celasun

<p>I was pleased using Sigma 17-70mm for about two years.<br>

Its "creep" occurred only on rare situations: About 90 degree up or down shooting. Otherwise, it was not a problem.<br>

Its IQ was certainly better than the kit lens (which was quite satisfactory, anyway).<br>

Now I use the 10-20mm plus the 24-60 mm lenses instead...</p>

<p>All very beautiful, Michael!<br>

Mine is from the backyard using K20D and Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8.</p><div></div>

<p>All very beautiful, Michael!<br>

Mine is from the backyard using K20D and Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>A displaced/loose lens element is my guess.<br>

It was functioning correctly before; that fits.<br>

Front and backfocusing without a consistent pattern; that also fits.<br>

It fails "terribly" (while, I assume other lenses are just fine); that practically rules out the body as a potential cause; this fits as well.</p>

<p>A slightly off-topic vote for Samyang 85mm f/1.4 here.<br>

It is "practically perfect" at wide apertures. And, that is exactly what you expect from a portrait lens.<br>

Its rivals start to get (much) better at around f/8. That is, I believe, fair enough considering their higher prices...<br>

By the way, the "country of origin" of a lens does not sound like a useful term to me.<br>

Bulent</p>

<p>Thank you Roger,<br>

That was exactly the info I was looking for.<br>

Your scanning guide already has a subscriber ;) <br>

Bulent</p>

<p>As far as I know, "shutter speed" does not effect EV much if ambient light is very low.<br>

The duration of flash is shorter than 1/1000 second, and at all your shutter speeds you practically end up with the same exposure.</p>

<p>Any insight about the use of scanner "gain" in relation to overexposure/underexposure (for a digital camera) will be appreciated.<br>

I increase the gain to "overexpose" and to increase the shadow detail especially in frames with a nearly-blown highlight (which results in darker shadows for "auto" scans).<br>

I wonder, for example, what type of curve is applied while increasing the gain in scanners (mine is a Nikon Coolscan V ED).<br>

In fact, I am thinking of combining two different scans; one with normal, the other with the "adjusted" gain.<br>

Is there a penalty in increasing gain? If yes, where and what kind of?<br>

Thank you all.</p>

<p>I know Bessa R series (R3A etc.) accept those lenses; some with an adapter some without...</p>

<p>Oh, and I liked many of the submissions; a productive week!<br>

My favorite so far is Tony Evans's "Prairies Winter Scene".</p>

 

<p><img src="http://i1.treklens.com/photos/26623/imgp0281_lzn_g_sm.jpg" alt="" width="799" height="800" /><br>

Pentax K20D, Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8.<br>

From everyone's backyard!</p>

<p>I use Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 on a Bessa R3A and I'm very happy about its performance; it lives on the camera!</p>

<p><img src="../photo/9821624&size=md" alt="" /> <br /> This is from "Beypazari", a small town near Ankara, the Turkish Capital.<br /> This was shot using K20D and the FA 77mm (it does shoot non-portrait as well!).</p><div></div>

<p>I suggest you take a look at modified Kiev 88 CM cameras (with MLU).<br>

"Arax" is the trade name of one of the modifiers.<br>

It has a 6x6 back (option) and you can find very good lenses for this system (Pentacon 6 mount).<br>

This option is especially important if you want a lower price for the performance.</p>

<p>Georg,<br>

Thanks very much for the info and suggestion. I have just ordered one to be on the safe side.</p>

<p>I have a Metz 45CT -1 (earlier series) flash.<br>

I have used it on my digital SLR using the PC cord.<br>

The camera seems to be fine; I assume the "high voltage" remarks apply to the hot shoe use. Am I correct?<br>

Also, I wonder if I can use the same unit safely with medium format bodies (Pentax 645N and Arax-Kiev88CM).<br>

Thanks :)</p>

<p>Ooops!<br>

>... motor which sits inside the lens<br>

Read "mechanism" instead of "motor".</p>

<p>I also wonder the reaction in Japan, Pentax's home country.<br /> They must have sold many (if not most) of those defective units there!<br /> I would be surprised if just playing the ignorant were enough there!</p>

 

<p>I have a 50-135mm as my only SDM lens. It has never felt good.<br>

I blamed myself at the earlier days; "it must have been damp here", "the battery seems to be weak", "the contacts does not shine enough" etc. etc. Now the lens operates... occasionally!<br>

I cannot depend on it for anything at all. I did not use it for more than 6 months now and I shoot "every single day".<br>

It is practically impossible to get it fixed (and I hear even the serviced ones do the same thing later on). The only solution I dream of (before selling it with a label "SDM does not work") is to find a "hacked" firmware (as Pentax does not seem to be sensitive to our problem) which makes the screw driven motor work.<br>

It is total NONSENSE to disable the fully functional conventional motor which sits inside the lens dormantly.<br>

I could have changed to a different system (most probably Sony) long ago, if Idid not have a load of other lenses, cameras and accesories from Pentax. The other stuff works just fine; it is just this 50-135mm, which simply sucks.</p>

