papy_g1

<p>EF system is not really the most populated one in my gear, so I only got two third part zooms with my EOS500 and 1000, and recently my EOS1100D kit Zoom.</p>

<p>The worst was the Tokina AF 28-70 2,8-5,6 macro, that I only kept and use because of its close focus ability, until I got my 1100D and the 18-55 DC III, then I got rid of it very fast. It is one candidate for the ugliest EF lens ever, and among all systems I had lenses in, it may be the worst of all, only little challenged by a Makinon M42 80-200 slide-zoom that was not a gem either.</p>

<p>The one that impresses me quite is the other zoom I got with my EOS500, the Tamron AF 28-200 3,8-5,6 Aspherical (71DE), the first EF lens in the world with such a zoom span (even before Canon did one), and maybe not the worst from these twenty years or so on. While it shows its age in the digital world, it is still quite capable, mainly outside, because of its minimal focussing at 2,1m (at 28mm, longer at 200), but focus speed is up to DC current lenses, if I can tell from the 18-55 DCIII I have. It helped me make many candid shots over the years.</p>

<p>I'm planning on buying a second-hand 50 1.8 MKII from a friend, and also replace both the 28-200 and the 18-55 at the same time, with IS optics, and this topic is quite instructive. I'm wondering if i can give up full frame ability, if I should take narrower range zoom, or sacrifice little quality for a real all-rounder.</p>

<p>So the choice is between 15-85, 18-135, 28-135, and 18-200. I think the 28mm would be too long, but since I had a 20mm for film, I may end up getting a real wideangle later anyway. For the tele part, I lived well with the 200mm in my film years, but I got used to it on the crop sensor lately. Is the loss of quality is worth the largest zoom span? Will it be better, or at least on par with the 18-55 IS II and the Tamron 28-200 on their respective ranges?</p>

<p>I once passed by a 35-80 PZ and EOS300n for 5€ as-is at a photo trade convention. Maybe I should have thought twice?</p><div></div>

<p>I have got both Polaroïd backs for Hasselblad and Kiev, the first one from NPC, the second from Kiev. They are both based on the Polaroïd FP 100 back for land camera. the main difference is that there's no hole in the H one so you'll have to unlock this back from the body to wind the shutter when used on a K88, or even a H 1600/1000f. Unlike latest A12 and A24 swedish backs, one can't drill the hole off the plate to adapt to kiev, since there's a screw precisely where the hole should take place.<br>

There is no blind interlock in those so you'll have to be aware of that before releasing the back.<br>

Also, I've seen many on the bay that are in the way up when mounted and seem to forbid the use of prism finders, mines are built the other way, down (so they can't be used on the 500 ELs).</p>

<p>Joe and Theodoros > I too recently got a TTL meter (while for K88) that is off, it isn't an acceptable solution to correct values, we need quite standardized values first, for when we use different gear. Plus, mine is 4 stops off, it quite reduces the metering range.<br>

In fact, I am quite happy with my Light meter mind and F16 skills, but the TTL precisely is useful for situations when I can't figure out speeds as easily as I'd like.</p>

<p>John > Perhaps yours is the old model, and may be adjusted exactly the same way, but just keeping the dials in place.<br>

I would love to know the calibration way for my meter, since it's of the older model too, let us know.</p>

<p>Of course they have. They have been adjusted to fit <em>all</em> of them alike.No "variants" at all. Not since they first appeared in the 1940s.</p>

<p>Well, if there are no variants, tell me just how to have a A12 work on a 1600f/1000f?<br>

There is no hole in the later backs for the protruding pin at the end of the film advance, since the 500s doesn't have this pin. I had one (with number on back latch and cardboard holder as a reminder), I had to drill a hole prior to adjust it for Kievs.<br>

And to speak about variants, C12 backs have at least three variants, it is printed in the appendus from Hasselblad to use 220 film in those particular backs. Seen on Hasselbladhistorical, you should know this better than me.</p>

<p>It seems that the FP 100 is the right format for Polaroïd backs. K and H backs, based on those I have, are both modified Polaroïd land backs.<br>

I'm curious to know more about it too, since I want to give mines a try before throwing them away.</p>

