thpook
Squawkbox Delux
These are no great shakes as photos go, I was more looking for cruel tests to put this lens through while I was putting the Canon Vt through it's paces, but they have given me a good initial impression of this lens.
All of these photos were taken in waning light, where the subjects (for the most part) were really low contrast. I'm pretty sure that they were all taken at f/4, with a bunch of different shutter speeds. I'll have to wait until I develop the Neopan 1600 roll before I see the wide open results. Also, it took me a little while to get used to the rangefinder, so some of the shots I took on this roll were sharp thanks to DOF, not to my focussing.
All photos taken with a Canon Vt (that is sadly back in the shop), Canon 35mm f/1.8, on Ilford FP4+ developed in Rodinal.
All of these photos were taken in waning light, where the subjects (for the most part) were really low contrast. I'm pretty sure that they were all taken at f/4, with a bunch of different shutter speeds. I'll have to wait until I develop the Neopan 1600 roll before I see the wide open results. Also, it took me a little while to get used to the rangefinder, so some of the shots I took on this roll were sharp thanks to DOF, not to my focussing.
All photos taken with a Canon Vt (that is sadly back in the shop), Canon 35mm f/1.8, on Ilford FP4+ developed in Rodinal.
Last edited:
thpook
Squawkbox Delux
And some 100% crops. The only real "failure" was the shoulder of the statue, but that really isn't a fair test... my konica lenses separate it fine, but my elmar struggles with it too.
back alley
IMAGES
looking good!
i'd say sharpness and contrast are fine.
the statue's shoulder could have better seperation from the background but it's not that bad, especially in the full print.
i need to shoot and develop a few more rolls with mine.
thanks,
joe
i'd say sharpness and contrast are fine.
the statue's shoulder could have better seperation from the background but it's not that bad, especially in the full print.
i need to shoot and develop a few more rolls with mine.
thanks,
joe
djon
Well-known
I'd say the contrast is way too flat. Nothing wrong with a little Photoshop between friends.
As well, those images would benefit by cropping...the inevitable non-square results of wide angle with rangefinder cry for cropping.
The shoulder separation question would be lessened, was it important, by less grain and more contrast.
As well, those images would benefit by cropping...the inevitable non-square results of wide angle with rangefinder cry for cropping.
The shoulder separation question would be lessened, was it important, by less grain and more contrast.
thpook
Squawkbox Delux
djon said:
Part of the reason I decided to get this lens is because I like the older low contrast lenses (Real reason = GAS), and the 35 f/1.8 is certainly that. I LIKE shadow detail. More contrast = less detail. I use Photoshop on a daily basis and have for years, but when I'm testing a lens I'm mostly interested in seeing the photos direct from the negatives, so I know what sort of corrections/modifications I need to make to my shooting style. Until I have some filters, I'm going to avoid these exact types of situations and keep the lens for higher key lighting situations.
Cropping? You can if you want. I don't because I try to make all my cropping decisions with the viewfinder. I also said in my original post that the photos weren't great, because I have learned not to take photos I want to keep with untested equipment (something I learned from my addiction to used cameras). I was more interested in seeing where my limits are with this lens.
The shoulder separation issue is best solved by a green or a red filter (and if anyone knows where I can get @!!#!@! 40mm filters, please tell me). The stone in the background and the green patina on the statue have the same intensity when made grey, which is part of the reason I shot it. I have tested all of my RF lenses with this exact shot... all my Konica lenses separate that shoulder better, as does my CV 35 f/2.5. My old Elmar (I think it's from '57) does a little better than the Canon, but not much, and they have comparable resolution from what I can see and that impresses me.
Please don't think I'm slamming you for your comments, I truly appreciate them. Joe said he'd like to know what I thought of the lens when I got it, and that's why I made the post.
back alley
IMAGES
and the contrast was, for me, ok cause i too prefer the look of older low contrast lenses.
it just gives me the option to up the contrast in photoshop, if i feel the need.
it just gives me the option to up the contrast in photoshop, if i feel the need.
VictorM.
Well-known
40mm filters here: http://www.filterfind.net/clearspecials.htm?86,12. Go to Page 2. I've never bought anything from this place, so I don't know about their reliability, etc. Has anyone bought from Filterfind?
John Shriver
Well-known
Best solution for filters for Canon RF lenses with 40mm threads is to get a Series VI adapter, either Canon or third-party. You can retain the filters with a retaining ring, or with the rectangular Canon shade (at least for this lens).
It's the most fun if you use it with the Canon filter stack case full of Canon filters, but those don't come cheap.
There are also 34mm Series VI adapters, but don't try and use them on the 28mm f:3.5 lens. (Vignette.)
It's the most fun if you use it with the Canon filter stack case full of Canon filters, but those don't come cheap.
There are also 34mm Series VI adapters, but don't try and use them on the 28mm f:3.5 lens. (Vignette.)
djon
Well-known
I agree that it's a good discipline to do one's cropping as much as possible in the viewfinder...but if one is serious about that (especially with architectural objects that beg for rectangularity) an SLR (especially with grid screen) or view camera is a far better tool than is any rangefinder.
...even with the best finders (Leica bright frame) architectural work is seriously handicapped by rangefinder cameras.
Proper photo craftsmanship always involved proper cropping (just as it always involved dodging and burning) before the affected "full frame" (and "black line") enthusiasm that began in the Sixties with SLRs. Today's wonderful fine-grained fast emulsions, and careful selection of developer technique, allows a great deal of cropping without visual losses.
Today's wonderful scanners (I use a Nikon V and Vuescan) and inkjet printers, make cropping even more rewarding: the new technology is sharper than optical enlargers.
...even with the best finders (Leica bright frame) architectural work is seriously handicapped by rangefinder cameras.
Proper photo craftsmanship always involved proper cropping (just as it always involved dodging and burning) before the affected "full frame" (and "black line") enthusiasm that began in the Sixties with SLRs. Today's wonderful fine-grained fast emulsions, and careful selection of developer technique, allows a great deal of cropping without visual losses.
Today's wonderful scanners (I use a Nikon V and Vuescan) and inkjet printers, make cropping even more rewarding: the new technology is sharper than optical enlargers.
Last edited: