JFH
Established
Hello... I'm a bit new to RF's and I'm hoping for a bit of advice from you experienced folks. I've got several years experience with digital, but my R3A is my first film camera since my 1971 vintage Minolta SRT101.. I'm doing a specific project regarding "duplicating" several old building and landscape views from about 75 years ago, and I've decided to use a combination of some digital along with B&W film, and perhaps a bit of color (maybe 80% B&W).
I purchased an R3A and 40mm Nokton lens which seems to work nicely so far. However, I've determined that I need a bit wider field in order to mimic the old 5x7 view camera shots, (can only back up so far...) so I'm considering a 35mm lens. My requirements are: Best rendering of fine detail including shadows, "average" contrast.. neither flat nor too contrasty (I know.. a matter of some opinion and preference), and a lens that doesn't get "quirky" with focus shifts, vignetting, flare and so forth, and gives a crisp "documentary" as opposed to "artistic" rendering. I really don't care about bokeh that much, nor is low-light performance particularly an issue.
I would be having a lab process the film, and therefore I may lean toward C-41 B&W films, although I will test several before deciding. An initial roll of Ilford XP2 came out to my liking, although ISO 400 and bright sunlight had me shooting at f16 and 1/1000 or 1/500 much of the time. Everything will eventually be digitized for publication at some point.
I'd like to keep the cost down a bit, so a Leica lens wouldn't be up for serious consideration. I've been considering the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2, and the 3 CV's, the 1.7, 1.4 and 1.2 as being available and in my price range.
So would any of you care to chime in here? I could use some help and advice...
I purchased an R3A and 40mm Nokton lens which seems to work nicely so far. However, I've determined that I need a bit wider field in order to mimic the old 5x7 view camera shots, (can only back up so far...) so I'm considering a 35mm lens. My requirements are: Best rendering of fine detail including shadows, "average" contrast.. neither flat nor too contrasty (I know.. a matter of some opinion and preference), and a lens that doesn't get "quirky" with focus shifts, vignetting, flare and so forth, and gives a crisp "documentary" as opposed to "artistic" rendering. I really don't care about bokeh that much, nor is low-light performance particularly an issue.
I would be having a lab process the film, and therefore I may lean toward C-41 B&W films, although I will test several before deciding. An initial roll of Ilford XP2 came out to my liking, although ISO 400 and bright sunlight had me shooting at f16 and 1/1000 or 1/500 much of the time. Everything will eventually be digitized for publication at some point.
I'd like to keep the cost down a bit, so a Leica lens wouldn't be up for serious consideration. I've been considering the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f2, and the 3 CV's, the 1.7, 1.4 and 1.2 as being available and in my price range.
So would any of you care to chime in here? I could use some help and advice...
like2fiddle
Curious
You might find too little difference between a 35 and a 40. You might want to consider a 28 or a 25?
Regarding your project, I am contemplating a similar project and would love to hear more about what you are doing.
Regarding your project, I am contemplating a similar project and would love to hear more about what you are doing.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
I'd suggest that you also consider the CV 35/2.5.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Is it possible for you to use a 5x7 camera for this project? There are some vast differences between formats in how the focal length renders the image (as well as sharpness, tonality, and other subjective qualifiers like that).
There are also some large differences between TTL viewing (as in a view camera or SLR) and using an RF-style finder. If framing is very important, I would suggest trying to use a TTL-viewing camera as opposed to an RF. After all, if you're spending time to compose an image why not ensure that what you see is what the lens/film sees?
There are also some large differences between TTL viewing (as in a view camera or SLR) and using an RF-style finder. If framing is very important, I would suggest trying to use a TTL-viewing camera as opposed to an RF. After all, if you're spending time to compose an image why not ensure that what you see is what the lens/film sees?
JFH
Established
like2fiddle.... the "what I'm doing" right now is waiting for 4 or 5 feet of snow to go away... I'm a bit northeast of you. But OK, here goes. In the 20's and 30's there was a company in Maine that sent photographers far and wide to photograph small towns throughout New England. They used mainly 5x7 view cameras and glass plate negatives. They then made postcards out of the photos and sold them back to the residents of the towns. I've seen many for my town in particular and felt that a "then and now" project would be very interesting. So far, I've been going around and trying to identify the particular views and taking a few pics for reference... and I've been surprisingly successful despite the obvious ravages of fire, flood, and urban renewal. The core of the project at this point will be to take as exact a view of each as possible, maybe even standing at the same spot the original photographer used, and then of course moving around for detail shots of the architecture, present surroundings, etc.