<p>Previewing the DOF is quite a feature of SLR, so it is quite bad not to use it. Well, if you only have the waistlevel finder, it can be quite challenging to evaluate anything about DOF.<br>

To my knowledge, at least Volna 3 (and arsat80), Vegas 90 and 120mm, have the DOF lever.</p>

<p>Same went for me with the second back I got with my Zenith 80, not the gear pushed the back, but it was the little pin, because it wasn't well aligned with its hole in the back, so I filed it a bit, and it worked nice.</p>

<p>I have the opposite problem as Robert has, I have a standard cable release, it is nice for any camera I have, but not strong/long enough to completely release any of my bladskies (Salyut-C and Kiev 88).</p>

<p>Just an update to say that NT backs can work with frame count, since knob is locked when you get to the next frame. But you have to make gear to simulate the shutter "tip" that has to get into these backs to release the advance knob.</p>

<p>Hasselblad 1xxxf lenses are way too expensive, compared to Ukrainian, you won't get 10 times less happiness and quality getting an industar 29 (<a href="mailto:80@2.8">80/2.8</a>) then getting a standard Tessar, i'll guess for a pessimistic 9/10 if not 1:1 comparison, getting a good one, scratched tessars exists too.<br>

The only H lens that can be worth the price would be the 135 Ektar or the Kodak standard, if not overpriced.<br>

Then, you have some very rare lens, but their prices usually rise up over even the current Hasselblad compur ones.</p>

<p>If you want to go on with Kiev gear, my advice will be to get a Kiev88 CM or any Hasselbladsky with P6 mount, and get a Hasselblad 220 back.<br>

There is not much to do to adapt them on russian bodies, just need a knife, a screwdriver, and a pinch, even a driller might be useful for some later ones.<br>

Avoid buying a Hartblei modded for blad backs, because you'll only be able to use blad backs or modded Kiev NT backs, what can be spending extra money or time consuming to find.</p>

I must apologize to you all since I was wrong writing this terrible mistake:

 

"...in an SLR, there is no moving part that can cause such de-adjusting, and since we talk about used gear to be

bought..."

 

The mirror axle can wear, the mechanism putting the mirror in place has to do it over and over again and precisely where

it was when adjusted.

 

So for the precision of focussing in the center of the frame, let's say that with a serviceable gear, there will be close to

no differences between RF and SLR.

 

Wai-Leong> I'm impressed how with such experience in SLRs you never found that focussing was better after

composition, especially with uncentered subject.

 

Does people using Noctiluxes at 1 or 0,95 focus uncentered subjects before composing? Did you tried it by yourself?

 

If I only have a centre split screen on a camera, I don't use it for important pictures/keep it for backup/parts.

 

You're right, I was blinded in my obsession and wrote silly things.

Blarg> Seems that Vega 28 (120mm), Biogon 120 and CZJ Sonnars 120 are not that different for what I made with it untill then. I saw,

too, that the Vega 28 has a "bad" bokeh, and so does the Biogon wide open, I didn't care about bokeh, but I'll see later if I miss/need this

much better bokeh Sonnar seems to produce, and keep the Sonnar in mind.

 

For the Vega 12 (90mm), it produced results barely on par with Volna 3 and Arsat 80 did, and I'm astonished as you and me too, noticed

more pleasant results with 80mm (Industar or Arsat) than with this 90mm (Vega).

 

Does it mean that we got worse Vegas than the one in the test you mentionned, or that figures and lines/mm doesn't always win when it

comes to look and feel of the pictures.

Mervyn> Original question has been well answered several times, IMHO.

 

Look at my first answer, isn't the ETRSI an in-lens shutter 6x6 or 6x4,5 SLR?

 

After usefull answers came some tangential strings, well, such tangents can't be handled by this forum, so where can we

expand in such discussions, that can eventually enclose more precisely the details on wich the OP will have to choose.

 

And as I saw exprimed views that are not mine, I came back to discuss it and give pros and cons I have on the subject.

Sorry, I think I had fooled myself and didn't answer to the question.

 

If you were asking if the DOF was good for the composition, I'll say that perhaps you should have shot with diaphragm a

little more opened, if you only wanted the first funeral tone to be sharp, but if you wanted the whole tones to be in DOF, you

should then have focussed on the one in the center of the frame, and then closed a little more the diaphragm.

Q.G.> Did the old Hasselblad 1600f/1000f ground glasses have Fresnel lens? If not, are they less affected by this issue?

 

This should be true for any SLR having a Fresnel lens, and the metering device placed upon the prism?

 

Sorry, as every Salyut-Kiev 88 has a composing grid, any how the focussing help should be, or not, I was assuming

Hasselblads did.

Wai-Leong> In the 35mm RF world, it is very common to take pictures to hyperfocal setting, or so and diaphragm at f8, I

have tack sharp pictures with Zenit 122 and helios 44 with such settings. And also, RFs are not this often used to take

close pictures, because of parallax, first, but it helps to obtain a better DOF not to take too close pictures.

 

I never focus in the center and recompose with my SLRs, just because of what Vijay explained, and I don't have to. That

kind of focussing/recomposing is a newbie error that you should figure out with just the first roll you make with your

camera.

 

I use an AF SLR (EOS 500) for everyday pics, and I know there is tolerances in this, but since I don't use fast lenses,

and not too opened, except in manual mode, I don't have too much pics to trash back from the lab.

 

You can't ignore DOF markings could be leaved to the manufacturer's fashion, but when you're used to a lens, it is

certainly at least a guide.

 

DOF preview is something very useful, although I must admit that dimmed light is a problem when I wear my glasses

and have to compose with prism viewfinder equipped camera.

 

Focussing device adjusting is the same with RF and SLR, it is usually considered as tolerable, even should you find one

especially well adjusted, except if you make comparative shots at short distances and wide opened.

 

I would be happy to know what focussing device was used on the SLRs in your studies, and not too much surprised if it

was RF splitted center, a fast but poor technique when it comes to precision.

 

So to get back into the subject, the sync cams between lens and RF can get wear from use, in an SLR, there is no

moving part that can cause such de-adjusting, and since we talk about used gear to be bought...

 

If you have two subject in different parts of the frame, there is much possibilities:

 

Both are in the same plane, you can focus both precisely and get a short DOF if you want.

 

Both are in different planes, you'll have to choose between focussing one and getting the other out of focus, or you can

focus between both, adjust DOF, and get both barely focussed.

 

You sound like you never used a SLR, I you were close to my location, I would have be happy to lend you one just for

you to see by yourself what it is all about.

Robert> I was wondering if it was an older Hassy lens on a Kiev, or a Hassy kit. Yes, the Arsat 80/2,8 is the renewed

and MC'd Volna 3 (which suffered serious randoms in production quality in the 80's). As you were in the arsenal factory,

you could hava had a pre-release of an Arsat 90/2,8, wich would have been a scoop.

 

You probably have a Salyut-S, with Vega 12 90/2,8, Salyut had the tessar copy, Industar 29 P 80/2,8.

 

JDM> I wasn't comparing one Industar 29 to the overall Industar 29 production, but the whole 29 prod to the other

numbered Industars productions, they had better QC these days, and I won't trade this 80 for any 80mm CZJ from these

same days.

 

One shouldn't make a mistake between Zeiss and Zeiss Jena, and even though Hasselblad came from Kodak Ektars to

Zeiss Tessars to get cheaper lenses, well, why were these lenses less expensive? Zeiss Jena suffered QC issues too,

if you see some tests available on the net, you'l see some "ugly" results obtained with Sonnar, for example.

 

So, and Blarg. exprimed what I think, any CZJ lens is not necessarily better than any lens in equivalent focal lenght, but

there is still some Ukrainian lenses that are more or less under expectations, and there is a place for German ones.

 

Blarg> I had better results (better appealing to me) with my Industar 29 P (80/2,8) than with my Vega 12 (90/2,8), so I

felt the need to get one after selling my Zenith 80, I'm still trying, and will make sure when the Vega would have been

back from a full CLA.

 

For the 150 and 250 (Telear or Jupiter?), I'm afraid they suffer from bad formula from birth, for the Mirs, they surely suffer

from their "architecture", very prone to flares, even when MC'd, and wich needs very short tolerances in lenses'

dimensions.

 

Just a curiosity, did someone ran a test between a CZJ 120/2,8 and the Vega 28 (120/2,8), I'm afraid there would be

nearly no differences between both.

Wai-Leong Lee> I can't see how a RF can focus more precisely than a SLR.

