x-ray
Veteran
One of the things that makes photography an art is the personality given by each individual to his or her photographs. No to people will render an image the same way because we all have our own image in our minds as to how it should look. The photograph reflects the photographers personality and spirit.
raid
Dad Photographer
X-Ray: I agree with your words 100%. We try to transfer ourselves somehow into the photos we create.
Raid
Raid
Turtle
Veteran
....and so do I, largely. I have found the 28 Biogon, 35 planar and 50 planar very good matches in mono. I really have no criticisms of these lenses at all. After all the criticism, I found my Planar 35 very sharp wide open.
As for film, I adore APX100 and shoot it in preference to everything else. I also love the new TriX and find it has reasonable grain and an incredible tonality. Its look matches APX100 nicely and both develop for the same time in a tank.....so funnily enough this is what I use. I would be very happy with FP4 but that same time as TriX thing with APX has me sold. I cannot stand Tmax100. Clearly John Sexton makes it work! I however cannot, at this stage. Ghastly muddy mid tone separation. Delta is a far nicer film to look at the print IMO. I too like to keep things simple, b found as I hopped about the globe getting the same devs was not always easy so ended up having to shop and change. I found that it was easier than I thought to get good negs.
I am going to start shooting Delta 100 to take allow the Zeiss lenses to shine as APX100 just cannot push them. Pictorially however, I do find APX beyond compare, with FP4+ close by. D76 or Xtol....and I am sure many others would do.
As for film, I adore APX100 and shoot it in preference to everything else. I also love the new TriX and find it has reasonable grain and an incredible tonality. Its look matches APX100 nicely and both develop for the same time in a tank.....so funnily enough this is what I use. I would be very happy with FP4 but that same time as TriX thing with APX has me sold. I cannot stand Tmax100. Clearly John Sexton makes it work! I however cannot, at this stage. Ghastly muddy mid tone separation. Delta is a far nicer film to look at the print IMO. I too like to keep things simple, b found as I hopped about the globe getting the same devs was not always easy so ended up having to shop and change. I found that it was easier than I thought to get good negs.
I am going to start shooting Delta 100 to take allow the Zeiss lenses to shine as APX100 just cannot push them. Pictorially however, I do find APX beyond compare, with FP4+ close by. D76 or Xtol....and I am sure many others would do.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
thomasw_
Well-known
Hey Magus,
I hope you won't be swayed from your plans to explore the 15mm or 21mm FLs just because two very good photographers do not find it to their liking. The VC 15 or the SA 21/3.4 are both great lenses for serious fun, and, in the case of the VC 15, you can get right up close (i think 11.75") for some great facial expressiveness over an ale. What raid says is important; that the 15mm FL may be too limiting or limited. I think this is true, being an ardent 5cm FL user for 80% of my shots, but I think it is the case that the 15mm FL may open up some yet unknown possibilities in your shooting even if it isn't your normal 50 or 35 FL and is used for < 10% of your shots.
Just my 2 cents.
respectfully,
Thomas
I hope you won't be swayed from your plans to explore the 15mm or 21mm FLs just because two very good photographers do not find it to their liking. The VC 15 or the SA 21/3.4 are both great lenses for serious fun, and, in the case of the VC 15, you can get right up close (i think 11.75") for some great facial expressiveness over an ale. What raid says is important; that the 15mm FL may be too limiting or limited. I think this is true, being an ardent 5cm FL user for 80% of my shots, but I think it is the case that the 15mm FL may open up some yet unknown possibilities in your shooting even if it isn't your normal 50 or 35 FL and is used for < 10% of your shots.
Just my 2 cents.
respectfully,
Thomas
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Sparrow
Veteran
Two compliments in the same week………….I’m honoured
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Sparrow
Veteran
In that case I shall take lunch now………….good day
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Turtle
Veteran
Magus,
FP4+ takes the back seat simply because APX100 develops for the same time as TriX, so when I have three rolls of APX and 2 of TriX I whack them together into the paterson tank and develop for X mins. Works fine and the convenience is quite a bonus. APX and TriX are also a great match on the final print. FP4+ in some respects is more subtle than APX100. I use FP4+ too, but seeing as I saw some more APX100 going (is it ever going to end?) I bought it and will continue to do so until it is gone. in 120 and LF I use FP4+.
