ok!
tried to say just that but it says msg too short. Go figure
tried to say just that but it says msg too short. Go figure
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
jaffa_777 said:
Hi Jaffa,
For what I see, I think the same as you. I plan to stop buying new gear for a while and to use the gear I've already have; after that period abstinence, I really would like to acquire a Summilux 1.4/50 pre-asph. If you have one before, please post some
Rhoyle said:
Hi Rhoyle,
I think I mentioned also printed results. The few small enlargments I made gave me the same feeling. But that's only me.
Hi Turtle,
Thanks for that interesting post.
Turtle said:
You’re right but that’s not fair. I scanned at 2400/4800 dpi, tried a lot of different post-process settings, and I made prints too.
Turtle said:
I agree with you, X-Ray insists also on the fact that film/dev/print is much more important for (or have much more impact on) the final pictures. No question about that.
Turtle said:
I agree with you on that too. Now, I understand why you are “bugged” by all this gear talk, but firstly, we all know that a bad picture can be taken with an excellent lens and we also all know that a good picture can be taken with average/bad lens. Secondly, nobody claimed here (and certainly not me) that one is artistically constrainted by the characteristic of one’s gear. This subject has been long discussed here, and I think opinions concur on the idea that there’s no (absolute) relation between gear and creativity/art.
That’s your own opinion about the ZMs and I respect it. Would you mind we disagree?Turtle said:
Turtle said:If that neautrality and balance leaves you in a stick, I would suggest getting those enlarger bulbs hot improving your techical printing skills and printing vision; the vision that would allow you to see just how flexible the neg in front of you really is! If you cannot do this, get a Holga and shoot nothing else....and claim you 'only do fine art'
Maybe this part of your post is unnecessary. I sure don’t have experience in printing, and I know that negatives are just raw material, but if we agree that lenses have different objective characteristics, that’s all I need to support my argument. I like some characteristics, I like some less than others, I dislike a few ones … so maybe, instead of trying to win the battle over “ZMs good/ZMs bad!” we can talk about differences, characteristics ... My point was basically the following: modern lenses lack subtlety in micro-contrasts, and the Planar ZM (among others) exemplifies this. Because I only owned old lenses before the Planar ZM (I’ve owned a Nokton 1.5/50 too), I was particularly surprised when I saw the results. At first, I was pleased because the pictures look bright and contrasty, but then I found it wasn’t exactly what I was expecting. I shot some pictures with the Summicron on the same roll, and I found that I preferred the Summicron rendition. So in an attempt to understand why, I put forward the hypothesis that modern lenses are very sharp and contrasty, but don’t handle micro-contrasts as well as old lenses. And while comparing a lot of scans/prints made with different lenses, I conclude that my hypothesis was corroborated. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m completely off, but if you tell “ZMs are perfect for everything and if you don’t like them, get an Holga”, well … I’m just not convinced.
Again, the Planar ZM is a terrific lens, no question about that; but imvho it exemplifies some modern optical characteristics I don’t appreciate. I’m sure I could do a lot of things with the Planar, but I deeply doubt I can get the same portraits as the ones I made with the Summitar (rendition of skin is different for instance, bokeh is very different …etc). Why getting the Planar then? Because I thought it would have given me the relief and the drawing effect I’m looking for, with more contrast and sharpness than my Summitar, and more flare control than my Summicron. (BTW, the Planar ZM is excellent for flare control, but my modest $50 Pentax SMC 1.7/50 is slightly better, I’m positive).
Best,
Marc
Last edited:
sircarl
Well-known
I find this whole thread very interesting, but am I permitted to ask what is probably a dumb question? What is "microcontrast"? And Marc, could you explain how a lens like the ZM can be "contrasty" yet at the same time "doesn't handle microcontrast"? I've never run across this terminology before and I'm unclear what it means.
