Biogon 35/2.8

back alley said:
i missed this post before, sorry.

i normally use xp2 rated at 200 when using film.
with the rd1 i set the iso at 200 and sometimes at 400 if need be.
thanks for the kind words, i need to go look at 'tomatoes' again...

joe
Click to expand...

thanks joe, i need to put up a post about processing/scanning workflows when i've sorted out this lens for the film camera - i'm still using the d700 til then as even a leica doesn't work well without a lens on it!

i'm wondering how many people practice zone system here with roll film - it's great for LF when you can develop each neg separately... anyway, different threat as OT here...

is the feeling that the main advantage of the 2.8 is just size - or is it considered sharper than the f2 biogon?

separately, is there a case for claiming that the increased contrast of the 2.8 might not be optimal for a film-develop-scan workflow as a less contrasty lens might capture more dynamic range without losing shadows/blowing highlights?

james
 
i think my only consideration now between these two is whether i want to lose 1 stop, or lose some mm of lens length... ah, decisions, decisions...

back alley said:
i think the 2.8 is equally as capable as the 2.

the 2.8 might be a touch more contrasty but i would not say it is a high contrast lens.
but then i am not really a technically minded shooter...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom