Contemplating the unthinkable for me

[GaryLH]

I have both.. The 18-55 is a better lens.. I like the 24-80 range for a travel zoom which is why I have both. The 18-55 is gonna be better over-all then the 16-50. But for my purposes, when I am on vacation w/ family, the 16-50 is more than good enough..ymmv.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

I'm trying some vintage lenses on this camera with Joe's generous gift of Leica adaptors. My Elmar 90 and Canon 35f2 give very low contrast results.

I really like punchy slide like looking results..but I tend to like mid to low contrast raw files to work w/ in aperture (now learning LR) because there is more tonal range to work w/..but this is just me..

Gary

 

[back alley]

the difference between the 16-50 and the 18-55 is barely noticeable...imho.
i carry an xe1 with the 16-50 everyday in my real domke 802 bag, along with a small thermos and my lunch!

 

[back alley]

check them both out on flickr...

 

[Sparrow]

In relation to Stewart's words above I'd agree completely with Joe's words below...



No doubt there will be some loss in output, or at least in the quality of the output, for some short period but I would be very surprised if you don't find it all fairly similar. If you're going with the M240 than AF is one less thing to concern yourself with.

When I flip between film and digital the only real difference in my mind is to remember that digital blows the highlights whilst films blocks up the shadows (not if you do it right obviously🙂 )

I hope you and Frank both get on well with your respective choices. I also hope the faster shutter speeds of digital and higher ISO (at least easier to get than high ISO film) help to reduce any shake induced blur, and if that is a result of your recent illness I sincerely hope its temporary or likely to improve with time and exercise.

... yes I think I'd arrived at the "digital blows the highlights whilst films blocks up the shadows" thing already .. I'd have preferred it the other way round but its not too bad, I used a lot of slide film in the 70s so it's not really a problem

I'm still doing physiotherapy to try get rid of the DT's, the but I recon two stops would fix it easily ... my only worry is the psychology of it really. I'll be hanging on to the M2s for a while I expect anyway

I'm not wanting to sound like a swivel eyed analogue nutcase, but I can't help feeling that little strip of film that caught the actual photons that bounced off my subject is somehow special as an artefact in its own right, its a slice of time and space, quit literally preserved in aspic, and I can't stop myself thinking the equivalent digital file is a somehow a bit soulless in comparison

 

[FrankS]

You and me both, Stewart.

 

[back alley]

celluloid or sensor...neither has a soul...the photographer has the soul.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Frank,

Ah... Then it's too late to give the advice I was going to, namely, cold showers morning and evening and wearing boxing gloves in bed.

Actually I found the Leica M-digitals quite easy to use, but I couldn't find a reasonably usable DSLR until the Nikon Df. I REALLY don't need another interchangeable-lens system on top of Alpa, Contaflex, De Vere, Exakta, Gandolfi (2 different systems), Graflex (2 different systems), Kowa, Leica, Linhof (3 formats), Nikon (crop & full frame), Pentacon, Pentax, Polaroid 600E...

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

Hi Roger. Your suggestion, even if given before I drank of the fuji coolaid, wouldn't have helped. Any Leica digital M is above my pay scale.

In my film camera collection I've got these mounts:
Nikon, Nikonos, Canon FD, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax K and screw, Leica M and ltm, Contax/Yashica, Topcon, Miranda, Hasselblad V, Bronica S

Just realized that if I could sell all these I could get a 246. Maybe not.

 

[GaryLH]

the difference between the 16-50 and the 18-55 is barely noticeable...imho.
i carry an xe1 with the 16-50 everyday in my real domke 802 bag, along with a small thermos and my lunch!

The difference is big enough when u are shooting in tight places.

Gary

 

[back alley]

The difference is big enough when u are shooting in tight places.

Gary

quality difference not focal length difference...

 

[f16sunshine]

So what's a good price to buy a used 18-55 lens at, assuming ex condition. (US or Cdn, specify please)

Hi Frank

I bought mine late last summer for $320 in LN condition. Anywhere near $300 is great if it's lightly used.

I'm thinking of getting a 16-50 for my mom to use on my old XE1 when I get an XE2 (I want that classic chrome jpeg setting in camera so bad 😛).

The 18-55 is to the view of many a pro level lens.
The 16-50 is fine if you don't care much about controlling DOF to the shallow end.
I do, I use the 18-55 for events and subject isolation can be important.
Otherwise the 16-50 is a nice little lens. It does weigh less and balance well on the xe bodies (better than the 18-55).
18-55

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger. Your suggestion, even if given before I drank of the fuji coolaid, wouldn't have helped. Any Leica digital M is above my pay scale.

In my film camera collection I've got these mounts:
Nikon, Nikonos, Canon FD, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax K and screw, Leica M and ltm, Contax/Yashica, Topcon, Miranda, Hasselblad V, Bronica S

Just realized that if I could sell all these I could get a 246. Maybe not.

Dear Frank,

Well, quite: I'd forgotten my Canon (inherited from my late father in law) with 50mm and 35-85 Series 1. Why do we all have quite so many systems? Because the pitiful amount they would fetch is less than they are worth to us. Or rather, less than what we think they are worth to us. But add all those pittances together...

Cheers,

R.

 

[FrankS]

Results. Train pics with the fuji 27, flowers with Elmar 90.

 

[FrankS]

Elmar 90

 

[FrankS]

 

[GaryLH]

quality difference not focal length difference...

U probably have a better copy then I do then.

Gary

 

[lukitas]

Yes the Elmar is a little low contrast, as is my 3,5cm 3.5.
I quite like that, I would rather push contrast than have to pull it.
That said, the sexy2 is damn good with high contrast scenes, sometimes they can acquire an almost HD look, if you pull all the values to the middle.
Clarity and contrast are your friends with the old elmars, but the Summitar becomes a star portrait lens, and the Jupiter 8 is just beautiful wide open.

I feel that thing about negatives on a roll of film, it's a thing, it exists, it's not just a bunch of zeros and ones in the phantasmagoric cloud.

But the sexy 2 allows me to shoot very much as if I was shooting a leica. Not quite, but close enough. For the street, it's a conga that measures my dance through the crowd. Film is becoming expensive.

cheers

 

[Godfrey]

...
I feel that thing about negatives on a roll of film, it's a thing, it exists, it's not just a bunch of zeros and ones in the phantasmagoric cloud.
...

There is a comforting, simple, tactile tangibility to film and prints.

But as a Mathematics student for 5 years and 25+ years in the computer/technology research and products industry, the bits and bytes swimming in electronic circuitry is just as real, has just as much existence and tangible thingness to my perceptions. It's just not as tactile ... and it sure ain't as simple! 🙂

G

 

[back alley]

U probably have a better copy then I do then.

Gary

likely i just have lower standards than you...