AustinDudley

I have missed a couple 35 summicron r lenses (canadian) So still havent got around to shooting.

I feel the older lenses of each manufacture have a signature, as for nikon I have the nikkor H 50/2 on the way, I like how it renders b&w, as well as the canon 50 1.4 rf lens.

I dont see anything, on the newer leica lenses, then well produced results across the shots, contrast and sharpness. It seems that some of the summicron DR shots have a different look to them then many other of the leica lens, maybe better tonality? Im not expert enough to know anything really, just what it appears. I try to only look at photos shot on film, because even if film can be touched by photoshop, i feel that no matter what, the largest difference i see between film and digital, with the same lens, shot at same settings, the digital is noticeably sharp or something to that effect.

I really like the looks of just about everything shot on the older german made contax/yashica mount glass. The older(pre-asph?0 leica glass. Im not fond of any glow. just a certain rendering of portra tri-x tmax and ilford variants. again, Im not experienced enough to know anything so Im going clearly off aesthetics. I dont care for sharpness all across the screen. I think center ultra sharp center and perhaps smeary corners can give a 3d effect that many talk about but I dont actually know what the common perception of "3d look" is. After all, perception dominates all. We are using our perceptions of equipment to capture how we perceive the world.

I found a M5 freshly cla'd, beautiful, and over 135xxxx. I have always liked the look of them, perhaps the black ones a bit more but this chrome one is beautiful. But to be honest I dont know why id need it. I like to shoot wider and done think i could see the 35mm framelines with glasses on, and althought i could guesstimate very easily as i do on my Argus c4r/geiss, the strongest point of my photography is composition, so i think again if i cant see most of the frame with an f2, the one i got is very beautiful(not here yet) so the pictures have the possibility of being deceptive ;D

All in all, I think I will just look for older lenses and sift through them capturing the ones that have "A look" that appeals to me. I think I might buy a second f2 for the rediculously expensive AS de-12 (I think is the correct name) led dot light meter viewfinder. What screen should I look for, a full microprism like in the leica SL/2 or a smaller microprism with a grid, I would like the grid as I said before, Im compositionally savvy.

If any one thinks the m5 would be fine even with the .72 mag and glasses( i only mention this as i have heard the .58s are better for glasses wearers(i may be wrong on these exact numbers, dont hate me).) It feels like i might know what a hungry vampire feels like. They are just damned beautiful. But this would leave little money for a lens which is the most backwards approach I can think of as film then lens have the largest impact on end picture. Luckily the new voigtlander 50 1.5 with the chromed brass or the jupiter 3 would look devilishly handsome on the chrome m5. Mr Abrahamsson has me hooked on the 35mm color skopars as well. They are, on kickstarter, also bringing back the lovely looking 75/1.5 biotar

Thanks again for every ones imput, Thank you Ben for the tips on developing!

That is quite an alluring write up, thank you.

I have always admired pentax, the one thing that prohibited me from this camera was that i had heard the electronics were not the most reliable? perhaps internet hype?

I still don't think that you can compare color rendition on ANY scanned color negative film.

 

As for the Tri-X examples-I agree that there's a certain "creaminess" to them that I'm not used to seeing from Tri-X, but there are a LOT of variables that go into processing B&W film starting right at the developer. My go-to developer most of the time is D-76, and it gives Tri-X sort of a classic "gritty" look regardless of the glass I put in front of it. I've shot Tri-X through a LOT of different brands of glass, too-Off the top of my head Wollenstock, Kodak, Leitz, Zeiss, Schneider, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and Zenzanon. The examples you show have a certain digital "sterile" quality to them that almost makes me think they were pretty heavily grain reduced in Photoshop, or if nothing else were developed in a fine grain developer.

 

BTW, which F2 did you buy? As I said, if it's not an F2A or F2AS, you NEED the Nikkor if you want metering(unless there's a way to put a metering shoe on the Zeiss lenses-they certainly don't look like they're designed to take one).