jsuominen
Well-known
sircarl said:
With Google, I found this page http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml
Turtle
Veteran
Marc,
the last part of my post was partly in jest, partly not..and not aimed at you. You have hit upon a key issue: You don't do your own printing. This is not a criticism but a fact you have stated. It is also a major factor that impacts upon your comments on these lenses. Of course we can have differing opinions on lenses, but the fact that you dont print does of course make the out of the box characteristics more important to you and I understand this. It is very hard to guage the significantce of lens factors (and others) if you dont have the ability to manipulate images in a darkroom. throughout the rest of the process. There will be variability at the D&P end and in many cases 'problems' that would not arise were the images thoughfully processed. unfortunately it sounds like whoever or whatever does your printing does not get on terribly well with your new lenses. Gross gemeral contrast issues are nothing other than exposure/processing issues. Older lenses generally produce lower contrast which might or might not be what you want.
I was not snubbing you by bringing up the Holga issue! It was more of a general comment about the Holga concept (I own one and it is a hoot) where sometimes individuals who lack creative flair (or are not prepared to work at it) head for the Holga because it provides a cheap version of the mysterious art they cannot achieve out of a sharp camera! Tangentally related but related nonetheless to the endless dissection of minor lens issues which could be dealt with by good technique/understanding....and practice.
Have you considered setting up a darkroom? it can be very cheap, (can) take up little room and will make the world of difference to your results. It is another world compared to being stuck with what the lab gives you. I have printed for others here and there and see the horrrid prints from labs suggesting all sorts of issues and can usually bang out a print on the second attempt that wipes the floor with the lab result. most home darkroom users can do the same. Your contrast issues would disappear and you would find that you could produce pretty well any feeling you wanted from your ZMs, Leica or CV lenses! the differences that did remain would be swallowed by the input YOU could have and would no longer be worth even thinking about. I am a fan of the ZMs, but not to the exlusion of the other great lenses out there. I would use pretty well any without hesitation, kowing that all that I had to worry about was me. In short the issues you have experienced are not by and large a problem of deficiency with the lens or even a taste issue, but a product of the fact that you have limited ability to affect the overall result and the combination of ZM + your current D&P has not worked well for you. It may well be that you would still prefer the non-asph and older lens look, but I suspect a number of the problems you are having would disappear. modern lenses tend to have more not less microcontrast.
If you can in any way be convinced to try home printing, please DO IT!!! The significance is not lost on me or my friends. They see my shots and decide to have a go at B&W....hate the lab results (and cannot understand whyn they look so bad in comparison....and I end up printing for them! One is now looking to set up his own darkroom (having also bought a D2XS)
I stand by wht I said before. 72DPI tells you little. Scanners do not often result in grain 'look' being converted well into a screen image and there are all sorts of leels of interpretation to alter the print reality. Then there is contrast etc:
Scan
Process (PS?)
Display
You can can glean some idea about certain things from screen images. Bokeh is at the top of the list. however, repttty well everything else to do with visual impact is extremely poorly represented on a screen. I can make dead prints glow on screen and glowing prints dead....or I mean my scanner, computer can unless I intervene.
If you want advice on setting up a darkroom just shout. You will be burried under advice!
If you have to stick with lab D&P it sounds like your ZMs are not working well, so be it. Personally I get controlled contrast, smooth tones, pleasant bokeh and nothing to be concerned about. My lenses will eb the same as yours, so contrast issues likely exist elsewhere. Many labs can process mono film just about OK, but almmost make a total pig's ear of the prints. Custom printers are another story of course!
Best of luck
Flying Carpet: Your Errors 1,2,3 represent the three commandments to photographic paranoia, frustration and ultimately ....creative failure IMHO.
the last part of my post was partly in jest, partly not..and not aimed at you. You have hit upon a key issue: You don't do your own printing. This is not a criticism but a fact you have stated. It is also a major factor that impacts upon your comments on these lenses. Of course we can have differing opinions on lenses, but the fact that you dont print does of course make the out of the box characteristics more important to you and I understand this. It is very hard to guage the significantce of lens factors (and others) if you dont have the ability to manipulate images in a darkroom. throughout the rest of the process. There will be variability at the D&P end and in many cases 'problems' that would not arise were the images thoughfully processed. unfortunately it sounds like whoever or whatever does your printing does not get on terribly well with your new lenses. Gross gemeral contrast issues are nothing other than exposure/processing issues. Older lenses generally produce lower contrast which might or might not be what you want.
I was not snubbing you by bringing up the Holga issue! It was more of a general comment about the Holga concept (I own one and it is a hoot) where sometimes individuals who lack creative flair (or are not prepared to work at it) head for the Holga because it provides a cheap version of the mysterious art they cannot achieve out of a sharp camera! Tangentally related but related nonetheless to the endless dissection of minor lens issues which could be dealt with by good technique/understanding....and practice.
Have you considered setting up a darkroom? it can be very cheap, (can) take up little room and will make the world of difference to your results. It is another world compared to being stuck with what the lab gives you. I have printed for others here and there and see the horrrid prints from labs suggesting all sorts of issues and can usually bang out a print on the second attempt that wipes the floor with the lab result. most home darkroom users can do the same. Your contrast issues would disappear and you would find that you could produce pretty well any feeling you wanted from your ZMs, Leica or CV lenses! the differences that did remain would be swallowed by the input YOU could have and would no longer be worth even thinking about. I am a fan of the ZMs, but not to the exlusion of the other great lenses out there. I would use pretty well any without hesitation, kowing that all that I had to worry about was me. In short the issues you have experienced are not by and large a problem of deficiency with the lens or even a taste issue, but a product of the fact that you have limited ability to affect the overall result and the combination of ZM + your current D&P has not worked well for you. It may well be that you would still prefer the non-asph and older lens look, but I suspect a number of the problems you are having would disappear. modern lenses tend to have more not less microcontrast.
If you can in any way be convinced to try home printing, please DO IT!!! The significance is not lost on me or my friends. They see my shots and decide to have a go at B&W....hate the lab results (and cannot understand whyn they look so bad in comparison....and I end up printing for them! One is now looking to set up his own darkroom (having also bought a D2XS)
I stand by wht I said before. 72DPI tells you little. Scanners do not often result in grain 'look' being converted well into a screen image and there are all sorts of leels of interpretation to alter the print reality. Then there is contrast etc:
Scan
Process (PS?)
Display
You can can glean some idea about certain things from screen images. Bokeh is at the top of the list. however, repttty well everything else to do with visual impact is extremely poorly represented on a screen. I can make dead prints glow on screen and glowing prints dead....or I mean my scanner, computer can unless I intervene.
If you want advice on setting up a darkroom just shout. You will be burried under advice!
If you have to stick with lab D&P it sounds like your ZMs are not working well, so be it. Personally I get controlled contrast, smooth tones, pleasant bokeh and nothing to be concerned about. My lenses will eb the same as yours, so contrast issues likely exist elsewhere. Many labs can process mono film just about OK, but almmost make a total pig's ear of the prints. Custom printers are another story of course!
Best of luck
Flying Carpet: Your Errors 1,2,3 represent the three commandments to photographic paranoia, frustration and ultimately ....creative failure IMHO.
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Turtle said:
I hear that. That's not a reasonable argument and I wil think about it.
Turtle said:
I’m already convinced; I would much prefer spending my time in a darkroom rather than in front of my computer. I really wish I have more room, but in a Parisian flat with one kid (and soon two kids), it’s pretty difficult to set a mini home darkroom.
I give my rolls to a pro lab, and the results are rather good to me. Of course, with a home darkroom, I could follow my own recipe, choose my chemicals, and control the whole printing process … one day I hope.
Turtle said:
Now it's not the right time to set off on this project, but when I have the oppotunity, I'll call you
Best,
Marc-A.
thomasw_
Well-known
marc, i plan to get back to developing my own bw film again. my wife and i and 2 kids just don't have the space for a darkroom. what i hsve decided to do is get myself a changing bag and just develop my film and then scan it myself. later in my life when i can get access to printing, i will extend my film control to that too.
