple for me. I shoot Leica (and other film cameras) 99% in B&W film. Digital B&W output cannot

compete with film yet, on the other hand, digital colour is very competitive against film, and it really boils down to taste in

the final output, while the convenience is obviously on the part of digital. So I shoot film, scan and print on an inkjet.

I have tried the 28 Elmarit v III, 28 Elmarit Asph and the 28 Biogon - the Elmarit v III has had some serious vignetting at

wider apertures, some flare and was overall not terribly sharp. The Elmarit ASPH is tiny, fairly flare resistant, distortion free

and sharp, but I do not like its bokeh and I find the microcontrast is a bit lacking. The Biogon in comparison has more bite,

and will likely be the lens I will use most, however it comes to personal preference - and budget...

Adrian,

I normally only apply local contrast sharpening (20,60), because the classic acutance sharpening (200,2) enhances greatly

the grain. This is why I finally got a good scanner (Nikon CS 9000) and I prefer non solvent developers over the solvent

ones - the highest "natural" edge effects can be obtained with the pyro developer family - I use often Prescysol EF -

apparently a different name of Pyrocat HD.

Some of these were shot from the hip, but still...