Its the Eye level non metered, went for aesthetics over functionality :D

The MF-Nikkor 35/1.4 is full of character, at least up close and fairly wide open it's rendering of the background is really special. Probably not fancy, but special ;-)

I cant argue that, I do like its look, i just think i like the ziess's lens look more. Keyword of course being THINK lol

heres the zeissiness i speak of from portra and tri-x from zeiss lenses

Castello Sarriod de la Tour, Valle d'Aosta

Kerry (35) 2nd jpeg

Kangaroo point, Brisbane

Untitled

Two Girls on the Bus to Skyline

#19

I dont really find any of the above colors in the nikon lens AIS portra category. I understand that there could be manipulation, but the result for those colors are very common in zeiss lenses. The nikons are wonderful, but their colors seem subdued or darker or something that visibly shifts away from the zeiss colors.

I guess the nikons take pictures very well, the zeiss does that and adds a bit of its character. With that said i have noticed that some of the new ziess lenses dont lend their zeiss character but are just very uniform in sharpness and contrast.

With digital, it doesnt matter so much, because you have all the power to change every color to perfection in photoshop. With film, although you can go the route of photoshop as long as there is no "weak link in the chain before hand, but straight from camera to film to print, I feel that the money spent on the zeiss lens would cut out a few steps of digitizing then photoshop then print.

The only problem with the nikkor, is that it doesn thave any special character or rendition that strikes my eye, that I see. But with that said, I like the works of photogs like Chuck Jines, and hes uses nikkon primes, so perhaps you are right and I should start with nikon primes, for now.

Im still on the wall about it, again, thank you for the input.

I have a f2 on the way at the moment.

Should I go with the zeiss zf 35 1.4 or a Nikon mount leica r summicron 35. I like the rendition of both and imagine they are about the same price.

I have to say, after looking at a friends prints yesterday, whom shoots with voightlander color skopar lenses only, I quite like the rendition of them. The b&w tones are wonderful and the colors, atleast from what I've seen, seem to have a dark zeissiness to them. I might forgo the rollei for now and get a second body, a color skopar 21, zeiss or Leica 35 and maybe nikkor55 or elmarit 60 macro.

As for a rollei, is C the best to get? I don't want the meter and would like to upgrade the screen. Perhaps E is after C and also without a meter?

What do you guys think?

Thank you all, again, so much.

I have a fairly broad collection of premium cameras (1914 to 1983,) shoot at night a lot, and love Brassai. (I even own and use a Voigtlander Bergheil with Heliar lens like he used.) I own a Rolleiflex (mine is 1954) and over all it's the easiest 120 camera to use. I really like it for street and night. I also have a 1983 Nikon F3T and three lenses, including the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AiS. I think the F3T is the best SLR ever made. It's a joy to use, looks really classy, and I consistently get good results from it. I can personally recommend both of these for you. I think a Hassleblad might be too big, too conspicuous, and noisy for some of the things you want to do. I don't think one camera will be the best way to go for you. The Nikon will offer more lens choices and thus more versatility, but if going for only one camera it would probably be the Rolleiflex because: (1) bigger neg (2) quiet (3) WLF is great for street (4) very reliable (5) excellent lens. Most of the more desirable films available in 35mm are also available in 120. I love Ilford FP4 for general use, Acros for night (low reciprocity failure.) I also own & use a Leica IIIc from 1942, but I'm thinking that having to take a meter reading will interfere with your work flow. Very small, inconspicuous, and quiet though!

 

Kent in SD

I like the leica barnacks but with glasses it wasnt easy to see through the exquisitely magnified rangefinder. I personally think the f3hp is a bit ugly, it definitely didnt have the gusto of the delorean ;D But its functionality is indisputable.

I believe ill probably get one of the rolleis, not sure whether planar or xenotar. Then ill probably go for nikon or olympus. nikon has more lenses sure, but the olympus bodies are indisputably lovely.

Hello all,

Thank you for the replies.