Dan States
Established
Michael Scarpitti, is that you?
scho
Well-known
The CV 28 is relatively low contrast and large compared to the Zeiss lenses, but very nice on sunny days with contrasty lighting.kshapero said:
Larger Image
x-ray
Veteran
This Sunday I did a little test on a shoot without even thinking about this thread. I was on one of my documentary shoots in a place that had bare light bulbs in the ceiling and a very bright window in front and to the left of my shooting area. In some of the frames the bare bulbs were in the frame and some outside with the window in some and some to the left of the frame. I have a very nice Summitar 50 that the haze has been cleaned out of with no scratches or marks on the glass or coatings. I also have the planar. I shot at f2 and 1/3 under 2.8 with both as per my M6 meter and used Neopan 400 developed in HC ilford. I rated it normally and processed per the dats sheet. Negs are what I call normal in contrast. The mix of the two lenses was on the same roll so no process variations were possible.
I was just curious as to how a 1946 lens stacked up with the new planar. At first glance on the light box the negs looked very much alike. I've looked at negs for so many years I can tell more about the image from the neg than I can from a scan or a print. I was surprised to see how well the Summitar handled the high flare light but did notice at the time of shooting that the M6 meter told me to stop down about 1/6th of a stop more than the planar. I also noticed on the negs a very slight exposure difference with about the same density in the shadows but on close examination with an 8x apo loup that there was noticably more detail in the planar negs. Even though the summitar had normal tone in the negs shadows and dark areas the detail was almost gone. Also in the mid tones and lighter values the summitar suffered noticably in a lack of crisp detail even at 2.8. The Planar was distinctly sharper in fine detail with better seperation of all tones from the deepest shadows to the highest values that the film could record. My guess is the slight difference in exposure between the two lenses was due to the TTL meter in the M6 seeing the veiling flare from the summitar.
My conclusion about the two lenses, the planar is without question far sharper and noticably less flare with much better tonal seperation and detail in all tonal values even at f2. I like the summitar but it's no competition for a modern lens. I found this to also be the case with the tabbed summicron that I previously had. The summicron had noticably more flare than the planar and also with the 50 1.4 Nikkor S-2000 lens that I have.
The reason I like to do evaluations direct from the negs is there are variations from scan to scan and variations from print to print even if you're a fine printer. Negs side by side tell the real story and then evaluate prints and not scans.
If you don't like the planar I'm sorry I recommended it. You should use the lens you like and not worry about anyone elses likes.
IMO not all lenses are created equal but the differences are very much over stated. I certainly feel that I could take any of the current lenses of good quality and do my work with no loss of quality or even to a degree that anyone could tell the difference in what it was shot with or of the images were shot with different lenses. I honestly think MOST differences of modern lenses are in the users head.
I was just curious as to how a 1946 lens stacked up with the new planar. At first glance on the light box the negs looked very much alike. I've looked at negs for so many years I can tell more about the image from the neg than I can from a scan or a print. I was surprised to see how well the Summitar handled the high flare light but did notice at the time of shooting that the M6 meter told me to stop down about 1/6th of a stop more than the planar. I also noticed on the negs a very slight exposure difference with about the same density in the shadows but on close examination with an 8x apo loup that there was noticably more detail in the planar negs. Even though the summitar had normal tone in the negs shadows and dark areas the detail was almost gone. Also in the mid tones and lighter values the summitar suffered noticably in a lack of crisp detail even at 2.8. The Planar was distinctly sharper in fine detail with better seperation of all tones from the deepest shadows to the highest values that the film could record. My guess is the slight difference in exposure between the two lenses was due to the TTL meter in the M6 seeing the veiling flare from the summitar.
My conclusion about the two lenses, the planar is without question far sharper and noticably less flare with much better tonal seperation and detail in all tonal values even at f2. I like the summitar but it's no competition for a modern lens. I found this to also be the case with the tabbed summicron that I previously had. The summicron had noticably more flare than the planar and also with the 50 1.4 Nikkor S-2000 lens that I have.
The reason I like to do evaluations direct from the negs is there are variations from scan to scan and variations from print to print even if you're a fine printer. Negs side by side tell the real story and then evaluate prints and not scans.
If you don't like the planar I'm sorry I recommended it. You should use the lens you like and not worry about anyone elses likes.