This is the reason for the 35mm lens, since it's working out ( by referencing exif data from my digital zoom lens) that the shots mostly seem to encompass a 35mm to 40mm perspective when translated to 35mm film. I also have a 50mm lens (Zeiss Planar) but while that will be good for details, it has way too narrow a FV. Nobody seems to know what focal length the original photographers used. If that were kown (I think there's a 4:1 ratio to convert from 35mm to 5x7, i.e. a 50mm in 35mm would equal a 200 mm in 5x7) it would cut down on a lot of trial and error...
This is the reason for the 35mm lens, since it's working out ( by referencing exif data from my digital zoom lens) that the shots mostly seem to encompass a 35mm to 40mm perspective when translated to 35mm film. I also have a 50mm lens (Zeiss Planar) but while that will be good for details, it has way too narrow a FV. Nobody seems to know what focal length the original photographers used. If that were kown (I think there's a 4:1 ratio to convert from 35mm to 5x7, i.e. a 50mm in 35mm would equal a 200 mm in 5x7) it would cut down on a lot of trial and error...
JFH
Established
Erichaugsby: I thought of that too... but I'm just a financially strapped amateur with no 5x7 equipment or access. As to the exact views... undoubtedly will have to do some cropping and retaking here and there. Frankly, I don't know why one wouldn't use an SLR for this project.. but my old one is kaput... so I'll have to move forward with what I have, disadvantages and all. At first, I thought an RF would be easier on the budget; perhaps also because I thought some finer quality lenses would be available for less money... but then GAS rears its ugly head....
like2fiddle
Curious
That sounds like a great project, potentially lots of fun. If a 35mm focal length seems to be what will work, then the CV 35/2.5 recommended above may be the lens to get. It gets many positive reviews here. Even though replicating the scenes with a 5 x 7 would be ideal, my guess is that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference nor would they truly care - it's the concept that is appealing.
JFH
Established
I see 2 CV 35/2.5's, one in screw mount and one in "M" mount. Other than the screw mount version needing an adaptor, are there any obvious differences? Again, back to my original post, how about detail rendering, etc.? Prices look very attractive as well.
Anybody have thoughts about the Zeiss Biogon? It was going to be my first choice after reading Puts' comments among others... but nobody's mentioned it yet.. So maybe my thinking was off. If so, then I will thank you all for saving me considerable money...
Anybody have thoughts about the Zeiss Biogon? It was going to be my first choice after reading Puts' comments among others... but nobody's mentioned it yet.. So maybe my thinking was off. If so, then I will thank you all for saving me considerable money...
uhligfd
Well-known
Ok: on 5 x 7 cameras the original photographer would have used shift and tilt built in for perspective control; with 35 mm rangefinders, this is not available, except through photoshop afterwards.
So be aware that your pics will all have converging lines as soon as you tilt the lens up or down.
So be aware that your pics will all have converging lines as soon as you tilt the lens up or down.
venchka
Veteran
C-41 400 B&W film works very well at 100 & 200 also. No need to change processing either.
An 8x-3 stop ND filter will make your life wonderful. I have one that I use with various 1.4 & 2.0 lenses to good advantage.
For your consideration: As someone else pointed out, 35mm may not be wide enough. The C/V 28/1.9 would be an affordable choice. And, I would be remiss in not mentioning the 35mm/2.0 Konica UC-Hexanon. No flare. Sharper than most at 5.6 or 8.0.
A 4x5 Speed Graphic with a Kodak Ektar 127mm lens & the harware to develop your own negatives costs less than the lens you are contemplating. Rangefinder equipped too.
Good luck! Show us your results.
An 8x-3 stop ND filter will make your life wonderful. I have one that I use with various 1.4 & 2.0 lenses to good advantage.
For your consideration: As someone else pointed out, 35mm may not be wide enough. The C/V 28/1.9 would be an affordable choice. And, I would be remiss in not mentioning the 35mm/2.0 Konica UC-Hexanon. No flare. Sharper than most at 5.6 or 8.0.
A 4x5 Speed Graphic with a Kodak Ektar 127mm lens & the harware to develop your own negatives costs less than the lens you are contemplating. Rangefinder equipped too.
Good luck! Show us your results.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
More thoughts
More thoughts
Even the most casual of searches here will yield more opinions and samples from any and all 35mm lenses ever made for rangefinder bodies. The Zeiss Biogon is well reperesented in this search.
How about an old, rebuilt, 6x9 folder with the shortest lens you can find and some 120 size C-41 B&W or Efke 25 film? The Efke film is closer to the old orthochromatic films of yesteryear than just about any film you can find today. Armed with a period camera, the Efke film and either D-76 or Rodinal you would be assured of at least a 1950s look.
More thoughts
Even the most casual of searches here will yield more opinions and samples from any and all 35mm lenses ever made for rangefinder bodies. The Zeiss Biogon is well reperesented in this search.