I dont find the 35 Biogon to produce too 'smooth a palette'. With TriX and APX anything can be made to look punchy! I do however think that it takes a modern or very slow film to really show what the lenses are capable of. For me however the reduced latitude of modern films is a bit of a handicap and certainly here in Afghanistan I have generally stayed away from them because the light can be fiercely contrasty and getting exposure spot on while rushing is not always easy...then you develop a roll of shots from all lighting conditions! The exception has been 6x12 landscapes where I knew the lighting was constant across the whole roll and I was able to alter development. Shot those on Delta.
At least with a set of Zeiss lenses the look is constant! That has to be a good thing when it comes to forgetting everything apart from the picture.
FP4+ takes the back seat simply because APX100 develops for the same time as TriX, so when I have three rolls of APX and 2 of TriX I whack them together into the paterson tank and develop for X mins. Works fine and the convenience is quite a bonus. APX and TriX are also a great match on the final print. FP4+ in some respects is more subtle than APX100. I use FP4+ too, but seeing as I saw some more APX100 going (is it ever going to end?) I bought it and will continue to do so until it is gone. in 120 and LF I use FP4+.
I dont find the 35 Biogon to produce too 'smooth a palette'. With TriX and APX anything can be made to look punchy! I do however think that it takes a modern or very slow film to really show what the lenses are capable of. For me however the reduced latitude of modern films is a bit of a handicap and certainly here in Afghanistan I have generally stayed away from them because the light can be fiercely contrasty and getting exposure spot on while rushing is not always easy...then you develop a roll of shots from all lighting conditions! The exception has been 6x12 landscapes where I knew the lighting was constant across the whole roll and I was able to alter development. Shot those on Delta.
At least with a set of Zeiss lenses the look is constant! That has to be a good thing when it comes to forgetting everything apart from the picture.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I do have a fairly complete set of 35's. This is not a "collectors" kit - but a assembly of stuff from a life long devotion to 35!
Summicron 35 version 1: This is the 8 element version and i have had at least one of these since 1958! It has a very smooth look to it, but at f2 the corners are soft.
Summicron 35 version 2: This is the one with the "tab" on the aperture ring. my current one is "ugly" but with clean glass. Better in the corners than the earlier version, but the later 35f2's are better over all.
Summicron 35f2 version 3: Not a bad lens, in some aspects it is a better built lens than the later version IV. Wide open it performs well for hand held, Tri-X shooting.
Summicron IV: this is the post 1980 version and is probably the best of the 35f2's when it comes to "bokeh" (that fuzzy stuff that is not in focus). Build quality is not as good as the earlier ones.The weak spot is the aperture ring which can come loose.
Over all sharpness, even wide open is very good. Small and compact too.
Summicron 35f2 ASPH: This is the ultimate when it comes to sharpness and contrast, but it is a/flare sensitive and b/very 'edgy" with black and white film. Contrast is very high and you are forever chasing #0,5 and # 1.0 filters in your darkroom. I have a bit of ambivalent feelings towards this lens.It is heavy and larger than the earlier versions and if I am using contrastier film (Delta 100/ACROS/ Tmax 100) I find that I tend to grab the Version IV instead.
Zeiss Biogon 35f2.8: This is a very 'smooth" lens, both in operation and " image".
It is big and a bit clumsy, but there is virtually no distortion and sharpness is more than adeqate. It is a toss up between the 35/2 ASPH and this lens. Apart from size it also suffers from needing a different filter size. All my Summicrons can use 39mm filters (well, the Version II used to be able too. Now the thread is chewed up beyond repair).
Voigtlander 35f2.5 II: Very small and compact and damned good for the price. Less flare than any of the Summicron's and overall performance is right up there with the Version IV. It is a light weight lens and I have had a failed aperture ring on it (as I have had with the IV Summicrons too). This lens often ends up on a M2 as a light weight "walk about" lens. So far I haven't been able to blame a single lousy shot on the lens (or camera).
Summilux 35 f1.4 2nd version. My current one is a mid 90's production and. yes it has some of the foibles of the 35/1,4: distinct field curvature and some flare when shooting with bright sources in the frame. Still, it is small and light weight and it will give you 1.4 images that are easy to print.
Summilux 35/1,4 ASPH: I have had several, a version 1 which was OK and two of the current ones. Both the later ones flared too much. The first one would flare so badly that the image was obscured. It was rebuilt ones by Leica and later replaced. The replacement was better, but still showed unacceptable flare when ever a light source would intrude in the edges. It is a very sharp lens with high contrast, almost too much contrast for black/white. i have seen very good stuff done with this lens, but I no longer trust them!
