Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Guys, I'm stuck into a kind of dilemma.
I'm using a Leica M4 with FSU lenses (Jupiter 8, 9 and 12) and like the 35 mm focal lenght most. My scanner is an Epson V500 flatbed.
Now I would like to upgrade, but as a college student with a 350 to 400€ budget per month, I'm running short on money consequently. So, just one thing goes at a time - either a better lens (that would be a Summicron-M 35/2, that decision was also very hard, but also other candidates would still be interesting
) or a better scanner (a Coolscan V ED).
What would you choose and why? But keep in mind that I have a limited budget.
Thanks in advance.
I'm using a Leica M4 with FSU lenses (Jupiter 8, 9 and 12) and like the 35 mm focal lenght most. My scanner is an Epson V500 flatbed.
Now I would like to upgrade, but as a college student with a 350 to 400€ budget per month, I'm running short on money consequently. So, just one thing goes at a time - either a better lens (that would be a Summicron-M 35/2, that decision was also very hard, but also other candidates would still be interesting
) or a better scanner (a Coolscan V ED). What would you choose and why? But keep in mind that I have a limited budget.
Thanks in advance.
sleepyhead
Well-known
I would certainly pick a better lens if it were me.
It's better to shoot NOW, with the best you can, than have good scans from sub-optimal equipment.
Scanning technology will always change and hopefully improve, but you only get one chance to do the capture part right!
It's better to shoot NOW, with the best you can, than have good scans from sub-optimal equipment.
Scanning technology will always change and hopefully improve, but you only get one chance to do the capture part right!
sleepyhead
Well-known
Oh yeah, any photos that you take that you think are really super and that your existing scanner doesn't do justice, you can rent good scanners by the hour at some places, or ask a friend with a good scanner to scan for you.
Make good negatives FIRST.
Make good negatives FIRST.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I second Yaron (sleepyhead) on this. Good negatives are your working material and the base for everything else like (wet-)printing for example. Also, with a limited budget you wouldn't easily get a dedicated film scanner that is way (!!) better than the V500 you already have and use. For real good scans it is way better to have a few (excellent) negatives scanned (and print) by a professional lab, IMHO.
Also, I wouldn't look for a 35mm Summicron-M in the first place. A Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 can do better and a 40mm Summicron-C (or 40mm M-Rokkor) can do the same as a 35mm Summicron-M pre-ASPH but much cheaper.
Also, I wouldn't look for a 35mm Summicron-M in the first place. A Zeiss Biogon 35/2.0 can do better and a 40mm Summicron-C (or 40mm M-Rokkor) can do the same as a 35mm Summicron-M pre-ASPH but much cheaper.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
You should be producing high quality negatives at this point. Scanners will keep getting better and likely cheaper too. You also might decide to give conventional wet printing a try in the future.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
I agree with the rest. Lens first, scanner later. Besides, the V500 is already pretty good.
I do own a Coolscan V, but want a V500 for medium format. If I have them both I can compare. But from what I gathered so far, the Coolscan V is not significantly better than the V500. More reason to go for that 35mm Summicron then
I do own a Coolscan V, but want a V500 for medium format. If I have them both I can compare. But from what I gathered so far, the Coolscan V is not significantly better than the V500. More reason to go for that 35mm Summicron then
venchka
Veteran
I am currently scanning negatives from 1969 made with the best lens I could afford at the time. Make the best negatives possible. You never know what you may want to do with them. Back in 1969 who knew scanners would exist?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I think for the money, you can make the best overall improvement with getting a new lens. I have the V500 and think it's a pretty decent scanner. The cost for improvement on the scanner is going to be expensive. On the other hand, you can get some substantial improvement on the FSU lens.
If you had a Canon 35/2 and a scanner from 1996, I would likely advise the opposite.
Additionally, you always can scan negatives at a later date, while the picture itself may not be there.
If you had a Canon 35/2 and a scanner from 1996, I would likely advise the opposite.
Additionally, you always can scan negatives at a later date, while the picture itself may not be there.
Colman
Established
I'd say lens, and work on your scanning technique with the V500.
I have a V700 and a Coolscan V, and the difference is really that the Coolscan is much better focused and clearer for 35mm film that the V700 (ok, and much faster). I'm pretty certain that by optimising my scanning technique I could get much better images from the V700 than I did in simple testing, but I can't be bothered since I have the dedicated scanner.
I have a V700 and a Coolscan V, and the difference is really that the Coolscan is much better focused and clearer for 35mm film that the V700 (ok, and much faster). I'm pretty certain that by optimising my scanning technique I could get much better images from the V700 than I did in simple testing, but I can't be bothered since I have the dedicated scanner.
wallace
Well-known
You can have both: buy a good scanner + a Canon 35/2.0 ("Japanese summicron").
wallace
wallace
Al Kaplan
Veteran
It seems that a lot of people lust after the latest greatest bestest lens. Don't forget to leave money in your budget for film and chemicals! The best camera and lens in the world is useless when it's running on empty.
mfogiel
Veteran
I would think a second: a 1000 USD scanner and a 300 USD lens will get you much better end resullt for a 11x14 print than the other way round, but if you only print 5x7 this might be hardly visible. Generally speaking, what counts in your image chain, is not how good is the best element, but how bad is the worst. Therefore a CV 300USD lens at f5.6 will perform as well as a Summicron, but no consumer flatbed scanner can compete with a Coolscan 5000 or 9000 or KM 5400. BTW, if you buy one of the 35/2 Biogons available in the classifieds, you will reach a double goal: get a lens better than the Summicron for one third of the price, and have the money left for a dedicated scanner...
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Film and chemicals are not the problem.
So, now you tell me to get a better lens. This is just the opposite of what people over on flickr told me ("get a coolscan first, your lens is quite good already").