I have a canon P and a baby rolleiflex, they are both quiet enough for what i do, the baby is annoying with its 127 film and i dont feel like hand winding 35 for it.

Im mostly aimed at one of the two rollies in 2.8 since the dinner parties are usually lower lit. I know the rolleiflexs can be shot steadily enough at lower enough shutter speeds to get the parties snapped up. Even tho I have read there is no difference in the planars vs xenotars. The pictures i have looked at make the planars look 3d sharp and have better color on portra where the xenotars usually look a little less saturated. I do keep in mind, however, that looking on flickr and the web in general, that there are infinite things that can effect the end result.for instance I love the exacting look of this picture, taken by a unspecified rollei 2.8

The Reader

this is from a planar:

000154200003-1-2

this is from a xenotar.

Rolleiflex 2.8D

Im truly at a loss of which to get.

If i do end up gettting a 35 as well, I might go with the f2, because it has an exceedingly simple elegant beauty, not far of course from the OM's

Hello all,

First of all please give your experience and opinion on the cameras youve used below, then after feel free to spread the hate for my having started another one of these unseenly bits informational vomit that so pollutes our forums.

I shoot street, photojournalism at uppity dinner parties that demand a quieter camera, product(clothing) perhaps even call it fashion. Architecture, think art not for industrial purposes. And portraits. I grew up in a theater so many of my pictures lean toward the cinematic. I love shooting at night, think brassai but no where near the beauty or mastery. With the product shots i do up close work so i fear that as much as i would love it, probably no leica M.

I have glasses. This has been the bane of my camera shooting life. I love wearing my glasses, contacts or not for me. Its why i only shoot 50mm on my canon P because i cant even close to see the 35 lines.

I dont often shoot over 50mm unless i have to and usually never ever over 100mm. pls no autofocus modern bodies f100 f4 etc. Im one of those horribly annoying people that like the feel of manual film advancement.

These are the camers im looking at and the lenses i have extensively looked at for the style I would like.( as much so as looking at photos on flickr can confer.)

The lenses that give the "style" that i like.

summicrons, elmarits, summilux's

35 1.4 contax zeiss 28 hollywood

hasselblads 80 planar

Rolleiflex 2.8 planar and xenotar

Most of these Im thinking in terms of black and white, a few of the leicas and all of the zeiss's colors are superb to my eyes.

Now for the camera bodies with lenses im thinkin of.

Nikon f2 fm2a f3t/pHP with 35 1.4 ais or zeiss zf and whatever is the better 28mm and perhaps whatever 50 has the best character, perhaps zeiss again? I know i can google the specs of the above bodies but i want to know of user experiences of one against another, for instance my friend will only use f2 bodies. I have no idea why.

canon F1new, because its damned beautiful. 35/2 thorium concave, 50 1.2 or around. perhaps 85 1.2 On david hancocks youtube video he fires the shutter of an F1 and olumpus om 10, the f1new seems very quiet

Olympus om2n/3/4 28/2 although i dont like the look as much as some of the above lenses but it fills a tiny bit. 50 1.2 or macro 85 or 90

contax s2/139 28 hollywood but i prefer the look of the 35 1.4 even though i wouldnt think they are differently formulated?

Hasselblad 500/1/3 c/cm/cw/cx with 80 coated planar. perhaps maybe the 120

Rolleiflex 2.8 planar or xenotar. I seems as if the planar is clearer and crispy sharp, the colors are typical zeiss amazing. But the xenotar seems to have its own allure, like nikons portrait defocus lens. sharp contrasty and soft at the same time? I think i prefer to planar but i dont want to over look the xenotar because as i said it has its own allure.

Leicaflex sl2. with whatever 28 35 or 50 i can afford. seems like probably elmarits for the first two or summi for the 50. I like these lenses b&w and color renditions.

Thank you guys so much for your opinions and tactile experiences.

Have a wonderful day.

Dont forget to leave your hatemail.;)