mark_eban

The shade that comes with the 80mm causes vignetting on the 60mm at all apertures.

Try

http://www.mwclassic.com

A good website and if there is anything you like, worth making an

appointment.

Everyone keeps saying that the 35mm M lenses dont fit the CLE. The

third version of the 35 f2 fits my CLE fine as does the current 35

f1.4 asph.

Hans - thank you. I have been going mad with the last frame dropping off the end of the roll. Servicing has not helped. However, it dates EXACTLY to my switch from TCN400 to XP2Super. My back is 1997 and has only a triangular mark btw...

I use SKY for b+w C41 developing and same size contact printing. They

seem good and consistent.

Actually, her patience is rather limited, putting a premium on

working fast and then getting out (Capa at the D Day landings). I was

planning to use the noctilux as well but the expressions had

deteriorated to the extent that I thought they would bias any viewer

no matter how objective. However, it is an exercise I would like to

repeat, also with other lens series eg 35mm and 90mm, with a

professional model who has to smile when I say!

As a matter of interest, about six months ago I sat down my six year

old daughter and took pictures of her with the following lenses, all

wide open 50 f3.5 nickel elmar, 50 f2 summar, 50 f2.8 elmar, 50 f2

taylor hobson, 47 f2 ektar, 50 f2 dual range summicron, 50 f2

collapsible summicron, 50 f2 modern summicron all wide open.

 

<p>

 

I printed the pictures up to 10x8. There were 3 pictures per lens. I

asked a group of non-photographers to put them in piles by lens. The

summicrons were mixed up. The rest of the lenses were distinguished.

 

<p>

 

I then asked them all to pick the favourite picture by lens out of

all the pictures i.e. told them to look at detail, the out out of

focus background etc rather than the expression of the sitter etc.

All picked the summar.

 

<p>

 

Before anyone asks, there isnt really a point to this. I was just

interested academically in the result. However, since then I have

been using that summar a lot more with a very good reception.

 

<p>

 

This is a short summary - one day I will do a proper write up of it

and send it into viewfinder or something like that.

For what it is worth, which may not be much, I recently bought a used

tele elmarit in Frankfurt. I examined about 8 at 3 different stores.

There were 3 German lenses and 5 Candaian lenses. All the German

lenes were perfect, I Canadian lens was perfect (one of those with

the special year engravings on them), the other Canadian lenses were

showing problems of the type described above. Not enough evidence to

state that it is better to go for the German version, but given that

there seems to be NO differentiation in price, why not do so if you

can?

I think A means aperture priority. It was taken at f22 at 1/125 of a second. Without the overide it would have chosen 1/250th of a second. Must have been a bright day!!

I have been particularly interested in macro both in 35mm and in

medium format. In 35mm I have made exhibition prints from the

following lenses, Contax 60mm macro-planar, vivitar series 1 90mm

f2.5 and vivitar series 1 90-180 macro zoom. I have also used a

nikon 55mm f3.5 macro lens. Last week I bought an SL2 with the 60mm

macro elmarit and should have some results by the end of the week.

Let me know if you want a detailed view on these lenses. They really

have to be graded according to the circumstances in which you want to

use them e.g. longer is better for portrait; 1:1 is heavier than 1:2;

for copying bokeh is less important etc etc. Of the ones that I have

used, the 60mm and the zoom are of equivalent sharpness with the zoom

being incredibly convenient (if rather heavy) for a variety of shots.

I bought the elmarit for a more "walking around" style of lens.

I used the FM2 with 35 f1.4 for a number of years. I switched to the

M6 with 35 1.4 asph about three years ago. There is absolutely no

doubt in my mind that wide open I am focussing more accurately with

the M6. I dont really use the Nikon much for available light any more.

That is exactly how it works. Watch out because that is how it works out at the other end as well. If you dont watch the frame counter you will shoot a "half frame" at the end before you notice the tension change.

 

Congratulations on your purchase. This is one of the finest lenses ever made. Its resolution is on par with the Mamiya 7 lenses and its smoothness and bokeh is far superior. Its only disadvantage is the lack of automatic parallax adjustment. The meter is a bit "micky mouse" and what I have done is put a black voigtlander VC meter in the hot shoe; it works and looks great.

Mani,

 

You caught me out. I actually saw the FX in Osaka on a day trip from Tokyo. In response to the previous question, the brochure definitely states the FX has metering and it appears to be identical in every way to the GX.

 

There was a posting not too long ago categorically denying the reintroduction of tele and wide models by the way.

I saw some discussion a while ago on the new Rolleiflex FX (sorry

cant find the thread to reply to it). I am currently in Tokyo where

the FX and GX sell at exactly the same price. According to the

salesman (who did not want to break the seal on the box), the only

difference is that the FX uses the old scissor strap hooks. This

appears to be borne out by the Japanese brochure which he gave me.

 

Accersories in the brochure include leather strap 14,800Y, case

18,600, 2 prisms one 90 degree and one 45 degree at 157,600. I would

guess that these would fit the GX as a well plus lens hoods, flash

shoe and quick release.

 

Just in case anyone is interested.

I have a manual at home somewhere but I am doing this from memory. 1. The LEDs should go out 30secs after you take your finger off the button. If they dont YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. I have seen exactly this problem before on a SL66SE. If you dont get it fixed your batteries will drain. The only (really annoying) temporary fix is to unscrew the battery cover each time. That resets it but the problem will reoccur every time you take a picture. 2. Centre weighted and how - it reads what is in the central round microprism 3. I think it is half stops but would have to check.

