Color-Skopar Classic 35mm f/2.5 Manual Focus Screw Mount Lens

N

Natalia

Guest
how sharp and contrasty is it wide open? Anyone has any samples?

Spaseebo ("Thanks")
 
Lots of users here, I know that Joe uses one. Check out backalley's gallery.
 
Most of my most recent shots are with the SC Skopar 35/2.5 which is optically identical (Contax mount instead of LTM). I think it's an excellent lens that's well worth the money.

William
 
Actually, LRS, you can search the Gallery here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/search.php

Of course not every one fills in every field and you're limited by what people choose to enter, but entering two words <skopar> and <wide> into the 'Keywords' box AND 'search all fields' selected does bring back some hits. Of course, you can enter <skopar> by itself and enjoy all the pix identified as such.

Be careful though; <scopar> also returns some hits!

Haven't played with it enough to know if it handles Boolean but I suspect not.

Happy hunting!/ScottGee1
 
Lil Red Spy,

I have some photos taken recently with 35 f/2.5 classic wide open, I will post here six hours later (night time at Hong Kong) as I haven't finished my scanning.

Only one drawback (at wide open) I can see through my Schneider 4X lupe is a bit obvious vignetting, but vignetting appears in most wide-angle lenses, especially wide open.

Cloudy
 
Lil Red Spy, sorry! I am late.

Here is the photo I tested my 35 f/2.5 classic wide open at the 2nd day after buying it.
The shutter speed is very high (I forgot, around 500-2000), so the factor of vibration can be ignored.

Gears: Bessa R2 + 35mm f/2.5 classic
Film: Fuji RDP III
Aperture: f2.5
Shutter speed: 1/500 ~ 1/2000 sec. (I forgot)
Exposure: under-exposed 1/4 stop (not intentionally)

Scanner: Minolta Elite II
Image size: 2820 dpi (only ICE is on, all other functions are off)

1. the whole image (800-pixel width, resizing by PhotoShop, slight USM was applied)
usm.jpg


2. the center part (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
center.jpg


3. the upper left corner (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
left.jpg


4. the upper right corner (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
right.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lil Red Spy, here is another photo, but the shooting circumstances was not so good.

That day, the temperature was around -24C, I was standing on the horse-sledge, the camera was supported by the closed tripod and the shutter was quite slow (1/30 sec.), so vibration might occur (However, after I scanned and examined this image file, I think there should be no vibration, or very slight vibration).

No. 2 - 5 are the images which I think they are in focus.

Gears: Bessa R2 + 35mm f/2.5 classic
Film: Fuji RVP
Aperture: f2.5
Shutter speed: 1/30 sec.

Scanner: Minolta Elite II
Image size: 2820 dpi (only ICE is on, all other functions are off)

1. the whole image (800-pixel width, resizing by PhotoShop, slight USM was applied)
usm2.jpg


2. the horse head (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
horse.jpg


3. the snow (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
snow.jpg


4. the leaves (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
leaves.jpg


5. the branches (2820 dpi, cropping only, NO USM)
branches.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lil Red Spy, for your queries, I think the lens is sharp and the contrast is not weak when wide open. As I mentioned before, there is a bit vignetting, but not obvious like the horse-sledge photo (this vignetting is enhanced by the ambient light).
 
Folks, this question and the well intentioned responses it elicited raise what I consider an important question:

Can we really judge the performance of a lens based on a scan posted to the Web? Especially if the file is compressed?

I'm thinking we're learning more about the capabilities of the scanner than the lens itself.

Or am I missing something here?

TIA!/ScottGee1
 
very good detail, Cloudy. Thanks a bunch for posting those!
 
Natalia, I don't have the CV 35/2.5 myself, but Sean Reid did an extensive test/review of wide angle lenses for use on the Epson Rd-1, including this lens. The report includes with pictures. Skip the part on vignetting, which is pretty specific to digital camera issues. Further on in the article, he discusses the characteristics of each lens, including contrast. In his experience, the 35/2.5 was a little better than the CV 35/1.7 in this regard & almost as good as the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH. This is not faint praise! Here's the link:

www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml

Cheers,
Huck :)
 
Is this the non-pancake ('C' - compact) lens we are talking about? I too am looking
for a 35 lens and am hoping for some good insight from this thread!

Way
 
Way said:
Is this the non-pancake ('C' - compact) lens we are talking about? I too am looking
for a 35 lens and am hoping for some good insight from this thread!

Way
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. They are all the same optical formula.
 
scottgee1 said:
Folks, this question and the well intentioned responses it elicited raise what I consider an important question:

Can we really judge the performance of a lens based on a scan posted to the Web? Especially if the file is compressed?

I'm thinking we're learning more about the capabilities of the scanner than the lens itself.

Or am I missing something here?

TIA!/ScottGee1
Click to expand...

In fact that's absolutely true :) but if not strictly to judge performance, it may be a useful way to compare shots from the same photog (same processing, scanning, etc) with different lenses. Of course two shots will never be in the same conditions, but you can extract a general idea and after all the ultimate test is always judged by yourself in real use :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom