russell_brooks

Might even be worth a tad less than a normal recent BP 'lux. Why? Because it'd be a user buying a split set like that. Who wants that "rubbish" oresundrun nonsense scribbled on their lens when they can get another normal BP lux. Just a thought.

Woops, wrong one. That was with a Summer. This should be the correct one to show glow...

Digital glow from a 35mm pre-asph 'Lux. Look at how the highlights spill over around his head.

Here's some glow for ya<br>

 

<br><a href="http://www.ebrooks.org/gallery/nas/unwrapping">unwrapping </a><br>

<a href="http://www.ebrooks.org/gallery/Recent/libstatue">libstatue</a><br>

 

<a href="http://www.ebrooks.org/gallery/China2004/kid">kid</a><br><br>

The 1st is with a 35mm pre-asph Summilux. The 2nd with a Summar. The 3rd with a red scale Elmar.

I've found that the best thing to do with these older lenses is to try and get the cleanest one you can find. But even then it will have problems - even if it doesnt look like it. FWIW, Malcolm Taylor in the UK told me that he has gotten in some original replacement elements for the screw summicron. And he has the ability to recoat, grind, swap parts, etc... so if the lenses needs more work he can handle it. Expensive but I feel he does a decent job and it's nice to know he has all the tools. Hi Malcolm! :)

I have one of these. What is the best way to zap the yellow out of it? I'm in the UK so leaving out in the sun isnt an options since we never get sun... Or should I just leave the yellow?

'Lux to answer you in one word. The only 'cron to keep IMHO would be the 1st collapsible to get the smoothness and the extra centimeter when collapsed. And, yes, I've owned the lux, three crons(one radioactive, one collapsible, one from the 60s), two nocts(one was stolen), a 2.8 elmar, and a 3.5 elmar, as well as a summar. For the most part it boils down to a function of size and weight. So why not keep all of them? :)

"What next, frame the scene with my hand?"<br><br>Yes, now you're talking. Did you know that if you extend your hand and make a big L with your thumb and 1st finger that the two of them make up half of a 135mm frame? The thumb being the 24mm side and your finger the 36mm side... For other trick I'm sure they'll be some posts. The real goal is so that you start to memorize the 50mm view so you dont even have to look through the viewfinder.

Yep, check for a crease in the film. Looks like it.

I live around the corner from Classic Camera. I'll have to drop by.<br>In the meantime here's <a href="http://www.ebrooks.org/gallery/Asia">My China Gallery</a>. I've a bit more to add when I get the time. Also I'll be upgrading the software to Gallery 2 in the next few months when they release v2 so the link may change.

Oh and other point is statistics. "What", you say? "Sample variation", I say. On older lens it can look fine but might have some problems you're unaware of. To properly test you'd need a sample of at least 20. Out of reach for us. I had a summicron that look great even with a flashlight. Sent it into my guru and sure enough one of the inner elements has some pitting on it. Nowadays I try to find the best looking glass and then go ahead and pay the small fortune to have it looked at by him. Even then it could be that the body you're using has some issues with it...

Frank Muller is making a good point that took me years to learn. This is another reason why people say that older lenses are "better" for black and white. Spend some time in the darkroom or even making decent scans. The older lenses are putting an S shaped curve on your exposure/density graph. After correction color film may show distortions but we do not notice these in black and white. (For the same distortion reason pushing film looks better in black and white.) This is what is helping give richer photos with the old lenses. It's like Tri-X versus the "harsh" TMAX.

"Clearly, this is NOT a "decisive moment" tool for me!"<br><br>Give it time. The point is rather that due to the small size and weight that you actually have it with you as opposed to some other camera.

These older lenses work great for B&W. Why? because the small amount of veiling flare will lift the shadows without destroying the highlights. And remember printing paper can only handle 5 to 7 stops of light anyway. You need and want the compression these lenses give! Go over once to the film forum and read how much effort people go through to reduce contrast. Two baths, extended processing, etc... Just go for the older lenses and dont point them towards the sun! That's how I learned it as a kid. And FWIW, all the moaning about the Summar can cheese off as well. I checked mine with my Epson R-D1 and guess what? The focus is off. And not on the Epson (since it focuses all my m-mount lenses fine) but on the Summar - so how much of my Summar's softness is due to it needing to be recalibrated? I mean the front glass unscrews! It's all over the place! So FWIW I really like my 50s f3.5 Elmar. And I just got a collapsible cron and it's with a good repair person to make sure I'll get a good working lens. I'm sure it'll be fine and even better than the over-corrected "modern" lenses.

You'll wind up owning all of them at some point. I have. Noct, lux, two crons, summar, elmar 2.8, elmar 3.5. The best trade-off is the 'lux. But if you're stuck on size like I am, you might want the collapsible 'cron or red scale LTM elmar.

R-D1, 35mm 'Lux pre wide open. Edge enhance 1, color corrected afterwards, EV adjusted +1.4, focal lengthed to 35mm.<div></div>

Taken at the British Museum. B&W mode, edge enhance 1, with a 35mm 'Lux pre-asph. Old lenses got glow.<div></div>

My friend's reaction when he first saw my R-D1. Taken in B&W mode, edge enhance 1, with a 50mm Summar. I had to expand the histogram a bit.<div></div>

I can imagine we will end up with whatever film companies that are left producing only 2 or 3 films each. Probably 100, 400, and perhaps a high speed. No need for the separate t-grain, old style film lines. They will settle on the one that has the highest margin and prob drop the other. But let's face it, I can do almost everything I want with an old style (tri-x) 400 speed film. That's all I really need. And I really only need one glossy VC RC paper in three sizes. I could see us heading in that direction.

I used M for several years and am switching over to the screwmount iiif. It's the right size. With an Elmar it goes into my pocket. Send it in to someone who can also resilver the rangefinder if needed. I can recommend Malcom Taylor in the UK. A little pricy but the best repair I've used and has the tools to do everything if it's needed once he cracks it open.<div></div>

I went all these debates and bought almost all of the 50s. I've ended up with the f3.5 elmar as my favorite for walking around. Otherwise the coll cron is also nice. Size is important.<div></div>

Try an old Leica screw mount. Even better. Why? The size.

You dont want a flat field. Why? Because when you swing the subject to something away from the rangefinder patch the curvature will help to bring it into focus. I think Leica designed it this way on purpose.

Velvia should be fine. The T-Max 3200 might not fair as well. It doesnt pay to store these high speed film in cold storage. You can still shoot it but maybe take it down 1/2 stop. If it was me, it'd bin it and get a fresh batch.

Flare has alot to do with it. You bring up the shadows just a bit to get them over the inertia and the loss in the highlights is hardly noticable. It does optically what we try to create with split (2-bath) development chemically.