IMO not all lenses are created equal but the differences are very much over stated. I certainly feel that I could take any of the current lenses of good quality and do my work with no loss of quality or even to a degree that anyone could tell the difference in what it was shot with or of the images were shot with different lenses. I honestly think MOST differences of modern lenses are in the users head.
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
x-ray said:
Hello X-Ray,
First of all, thank you for this very interesting post, I mean it, thank you for making this "test" in order to clear up doubts that haunt amateur photographers.
In my previous posts, I shared my "first impressions"; I'm not a professional and I 'm always open to other opinions, above all when they come from competent persons whom I trust. That being said, I may be wrong but I don't have the money to be right for the moment. I bought the Planar and I had to fund it with the sale of my Summicron; so I had to choose which lens to keep. Since I didn't feel right about the Planar, I resold it. But I don't like to take irrational or unreasonable decisions, so I test the lenses and with my limited knowledge I tried to interpret my results and to make the best decision I could. Maybe the Planar is far better than the Summitar or the Summicron, but I like the Summitar, and I didn't see how better than the Summicron the Planar was. I didn't see it, but I trust you since you have much much more knowlegde and experience than me in photography.
One day, when I have more money, I'll buy a Planar, a Summilux, and the current Summicron v4 (or v6?) and I'll treat them good. I think that as I start to make decent shots, not good but decent, and as I begin to "feel" my gear, I'm looking for the best tool for me, the tool that supposedly would enable me to make the pictures I dream of. So you surely right:
x-ray said:
As a matter of fact, I understood one important thing these days; as you said in another post: there's no shortcut to quality. (Turtle said something like that too). I guess I'm just not ready for getting quality ... sad but true. Anyway, I'm satisfied with my Summitar even if it's not as sharp as the Planar, and I trust my old Summicron.
Be sure I'm going to follow this advicex-ray said:
Finally,
You shouldn't be sorry. I'm a big boy and make my own experiencex-ray said:
Plus, I'm glad you recommended it, because I bought a first class lens that I wanted for a long time. Now I'm relieved ... this lens is not for me, whatever the reason.Best,
Marc-A.
x-ray
Veteran
The summitar is a nice lens and I carry mione on my M6. There's more to life than deadly sharp images and the summitar is a fun lens to shoot with. I certaily would'nt be ashamed to use it for a serious shoot and can leave the shoot with confidence that I've mad good images with it. With my summitar I carry a 1940's 90 elmar (post war) and a 1936 28mm Hektor. There is an old world feel when I shoot on vintage type emulsions and use vintage developers. I used Bergger 200 and DK50 with my 1938 50 elmar and made a very nice series of circus images of an Eastern European circus at night. The flare was beautiful around the bare light bulbs and the grain reminded me of the 1940's images my dad took. I really love this look and the summitar has that vintage look with the right film. I plan to use the summitar with Fomapan 100 and process in rodinal to see if I get that look which I think I will. The world isn't all abouit ultimate lenses and film sometimes.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Hmmm. I've just acquired a Summitar (thanks Keith) and really need to start developing my own. I can get hold of Ilford films and developer and Fuji Neopan reasonably easily (and see T-Max and Tri-X occasionally): any recommendations from that rather restricted bag?x-ray said:
I plan on using Delta (mostly 400) to start with, because I know I like the look from that with my more modern lenses, but was wondering what might work for an "older" look as well (but I'd better keep it down to at-most two experiments to start with, and will probably start with only one).
...Mike
Rhoyle
Well-known
In post #21, I asked Marc-A. what his results were via wet printing. Hmm, didn't mean to stir it up quite this much. But I'm glad the debate took (or is taking) place. The other question is if you shot any chromes with the lens. This of course removes a few steps from the final image and will really tell what the lense will do. Assuming that you also shoot color, which may not be the case. But the debate calls very clear attention to the subjective nature of what we do.
