tony_lockerbie

<p>That's it, sorry for the delayed action post, don't know whether the glitch was here or at PDN, anyway, another day and all is well. Film used was FP4+, developed in Pyrocat and rated at iso 80, and I do like the joke about the thick fog :)</p>

<p>...and the last one, taken with the 28mm Nikkor.</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

<p>No.4</p><div></div>

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

<p>Aha, all's good! No.2</p><div></div>

<p>Foggy indeed, for some reason I couldn't post after putting up the camera....all seems ok now....I will try again!</p> <div></div>

<p>Just revisiting my much loved Contax, but with a different lens to that I normally use. I tend to stay with my post war coated Opton Sonnar F2 for use on the Contax, as it is dead sharp, and quite contrasty for a 60 year old lens.<br> Thought that I would go back a few years to the thirties and use the rather wonderful pre-war 1.5 Sonnar, which of course has no coating whatsoever. That Zeiss could coax this much contrast and sharpness out of a lens designed in the thirties is quite amazing. Of course it isn't bitingly sharp and contrasty like a modern lens, and can flare quite easily if provoked, but still has a lovely signature.<br> I took some pics at the nearby port of Eden, on a somewhat foggy morning that was slowly clearing...thought it would suit the old Sonnar. I'm sure you are all familiar with the Contax, so I will just get down to it and post a few pics, including one taken with the 28mm Nikkor from my S2.</p><div></div>

<p>You have quite an uncommon camera. I have, and have just been using, the non-rf version that was built from 1937-39. The RF version was made from 1939-40 in quite small numbers.<br> The Duo's used Kodak anastigmat, Zeiss Tessars and the Schneider Xenar that you have. Like all Nagel cameras from that period, they all are nicely built, and very pretty to boot.I don't have a current valuation, but my somewhat outdated McKeowns lists my camera from $55-85, yours at $300-450...so you have a good one!</p>

<p>Good one Marc, I didn't know that Peter Gowland went back that far. Kodak, I see, dominates the ads again...those were the days.</p>

<p>That 28mm lens looks to have done many more miles than the camera. I know I can't afford it, just have to stick to the FM2 that was owned by that lesser know photog....Tony Lockerbie :)<br> Hope the Red Cross make some money.</p>

<p>I agree that you should keep both fifties. I also have a Cosina/Voigtlander 28mm F3.5 for my Nikon S2, along with the CV Color-Skopar 50mm F2.5, both are really excellent, despite some of the reports on the Internet.<br> The 28mm would be a good choice for your Contax too, as the slight difference in registration would not show with this wide angle. Also agree that the 85mm Sonnar is a really nice lens if you can find one for a reasonable price.</p>

<p>And one more...</p><div></div>

<p>One from home.</p><div></div>

<p>Last one, just to get a beach shot in!</p><div></div>

<p>Next.</p><div></div>

<p>Good collection of pumpkins Mike, and I really like the Barber shop...don't see that many any more...all hairdressers now!<br> A couple from me.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Ken, Rick....."soft crispness" is a good description of how it renders, maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but personally I like it. The effect is not dissimilar to my old Summicron.</p>

<p>Thanks Mike, SP, yes the Tri-X - D76 is THE classic combo....you do wonder how many rolls were souped in this combination.<br> SP, interesting as I will try a Pancolor out next time....just need the weather to clear! </p>

<p>Thanks for looking, all with Tri-X developed in D76 1:1 and scanned on an Epsom V700. Some may ask what happened to the Pyrocat? Well I was given a quantity of D76 that needed using soon, and I don't want to waste a freebie!</p>

<p>Last one, a bit of fun...the tower with the 17mm Takumar Fisheye.</p><div></div>

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

<p>No.7</p><div></div>