 

First, think about adjusting both, on a RF, the body/RF has to be adjusted, same goes for the Slr's body/ground glass,

but for the RF, then, lenses has to be adjusted to body too, not on the SLR.

 

Second, considering you have both side fully adjusted gear, on an RF, one can only focus precisely in the center of the

frame, and cannot preview the DOF, on an SLR, you can precisely focus almost anywhere in the frame, and also

preview the DOF (for sure, you have to get used to your ground glass type, but then, you can).

 

Three, because I anticipate another RF fan's preferred argument, I'll tell you: "Yes, it is no tale, full frame ground glass

SLR exists yet."

Graham> My favourite system is Kiev modular (Salyut-K88), however I am aware of its lacks, and that it needs much time

for trial and error before going to serious shooting, so I tried to be objective and giving a complete answer regarding what

are the original contributor's needs.

Robert> You're right, sometimes, getting a working Kiev can be peculiar, it happened to me, buying some Kiev gear in a

whole on the big auction site, with two bodies, one working, and one for parts, surprised when opening the parcel, both

were working.

 

The arsat 90/2,8 is the renewed and MC'd Vega 12?

 

Fast focussing lever is made for Kievs, or is it a Hasselblad's one fitted onto an Ukrainian lens?

 

Blarg> Have you ever tried the Vegas? (90/2,8 and 120/2,8) I find them nice, Kiev made good lenses, to begin with

Industar 29 P (80/2,8), outstanding among others industars.

 

Jack Smith> For myself, I had both CZJ 135/3,5, S Tak 135/3,5 (shamefuly scratched), and Jupiter 11-A 135/4 (from

Kazan, 12 blades iris), well the Jupiter stands still beside the CZJ. I won't say it is over the CZJ quality, cause you'll say

I'm partial, but for the 20 years between both, the CZJ deceived me, I sold it.

Refurbished ones seem less a hit or miss game to get.

 

Finding a non-working one very cheap and sending it to Arax or so for a full refurbishment, and/or optionnal modifications

could be a good way to go on and on with a reliable folk.

Too bad hasselblad ground glasses doesn't have composing gird, this would avoid the need for a mask.

 

The meter is metering on the ground glass, I can see no way the focal lenght of the lenses could affect it's oval metering area on it.

 

With such fresnel-based ground-glass, if present, the metering issue is present should you have a black mask or not.

 

Anyway, if you can't go with only pencil's lines, try a black mask, I don't think your metering will be much affected, if else, you'll have to

correct 1/4 nearly 1/3 IL, wich is close to nothing if you always set your camera to exactly what the meter says.

 

For me, with a center weighted metering system, metering interpretation must be systematic, so adding 1/3 IL correcion if needed to

your interpretation won't be too hard to do.

Your IB interrests me, but my TM is somewhat unusual, it seems that it is a TM II, but still marked TM. It has top sensitivity of 6400ASA, an internal back locking system, and a cold shoe on the prism.

I wrote a text about it for collection-appareils.com, it will be online soon.

I would be happy debating with you about different variants, i'll send you a mail soon if you don't send me one first.

Any MF will have good glass, even Ukrainians... if you take time to try and choose lenses. :-)

 

If you plan on only making studio, perhaps it will be good to choose a system with central leaf blade shutter (in the lens) for flash sync

at any speed. The weigh doesn't matter, you'll have to get a good tripod, and a dolly, to be able to forgetabout using a zoom.

 

Then, if you want to go on with film for long, you can choose large area body, if you want to go digital soon, think that the sensor won't

probably use the full 6*7 area, so you'll have to use shorter focal lenses for the same composition, and the composition itself won't take the

full ground glass area, this won't happen with 6x4,5 format, or will be less disturbing.

 

So for the studio and film only, an RB or RZ would be good, and relatively cheap, look at the classifieds.

 

If you want to take MF outside or handheld too, a second camera could be a RF, or even a TLR, if no macro needed. If only macro

needed, why not taking an Ukrainian?

 

If you don't want to buy two different system for both inside and outside/handheld, the Hasselblad seem to be a good alternative, but

there is some other 6x6 or 6*4,5 in-lens shutter SLRs close to it on the market, the balance is to be made between lenses availability

related to their price.