How about an old, rebuilt, 6x9 folder with the shortest lens you can find and some 120 size C-41 B&W or Efke 25 film? The Efke film is closer to the old orthochromatic films of yesteryear than just about any film you can find today. Armed with a period camera, the Efke film and either D-76 or Rodinal you would be assured of at least a 1950s look.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
The main problem with photographing buildings is the distance of the subject to the camera. Often to obtain the full view of the building or the corresponding cityscape, as in your case, you will need to be at a considerable distance from the building. That distance will be filled with vehicles and pedestrians which you will find will detract from your photo. The wider the lens the closer you can get to the building and lessen interference. I have found the a 35mm lens in not wide enough for architectuure. A 24mm/25mm lens but no narrower than a 28mm would suffice for me.
I am glad that you asked this question as I have pondered the difference between the 28mm & 35mm. I think that the 35mm captures the subject just right while the 28mm puts the subject in the environment. As for the 24/25mm lens they have always been better for buildings for me. Going below the 24mm will put you at the 20mm which will have distortion and may not be appropriate for your project.
I like the idea. I have seen it done before and it is very interesting. Please post the photos when you have completed your work.
I am glad that you asked this question as I have pondered the difference between the 28mm & 35mm. I think that the 35mm captures the subject just right while the 28mm puts the subject in the environment. As for the 24/25mm lens they have always been better for buildings for me. Going below the 24mm will put you at the 20mm which will have distortion and may not be appropriate for your project.
I like the idea. I have seen it done before and it is very interesting. Please post the photos when you have completed your work.
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello:
If you are using a 35mm or 25mm lens with a rangefinder camera you may find, as I have*, that a portable step and /or a high tripod helps in reducing foreground and building tilt back. 'Cheaper than some view cameras.
Good luck with your project.
yours
FPJ
*an approach used forever.
If you are using a 35mm or 25mm lens with a rangefinder camera you may find, as I have*, that a portable step and /or a high tripod helps in reducing foreground and building tilt back. 'Cheaper than some view cameras.
Good luck with your project.
yours
FPJ
*an approach used forever.
JFH
Established
Wow.. and thanks! Great responses so far. Yes, I'm aware of the perspective problems involving the wide angles. And looking at the old photos I have ,it seems obvious that the photographer was tilting, raising or lowering his lens to alter his perspective. In a couple of instances, I estimated that I'd have to be on the roof or in a second floor window across the street in order to achieve the same "view" with a 35 mm. So I'm sure that many of the views will have to be more "approximate" than "exact." As Roger says, likely most wouldn't care or appreciate the difference anyway. Although I can't post any of the images for copyright reasons (theirs, not mine) I can say that the man behind the camera was likely more mechanic than artist, and there are people, old cars, horses, and so forth that randomly appear in the pics... and this isn't "cathedral architecture," by any means, just an ordinary town with ordinary houses, stores, churches, and so forth. Most images contain several buildings at once and are shot looking up or down a particular street... almost as if the photographer were given a particular "recipe," i.e. something like, "Keep the light at your back, stand across the street and take one looking left and one looking right. Then move somewhere else and do it all again.... Oh, and if anyone offers you money, then take a picture of their house or store by itself.."
The thing that I've found most interesting so far is the number of buildings that have actually survived in recognizable form up to the present. And that's what I want to document.
As to using film vs. digital, I wanted to do the bulk of this in black and white and I've never been particularly satisfied with B&W conversions from my digital, hence the film. Also a minor tribute to at least "pre- digital" photography here, at which I'm admittedly deficient but hopefully getting better. But despite all the suggestions to the contrary, I'm afraid that 35mm film with lab processing is about as "wet" as I plan to get in this particular swimming pool at least for the time being Photography is wonderful, isn't it?
The thing that I've found most interesting so far is the number of buildings that have actually survived in recognizable form up to the present. And that's what I want to document.
As to using film vs. digital, I wanted to do the bulk of this in black and white and I've never been particularly satisfied with B&W conversions from my digital, hence the film. Also a minor tribute to at least "pre- digital" photography here, at which I'm admittedly deficient but hopefully getting better. But despite all the suggestions to the contrary, I'm afraid that 35mm film with lab processing is about as "wet" as I plan to get in this particular swimming pool at least for the time being
Photography is wonderful, isn't it?
ferider
Veteran
Have you considered using an older film SLR (like a Nikon or OM) with 35mm shift lens ?
The respective lenses are of outstanding quality.
Sounds like a fun project.
Roland.
The respective lenses are of outstanding quality.
Sounds like a fun project.
Roland.
venchka
Veteran
Who's to say that you can't be on the roof or in a second floor window?