Voigtlander 35f1.2: Big and heavy, but at f1.2 it is better than the 1.4 ASPH at 1.4 with less flare. Not really a "walk about" lens, but when you need the speed it is stunning. With 400 and above film, it is not the lens that limits you. It is your skill at focussing as the light is most likely so low that you cant see what you are focussing on.
The Ultron 35f1,7: As an Aspheric it is very good with less of the flare that seems to plaque the Leica ASPH's. I dont like the ergonomics of the lens as i am always chasing the aperture ring and miss shots due to that. Fun lens to stick on an old IIIF or IIIg though.
The "forgotten" 35 - The Summaron 35f2.8. This is a very good lens and usually has better close performance than the Summicron's. In the mid-range 5.6 -11 it is as good as the Summicron. They are easier to find in good shape than the 35/2's as these were often bought by pro's who used them heavily. The 35f2.8 is one of my favourites for black/white in bright sun. it seems to hold the contrast at a printable level and even up to 16x20" prints are fine.
Over the years i have tried the Konica 35, Ricoh 35 and Minolta 35's (and others) in M and LTM mounts and they are all good and in most cases will do as well as any of the other lenses. They tend to be a bit more difficult to find though.
Do observe that these opinions are my own. Others will disagree (including Erwin Puts, who is a good friend of ours), but my shooting for the last 20 years has been strictly with black/white - tri X in a variety of developers (my degree in chemistry paid off at last - i make my own developers from scratch) and the printing is done with a late Focomat 1C with the Focotar-2 lens. The 1C is a condensor enlarger and this coupled with the slightly elevated contrast of the Focotar-2 makes me more sensitive to inherent contrast in film/developer combinations.
Summicron 35 version 1: This is the 8 element version and i have had at least one of these since 1958! It has a very smooth look to it, but at f2 the corners are soft.
Summicron 35 version 2: This is the one with the "tab" on the aperture ring. my current one is "ugly" but with clean glass. Better in the corners than the earlier version, but the later 35f2's are better over all.
Summicron 35f2 version 3: Not a bad lens, in some aspects it is a better built lens than the later version IV. Wide open it performs well for hand held, Tri-X shooting.
Summicron IV: this is the post 1980 version and is probably the best of the 35f2's when it comes to "bokeh" (that fuzzy stuff that is not in focus). Build quality is not as good as the earlier ones.The weak spot is the aperture ring which can come loose.
Over all sharpness, even wide open is very good. Small and compact too.
Summicron 35f2 ASPH: This is the ultimate when it comes to sharpness and contrast, but it is a/flare sensitive and b/very 'edgy" with black and white film. Contrast is very high and you are forever chasing #0,5 and # 1.0 filters in your darkroom. I have a bit of ambivalent feelings towards this lens.It is heavy and larger than the earlier versions and if I am using contrastier film (Delta 100/ACROS/ Tmax 100) I find that I tend to grab the Version IV instead.
Zeiss Biogon 35f2.8: This is a very 'smooth" lens, both in operation and " image".
It is big and a bit clumsy, but there is virtually no distortion and sharpness is more than adeqate. It is a toss up between the 35/2 ASPH and this lens. Apart from size it also suffers from needing a different filter size. All my Summicrons can use 39mm filters (well, the Version II used to be able too. Now the thread is chewed up beyond repair).
Voigtlander 35f2.5 II: Very small and compact and damned good for the price. Less flare than any of the Summicron's and overall performance is right up there with the Version IV. It is a light weight lens and I have had a failed aperture ring on it (as I have had with the IV Summicrons too). This lens often ends up on a M2 as a light weight "walk about" lens. So far I haven't been able to blame a single lousy shot on the lens (or camera).
Summilux 35 f1.4 2nd version. My current one is a mid 90's production and. yes it has some of the foibles of the 35/1,4: distinct field curvature and some flare when shooting with bright sources in the frame. Still, it is small and light weight and it will give you 1.4 images that are easy to print.
Summilux 35/1,4 ASPH: I have had several, a version 1 which was OK and two of the current ones. Both the later ones flared too much. The first one would flare so badly that the image was obscured. It was rebuilt ones by Leica and later replaced. The replacement was better, but still showed unacceptable flare when ever a light source would intrude in the edges. It is a very sharp lens with high contrast, almost too much contrast for black/white. i have seen very good stuff done with this lens, but I no longer trust them!