I posted on this subject here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00044C

 

Briefly, a non-photographer (my wife) was able to correctly sort 16x12s of identical subjects into a pile for the 40mm FLE and for the 38mm biogon on the basis of sharpness. I went for the biogon.

Ideally, you want two things: 1. Lack of mirror blackout; 2. minimal lag between pressing the button and taking the picture. That means either a rangefinder or a TLR.

 

I never used a Mamiya TLR because I did not like the image cut-off with longer lenses. I do not know if that would be a problem for you.

I have used the Tele-Rollei. It is superbly sharp but for head shots you will need to used the 0.7 close up lens (but no cut-off problems). That is soft in the corners at full aperture. Personally, I love the sharp centre/slight drift at the edges look in portraits but that is a matter of personal choice.

 

In the rangefinder stakes, I think one of the nicest cameras to use is the Linhof press 70 with the 180mm lens. For slightly slower operation and automatic parallax compensation try a Linhof Press with the same lens.

 

If you go down the Hasselblad route, IMHO the 120 makro is the only way to go whatever anyone says about it being too short.

Dont wait for Fuji! Go and buy yourserlf a Plaubel Proshift 69 with the 47mm super angulon and 15mm of shift.

I have a DeVere 10x8 with a multigrade head and a Durst Pictograph

(1200 chassis and closed loop multigrade head). I had to get the

DeVere for 10x8 and it is ok. The Durst is the finest instrument I

have ever used. (But now I have to go and check what a ZeBe is!).

It is all about horses for courses:

 

Minox 35mm to carry about in the briefcase.

Leica for low light (hence I only bother with the 35 f1.4, 50 f1 and 75 1.4 and cant remember the last time I stopped them down.)

Hasselblad with a tripod or bright sunshine if one doesnt have to walk far.

Mamiya 7 for hiking.

Easy isn't it!:)

 

However the real problem is that some lenses just look different in the final print. Most leica lenses in my experience look different to 35mm slr lenses; however the zeiss 85mm f2.8 lens for the contax or rolleiflex in 35mm is better than anything; for soft focus portraits the 47mm lsm ektar cannot be duplicated;the distagon on the rolleiwide looks different (and better) than the hasselblad or Mamiya lenses; the 80mm planar on the Linhof press looks so different to anything the mamiya 7 can produce that people can pick it out of a stack of 10x8s; the 47mm super angulon on the plaubel pro-shift (completely parallel and rigid) beats any other wide 6x9 by a long long way; for macro what can compete with the look of the 90-180mm flat field vivitar or the 135mm makro for the hasselblad? Life is compromise - after all even if one owned everything think how much time you would take deciding what to use!

Try this:

 

http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html

I happened to stumble across this thread. What is this business about

TCN400 being junk? It has a number of advantages over conventional

film including fineness of grain and length or printable tonal range.

Two years ago I had an exhibition in London entitled Twice in a

Lifetime. The pictures were of 55 people taken 20 years before and

contemporary pictures of the same people. All the late 70s stuff was

shot on HP5 - all the modern stuff was shot on T400CN. The pictures

were hung side-by-side. I would like to think the contemporary

pictures were better but certainly there was no difference as a

result of the film stock. If you want to do more due diligence you

can buy the book through Amazon (Twice in a Lifetime by Mark Eban).

It is a very high quality print run on Gardapat paper and if TCN400

were really junk, you should be able to see the differences even in

reproduction.

 

<p>

 

Having said all that, I no longer use TCN400 since I prefer the

sharpness of XP2 super.

1. I use a tele rollei among other cameras. The lens is superb and compares favourably to the hasselblad 120mm macro and to the 150mm Mamiya for the 7. I have not used the Mamiya TLR. I was always put off by the big parallax shift which meant that I could not see the whole image.

 

2. It is a nice camera to use because of the lack of mirror black out and general feeling of heft and quality.

 

3. I do not use the glass plate in this camera because I cant face the knifing and spotting that I believe will come from the inevitable associated dust problem. In the original tests in photo magazines at the time this camera was introduced, the glass plate increased sharpness minimally on 16x20s in the centre but ONLY wide open. From f5.6, no difference was discernible.

 

4. The 8ft focussing limitation is its major drawback. I use a 0.35 rolleinar. This is a close-up which flips open (off the lens) or closed (on the lens) and brings the minimum focus down to a 0.8m x 0.8m square (broadly head and shoulders). The top rolleinar lens corrects for parallax so you dont have the Mamiya tlr problem. I also use it with a prism and a pistol grip which I find minimises shake.

 

5. However, absent the rolleinar and if you are not set on a medium tele, you should have a look at the Linhof 220 with 90mm f3.5 lens. No mirror black-out, fast (rangefinder) focussing, and lovely for head and shoulder pictures. The lens is undoubtedly the sharpest medium format lens I have ever used (hasselblad, rollei, mamiya) and it has a lovely 3d quality. Contrast is lower than modern lenses however. These cameras are bulky and not light but are undoubtedly underappreciated users.

This englarger was given a complete review in Photo Techniques about a year or so ago. If you cant find it, let me know off-line and I will dig up and fax you a copy. I use the orginal Pictograph which is much the same. It is superb: fast, accurate, highly controllable. The only disadvantage is that it only goes to 5x4. I also use a De Vere 5108 with 10x8 Ilford Multigrade head. That is good but not as fast as the Durst. At the risk of being flamed, comparing the Durst and the Beseler is like comparing a rolleiflex with a yashicamat.

There was a review of the Commercial Ektar a while back in Photo

Techniques. The basic conclusion was that it was a good lens for its

time but prone to flare by comparison with modern lenses: half the

price but dont expect the same look to the shadows.