24/25mm lenses have many uses. There are even 24mm Tilt/Shift lenses for SLRs. Staying in the rangefinder mode, the C/V 25 Snapshot Skopar lens should work well for you. Scale focusing won't be a problem. At f8.0 or f11 I dare say everything from your nose to infinity will be in focus.
DIY B&W film developing is absoulutely the most rewarding way to arrive at good negatives. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Better quality control than any lab. Ask here or keep an eye on Craigslist for free tanks. A few dollars for chemicals and filing sleeves and Bob's your Uncle!
Long exposures, really long like several minutes or longer, will eliminate moving subjects like cars & people in your photos. Watch out for the recirocity failure of your film. That will add even more time to your exposures. Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros has the least amount of reciprocity among modern films. In fact, I don't think it looses any speed at all up to about 6 minutes. That makes it faster than any 400 speed film for longer exposures.
I already mentioned a ND filter to get your f-stops in the f8.0 range. I should have also mentioned yellow-green, yellow-orange and maybe a red filter. You can bet the original photographer probably used a filter.
24/25mm lenses have many uses. There are even 24mm Tilt/Shift lenses for SLRs. Staying in the rangefinder mode, the C/V 25 Snapshot Skopar lens should work well for you. Scale focusing won't be a problem. At f8.0 or f11 I dare say everything from your nose to infinity will be in focus.
DIY B&W film developing is absoulutely the most rewarding way to arrive at good negatives. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Better quality control than any lab. Ask here or keep an eye on Craigslist for free tanks. A few dollars for chemicals and filing sleeves and Bob's your Uncle!
Long exposures, really long like several minutes or longer, will eliminate moving subjects like cars & people in your photos. Watch out for the recirocity failure of your film. That will add even more time to your exposures. Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros has the least amount of reciprocity among modern films. In fact, I don't think it looses any speed at all up to about 6 minutes. That makes it faster than any 400 speed film for longer exposures.
I already mentioned a ND filter to get your f-stops in the f8.0 range. I should have also mentioned yellow-green, yellow-orange and maybe a red filter. You can bet the original photographer probably used a filter.
oscroft
Veteran
Optically the screw and M versions of the lens are the same - I have the screw version (with adapter), and I find its sharpness and contrast to be very pleasing, without it being too contrasty (some lenses have such high contrast they can be tricky to use well in bright lighting). Its colour rendition is nice too - pretty neutral, and with the right film it is capable of capturing good colour saturation.
I don't have many examples I can show you, but the photos in this album were taken with it.
JFH
Established
Wayne... Yes, I suppose I could arrange to get upstairs in a couple of buildings in order to get the "right" shot... actually this will be possible in at least two instances right now. I can see that this project, if done well, will probably take most of the summer anyway. And... yes, keep it up you guys, you'll have me developing my own film yet... stranger things have happened. Although I haven't tried it yet, one of the films I wanted to try is Pan F Plus. I will have to see how well my lab does with this and FP4, and if they don't quite "get it," I will probably embark on this "project within a project." Or I may let them develop the negatives and get into making the prints myself, which actually sounds like the more doable part at least at first. My wife will hate you..
Oscroft.. those are some very nice shots.. the lens seems to produce excellent detail which is one of the things I'm after. Colors seem a bit muted, which is the film I'm sure. Very nice effect there. Thanks.
Overall, I seem to see a high preference for the CV lenses here; they certainly seem to get the job done well, and aren't too expensive for the most part. Any comments on the CV 35 / 1.4 that just came out? Again, I'm looking for sharpness, detail rendition and lack of "squirreliness." I don't see bokeh as being much of a consideration for the type of shots I contemplate either. The 43mm filter size would let me use my present 43mm filters (UV and medium yellow) too. I probably will settle on either that or the Skopar, and try some ND filters in order to use the 400 films in bright sunlight.
If nothing else, I expect to come out of this project a better photographer than I was when I went in....
Oscroft.. those are some very nice shots.. the lens seems to produce excellent detail which is one of the things I'm after. Colors seem a bit muted, which is the film I'm sure. Very nice effect there. Thanks.
Overall, I seem to see a high preference for the CV lenses here; they certainly seem to get the job done well, and aren't too expensive for the most part. Any comments on the CV 35 / 1.4 that just came out? Again, I'm looking for sharpness, detail rendition and lack of "squirreliness." I don't see bokeh as being much of a consideration for the type of shots I contemplate either. The 43mm filter size would let me use my present 43mm filters (UV and medium yellow) too. I probably will settle on either that or the Skopar, and try some ND filters in order to use the 400 films in bright sunlight.
If nothing else, I expect to come out of this project a better photographer than I was when I went in....