BH
BH
x-ray
Veteran
Both the delatas and Neopans are excellent films. I really don't care for either of the Kodak offerings. None of the above are vintage looking films but the Neopan / Acros 100 will give stunning smooth tonality and the Deltas have a little more bite.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Hi RhoyleRhoyle said:
I answered your question in post #42. Maybe you didn't see it. The small enlargments I have give me the same impression. But I don't process/print in my own darkroom, so the result surely would have been different (probably worse
). I'm glad I have this discussion with you all, though my (subjective) impressions didn't change. Best,
Marc
goo0h
Well-known
Let me start by saying that I'm very much a green novice. After a long lapse from photography I bought a Bessa R3A about a year and a half ago and a few VC lenses over time. Just recently got the ZM 50 f2. Let me also add that the scanner I'm using isn't the highest resolution one out there, but it's a start for now anyway.
I've been using mainly 400 ISO film that I almost always push a little bit because I hate to use a flash and like the flexibility of the speed. Have been developing in XTOL, and seem to be gradually getting the hang of it, I think.
Anyhoo... when scanning shots taken with the VC lenses, it seems as if more often than not I would have to tone down the contrast just a smidgen. Conversely, with the few shots I've gotten out of the ZM 50 f2 so far, seems as if I have tended to increase the contrast a smidgen. Perhaps this relates a bit to what Marc-A was describing: the contrast seems to be tamer with the ZM lens?
What do I think of it so far, taking into account my very limited experience and skill? So far I'm liking it. Seems to me in order to retain good detail in the shadows and highlights, a slightly less contrasty lens is going to be more flexible. Also, if I want increased contrast, I would prefer to do it in post production where I have more control over it. This would either be by tweaking the contrast electronically, or perhaps using a stronger filter with variable contrast paper (something I'm just now getting into as well.)
And since I tend to like to push the film anyways, thereby generally increasing the contrast of the film, I think the ZM lens will be more flexible for me. So far I've only used HP5+ with it, which at the rated EI can be a bit mild contrast-wise to begin with. I've got some Delta 400 loaded so will see how that turns out.
I definitely like the sharpness of the lens, and that's true for the entire field of view from what I can see. It's got just enough sharpness to have a bit of bite to it, but not so much to be acidic.
So I think it's going to be a fun lens to get to know. It's interesting (and addicting) to see just how much different lenses have different character.
Hmm... I can also try using the dark yellow filter I have on the ZM lens. That could be interesting. Maybe I should get a green-yellow filter too.
I've been using mainly 400 ISO film that I almost always push a little bit because I hate to use a flash and like the flexibility of the speed. Have been developing in XTOL, and seem to be gradually getting the hang of it, I think.
Anyhoo... when scanning shots taken with the VC lenses, it seems as if more often than not I would have to tone down the contrast just a smidgen. Conversely, with the few shots I've gotten out of the ZM 50 f2 so far, seems as if I have tended to increase the contrast a smidgen. Perhaps this relates a bit to what Marc-A was describing: the contrast seems to be tamer with the ZM lens?
What do I think of it so far, taking into account my very limited experience and skill? So far I'm liking it. Seems to me in order to retain good detail in the shadows and highlights, a slightly less contrasty lens is going to be more flexible. Also, if I want increased contrast, I would prefer to do it in post production where I have more control over it. This would either be by tweaking the contrast electronically, or perhaps using a stronger filter with variable contrast paper (something I'm just now getting into as well.)
And since I tend to like to push the film anyways, thereby generally increasing the contrast of the film, I think the ZM lens will be more flexible for me. So far I've only used HP5+ with it, which at the rated EI can be a bit mild contrast-wise to begin with. I've got some Delta 400 loaded so will see how that turns out.
I definitely like the sharpness of the lens, and that's true for the entire field of view from what I can see. It's got just enough sharpness to have a bit of bite to it, but not so much to be acidic.
So I think it's going to be a fun lens to get to know. It's interesting (and addicting) to see just how much different lenses have different character.
Hmm... I can also try using the dark yellow filter I have on the ZM lens. That could be interesting. Maybe I should get a green-yellow filter too.
lawrence
Veteran
Marc: I'm a big fan of the old rigid Summicron but recently purchased a CV Heliar Classic f2 and like it very much. If you get a chance I can thoroughly recommend it as a modern lens with a classic look (hence the name, I guess).