Voigtlander 35f1.2: Big and heavy, but at f1.2 it is better than the 1.4 ASPH at 1.4 with less flare. Not really a "walk about" lens, but when you need the speed it is stunning. With 400 and above film, it is not the lens that limits you. It is your skill at focussing as the light is most likely so low that you cant see what you are focussing on.
The Ultron 35f1,7: As an Aspheric it is very good with less of the flare that seems to plaque the Leica ASPH's. I dont like the ergonomics of the lens as i am always chasing the aperture ring and miss shots due to that. Fun lens to stick on an old IIIF or IIIg though.
The "forgotten" 35 - The Summaron 35f2.8. This is a very good lens and usually has better close performance than the Summicron's. In the mid-range 5.6 -11 it is as good as the Summicron. They are easier to find in good shape than the 35/2's as these were often bought by pro's who used them heavily. The 35f2.8 is one of my favourites for black/white in bright sun. it seems to hold the contrast at a printable level and even up to 16x20" prints are fine.
Over the years i have tried the Konica 35, Ricoh 35 and Minolta 35's (and others) in M and LTM mounts and they are all good and in most cases will do as well as any of the other lenses. They tend to be a bit more difficult to find though.
Do observe that these opinions are my own. Others will disagree (including Erwin Puts, who is a good friend of ours), but my shooting for the last 20 years has been strictly with black/white - tri X in a variety of developers (my degree in chemistry paid off at last - i make my own developers from scratch) and the printing is done with a late Focomat 1C with the Focotar-2 lens. The 1C is a condensor enlarger and this coupled with the slightly elevated contrast of the Focotar-2 makes me more sensitive to inherent contrast in film/developer combinations.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hello Tom,
Your stated opinion match in many way what we have observed in my testing 35mm lenses at RFF. People here also liked the results for the Canon 35mm/1.5.
Greetings,
Raid
Your stated opinion match in many way what we have observed in my testing 35mm lenses at RFF. People here also liked the results for the Canon 35mm/1.5.
Greetings,
Raid
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I still have my 35f1.8 and a 35f3.5 Canon that I use. I did try a couple of 35f1.5's some years ago, but I was somewhat disappointed with the result. The 35f1.8 and the 35f2 are very good lenses, on par with the Version 1 and 2 Summicron's, at least with black/white. The slightly lower contrast help there.
The Canon 35f3.2 and 35f3,5 are fairly mediocre performer, at least when you shoot wide-open or close to wide open.
One of the better lenses in that LTM range is the Nikkor 35f2.5 and it is still not too expensive. The Nikkor 35f1,8 LTM is a very good lens, but it is rare and overpriced for its performance. I took one of these to Rome in 1998 on a M2 and a very early 35 Asph f2 S-cron on a M6. Looking at negatives and print from that trip. The 35f1.8 performed better with the Tri-X than the 35/2 Asph. did. However, with Technical Pan @ 40 ASA - the Summicron was stunning, when the contrast was moderate.
The Canon 35f3.2 and 35f3,5 are fairly mediocre performer, at least when you shoot wide-open or close to wide open.
One of the better lenses in that LTM range is the Nikkor 35f2.5 and it is still not too expensive. The Nikkor 35f1,8 LTM is a very good lens, but it is rare and overpriced for its performance. I took one of these to Rome in 1998 on a M2 and a very early 35 Asph f2 S-cron on a M6. Looking at negatives and print from that trip. The 35f1.8 performed better with the Tri-X than the 35/2 Asph. did. However, with Technical Pan @ 40 ASA - the Summicron was stunning, when the contrast was moderate.
raid
Dad Photographer
Tom A said:
Tom,
I have a Canon 35mm/1.8 and a Canon 35mm/2.8. Both are sharp and both give me very pleasing results. You may have had bad examples of the Canon 35mm/1.5. The one that I have been testing here is giving me excellent results. I have posted the results on RFF.
Take a look at the last few comments for:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=559414#post559414
Raid
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
I agree with Tom regarding the LTM 35mm F2.5 Nikkor, it is a small package on the screwmount or M cameras, and it does very well performance wise. I don't think they are that hard to find ...just overlooked by the mainstream.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Raid, your 35f1.5 shots are far better than I ever got with mine! Oh damn, now I have to start looking for one of those. Most of the ones I have seen lately have had either scratches on the front element or fungi growing on the inside. Did you ever shoot any black/white with it? What is the contrast like? The contrast level with color is not always "translatable" to black/white, particularly with older lenses.