<p>I upload an indoor portrait just to remind you and somehow revive the much loved "Pentax MZ3" <br /> <br /> The grain is intended (Ilford XP2 Super ISO 400).<br /> <br /> I liked Haig's first photo and Peter's panorama most, up until now.<br>

By the way, I feel luckier than Hin Man as my sons are older :)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9795100-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>David & Chris,<br>

Thank you both for the valuable info you have presented.<br>

Yes, I live in Turkey (Ankara) and will be getting in touch with the places mentioned.<br>

In the meantime I have found locally available, brand new scanners. Unfortunately, they are either ridiculously expensive (about three times the US Prices) or of low optical quality. I feel lucky if I can come across a good, used scanner.<br>

I really do want to use my medium format equipment more productively.</p>

 

<p >A wealth of info here! Thank you all responders for your help. Most appreciated.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1172872">Professor K.</a> </p>

 

<p><em>>I would look for a photo shop that has a Nikon Coolscan for medium format, or can provide the output filefrom a FUJI Frontier printer; the FUJI has a 6x7 filmgate. (If the shop purchased it!) </em><br>

That is the first thing I will be asking today<br>

<em>> One more option is to buy a lightbox and photograph the 120 frames with a digital camera. </em><br>

Sounds like a good idea as I have a suitable lens for this.<br>

<em>>If you really want high resolution, you can take pictures of sections and then use the camera maker's "stitching" software to assemble the frame. I've done this, but wouldn't recommend it for more than a few frames, or really important ones. It's incredibly tedious!</em><br>

Oh no!</p>

 

 

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=17200">David,</a></p>

 

<p><em>>...scanning medium format film on a flatbed is going to get you at very best about the same print quality as you get from your 35mm scanned decently on a Coolscan. So what are you gaining by using the MF camera? </em><br>

I can see your point. Shooting MF and discarding the extras defeats the purpose... It is just that the darkroom is too time consuming and want to see decent prints...<br>

<em>>...your view of commercial scanning possibilities seems a bit narrow. Lots of people now offer scans from a Nikon 9000 which would support a print up to about 20" x 16" comfortably with a better ability to haul detail out of the shadows and doesn't have to be expensive. Next up you have Imacon scans which I prefer despite the fact that they are mostly not any greater resolution than the Coolscan 9000. Drum scans when carried out at a high resolution by people who know what they're doing is about the top of the market, and frankly at your size ambitions , they're overkill. If you're getting drum scans that don't make sharp prints at the sort of sizes you're talking of here then either you're buying the scans at a very low resolution or they are being made by people less than fully skilled in the process.</em><br>

I do realize that "pro quality" scans are available and are part of the routine. However, I am not part of that chain and my requests (a few frames a month or so) for scans are treated, "lightly", so to speak! As you say, I probably need "a good guy" who will pay some attention to the request of an enthusiast.</p>

 

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=419409">Edward</a> ,</p>

 

<p>I have just did what you described. Unfortunately, the area illuminated does not cover enough of the surface. The software also seems to be unhappy with a custom-made adapter.</p>

 

<p>Paul,<br>

Thanks for the advice; I have just started looking for a locally available flatbed scanner that accepts 120 film.<br>

None seems to be supported by Linux, but I will try and find a solution...</p>

<p>David,<br>

You are absolutely right about the dpi/ppi note.<br>

That was a very bad substitute for "printable" using a photo-printer to an A4 sized photo-paper.<br>

That is what I want to achieve for now, more or less. I guess most of the available photo/film scanners directed to enthusiasts offer enough resolution for this.<br>

For an exceptional image (which I do not have, as yet) I can always try printing in the darkroom; no need to scan...<br>

I can also send a color negative or diapositive for drum scanning. They just could not do a proper scan of B&W films I have tried (ISO 100 & ISO 400 traditional -non C41- films).</p>

 

<p>I have a dedicated scanner for my 135 film and I am very happy with it.<br>

I had my 120 films scanned at various places using their hardware (for consumer grade jobs) with rather poor results (low resolution, poor color fidelity etc.).<br>

I had only a handful of my films (color negative, dia and monochrome) scanned by a drum scanner and the results were better.<br>

However, drum scanning is expensive and, more importantly, it fails to offer as good a result as my Nikon Coolscan V ED does for my 135 monochromes.<br>

That may be due to an operator error (for the drum scanner) but I am in no place to correct this.<br>

Since my flatbed (Canoscan 3200F) has a negative adapter for a single 24x36 frame (never used); I just wonder if I can make a larger holder for my 120 film to get at least a decent 300dpi scan.<br>

Is there any chance that I can have a better scan than that available on the street?<br>

Am I expecting a miracle?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Trent, I liked yours very much.<br>

Must be manual focus, I guess.</p>

<p>Mine is from today's outing with a K20D.<br>

The lens was a former Soviet one: Helios 50mm f/2.8, quasi-macro.</p><div></div>

<p>It may well be a part of a photomicroscope...</p>