I don't want to open up another thread about which lens, nor will I turn this into that kind of thread. If so I would ask if the Summicron-M 35/2 IV is the better lens or the CV 35/2.5 or 1.4 is...
Or should I just be fond with the stuff I have and not look for a better lens?
edit: I'm in Germany, buying from US needs payment of import taxes and/or custom fees and Canon lenses are very rare, next to CV 28/3.5 lenses. ;-)
So, now you tell me to get a better lens. This is just the opposite of what people over on flickr told me ("get a coolscan first, your lens is quite good already").
I don't want to open up another thread about which lens, nor will I turn this into that kind of thread. If so I would ask if the Summicron-M 35/2 IV is the better lens or the CV 35/2.5 or 1.4 is...
Or should I just be fond with the stuff I have and not look for a better lens?
edit: I'm in Germany, buying from US needs payment of import taxes and/or custom fees and Canon lenses are very rare, next to CV 28/3.5 lenses. ;-)
Last edited:
djon
Well-known
If you can't see your negs in detail (highest resolution) there's no reason to think your photography is progressing. If you can find a Nikon IV it'll be as sharp as my V, will have more dust issues. Avoid Minolta at all costs...defunct and last model was junque. Epson's goodish but nowhere near IV or V. If you're serious you want a good scanner...or you want to forget film entirely and go for the actual 21st century gold.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
maddoc
... likes film again.
The question that comes to my mind now is what makes you thinking that you need something better (say new) ? The results of your scans ? Severe technical problems with your photos (mis-focusing, wrong exposure, flare, distortion, etc.) resulting from poor lens performance ?
Maybe you should shoot one two rolls of slide film under different (critical !) conditions and have these developed and scanned by a real good pro-lab. This way you can easily see what your scanner really can do (by re-scanning the same stripes with your own scanner), if something is wrong with the exposure, or other problems for example vignetting.
Maybe you should shoot one two rolls of slide film under different (critical !) conditions and have these developed and scanned by a real good pro-lab. This way you can easily see what your scanner really can do (by re-scanning the same stripes with your own scanner), if something is wrong with the exposure, or other problems for example vignetting.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Gabor, the reason why I'm looking for a different lens is that my Jupiter-12 has a good amount of barrel-distortion and has a very vintage look and not that much contrast. Above all I sometimes would like to have f2 instead of 2.8.
As for the scanner: Most of the time I want to scan for the web, but once in a while I'd like to have big prints like 20x30cm or so.
And, the film holder is really disturbing to use at the V500.
In the past time I was able to improve my scanning skills and understanding of pre-scan histogramm, but I think scanning with a Coolscan V could get more out of the negatives. Pardon me if I'm wrong, because I don't have options for comparing.
As for the scanner: Most of the time I want to scan for the web, but once in a while I'd like to have big prints like 20x30cm or so.
And, the film holder is really disturbing to use at the V500.
In the past time I was able to improve my scanning skills and understanding of pre-scan histogramm, but I think scanning with a Coolscan V could get more out of the negatives. Pardon me if I'm wrong, because I don't have options for comparing.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
You can get better film holders here: http://www.betterscanning.com/
That's a lot cheaper than a new scanner.
And, as others have stated, the jump from a Jupiter to a Summicron is huge. My 35mm is the Voigtlander Ultron f1.7, which is already outstanding. The few extra % that a Summicron will give you for much, MUCH more money, are they really worth it?
Last week I held a Leica M4 in my hands, with a Summicron 35mm on it. It was from a pro who does not use film anymore and wanted to sell. Sure I was tempted, I WANT that Summicron, but I don't NEED it. My pictures sure as hell won't be any better with one...
That's a lot cheaper than a new scanner.
And, as others have stated, the jump from a Jupiter to a Summicron is huge. My 35mm is the Voigtlander Ultron f1.7, which is already outstanding. The few extra % that a Summicron will give you for much, MUCH more money, are they really worth it?
Last week I held a Leica M4 in my hands, with a Summicron 35mm on it. It was from a pro who does not use film anymore and wanted to sell. Sure I was tempted, I WANT that Summicron, but I don't NEED it. My pictures sure as hell won't be any better with one...
maddoc
... likes film again.
Florian,
I don't know so much about the V500 but I own a V700 (with ANR glass inserts) and used to own a Nikon Coolscan V ED.... I didn't found the Nikon V so much superior that I sold it. The 5000 or better 9000 is a different story, though. To get the best out of a flat-bed scanner you must find a way to hold the negs flat and you have to figure out the optimal height of the film-holder ...
If you don't like the lens you use, you should upgrade that first. A better scanner won't help you with lens flaws... Worse, problems with your lens will be even more visible with a better scanner.
I don't know so much about the V500 but I own a V700 (with ANR glass inserts) and used to own a Nikon Coolscan V ED.... I didn't found the Nikon V so much superior that I sold it. The 5000 or better 9000 is a different story, though. To get the best out of a flat-bed scanner you must find a way to hold the negs flat and you have to figure out the optimal height of the film-holder ...
If you don't like the lens you use, you should upgrade that first. A better scanner won't help you with lens flaws... Worse, problems with your lens will be even more visible with a better scanner.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
So, do those ANR inserts for the 35mm negatives help to get better results and getting the film strips flat inside the holder?
And: If not a Summicron and "wasting" money (I know I have to go quite a way to improve my pictures), what do you suggest? That Biogon looks promising, still a lot of money. Someone suggested a CV 35/2.5, that's close to a cron in ways of a more modern look, am I right here?
And: If not a Summicron and "wasting" money (I know I have to go quite a way to improve my pictures), what do you suggest? That Biogon looks promising, still a lot of money. Someone suggested a CV 35/2.5, that's close to a cron in ways of a more modern look, am I right here?