Krosya
Konicaze
mfogiel said:
Wow, I love that Planar photo ! Very nice!
Makes me wanna get my Planar out and use it more.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Bonjour, Marc,
1st of all my deepest respect for posting an opinion that is counter
the common belief on RFF (in particular of the "RFF gods", so be prepared ...
).
I think understand what you are looking for from my experience with my
80/2.8 Planar on my Hasselblad.
I were you, I would consider
- buying another v1 or DR Summicron - why change a winning team ?
- or the 50/2 M-Hexanon; check with RayPA, for instance.
- or the 50/1.5 Sonnar. A little more difficult to handle, but beautiful rendition and micro-contrast.
You can find example photos in the flickr M-Mount group.
Best,
Roland.
1st of all my deepest respect for posting an opinion that is counter
the common belief on RFF (in particular of the "RFF gods", so be prepared ...
).I think understand what you are looking for from my experience with my
80/2.8 Planar on my Hasselblad.
I were you, I would consider
- buying another v1 or DR Summicron - why change a winning team ?
- or the 50/2 M-Hexanon; check with RayPA, for instance.
- or the 50/1.5 Sonnar. A little more difficult to handle, but beautiful rendition and micro-contrast.
You can find example photos in the flickr M-Mount group.
Best,
Roland.
Marc-A. said:
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Marc-A. said:.... it's my Barbie world ... with my two dolls
Congrats. Need a decent 50 portrait lens before its due !
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Bonjour Roland,
That's an idea! BTW,
Ah that hurts! Before buying the Planar I was considering the Hexanon (following David's suggestion). Not too late I guess.
Very interesting indeed. I might consider this one, but I can't afford it right now ... besides, if I had the money, I would consider the Summilux pre-asph ...
Buying them all is not a solution for when they are on your shelves, you still have to decide which one to use =sigh=
ferider said:
That's an idea! BTW,
ferider said:and I wanted to offer you a v1 Summicron !
ferider said:
Ah that hurts! Before buying the Planar I was considering the Hexanon (following David's suggestion). Not too late I guess.
ferider said:
Very interesting indeed. I might consider this one, but I can't afford it right now ... besides, if I had the money, I would consider the Summilux pre-asph ...
Buying them all is not a solution for when they are on your shelves, you still have to decide which one to use =sigh=
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
Marc said he couldn't afford the Summilux ASPH and the Sonnar. He didn't say he can't afford the current Summicron, which used isn't much more than a new Planar.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
rolleistef
Well-known
was the gros-rouge-qui-tache pciture taken at Leclerc??
I like the photos themselves but they def look too "Aqua-ish" (Im a barbie girl...)
I like the photos themselves but they def look too "Aqua-ish" (Im a barbie girl...)
markinlondon
Elmar user
The sad fact is that pixel peeping is not the same as using a lens and seeing prints from it. Marc bought the Planar for the best of reasons, he liked what he saw. Sometimes it's not the same in the flesh as it were. My experience with the 50mm CV Nokton and Skopar was similar. Great lenses but somehow they didn't do what I was after in prints. The lens I get the "best" results from is an old 50mm Elmar which has more dust in it than my carpets (and that's saying something). It's a question of taste which will never be resolved by discussion.
x-ray
Veteran
Marc I don't understand why the problem. My results are stunning and full of life. The images are anything but plastic and fine details and skin tones are fantastic. No question it has a smooth rendition but it's hardly plastic. I honestly feel it's film / developemnt or a combo of the two. IMO and many others feel this way that the planar is the finest f2 50 made. It's all a personal thing but I have to say I agree it tops anything in a 50 that I've used.
pvenables
Established
Marc
Sorry to hear that the Planar wasn't to your taste.
Perhaps you could borrow some lenses for an afternoon, run a film through your camera and check the results before buying the one you're happiest with. I've done that in the past. If no-one you know has a lens to lend you, shops [at least in the UK] will let you hire a lens for a bit if you leave a deposit.
Best of luck with the little one. It won't matter what lens or film you use to take the first pictures of your baby : what's important is that they will be immensely moving records of their first moments, and whether they're low-contrast, "plastic" or otherwise will be totally irrelevant.
Paul
Sorry to hear that the Planar wasn't to your taste.
Perhaps you could borrow some lenses for an afternoon, run a film through your camera and check the results before buying the one you're happiest with. I've done that in the past. If no-one you know has a lens to lend you, shops [at least in the UK] will let you hire a lens for a bit if you leave a deposit.
Best of luck with the little one. It won't matter what lens or film you use to take the first pictures of your baby : what's important is that they will be immensely moving records of their first moments, and whether they're low-contrast, "plastic" or otherwise will be totally irrelevant.
Paul
YEGEY
-
Hexanon 50
Hexanon 50
check here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=160148829456&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=006
No connection to seller
Hexanon 50
Marc-A. said:
check here:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=160148829456&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=006
No connection to seller
Turtle
Veteran
I agree with Xray. The new ZM lenses are very smooth and IMO produce a very balanced look. I personally dont find excessive gross contrast and if you do, this is easily corrected with less development. I have not found it lacking in microcontrast either. It may be that it has characteristics which dont give you the look you like when combined with your existing film/dev combo. I know how unappealing changing this combo might be, but it might be better than selling the planar without trying it. Certainly my ZMs have given a very smooth 'look' with FP4+ in Xtol/D76 and so if I was looking for grittier street images I would stick with the planar but use APX100/Foma100/TriX/HP5+ or something like that and/or try a dev with more acutance/grain. I am sure I am saying things you know, but maybe worth trying? I certainly get a traditional street look with TriX and no extra effort thru the same two devs. APX100 continues to look incredible!
I find the planar to be wonderfully balanced in all respects which means it can lend its hand to anything.
Rgds
I find the planar to be wonderfully balanced in all respects which means it can lend its hand to anything.
Rgds
Last edited:
x-ray
Veteran
The signature of a lens is much less a factor of image look compared to the dramatic differences caused by film / development / exposure characteristics. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least effect on image appearance I would give the lens a 2 and the film / development / exposure combo a hard 8. In my experience xp2 will mask most of the characteristics of a lens due to grain and poor tonality. Seperation of tones is more due to color sensitometry and tonal curves of film / development / exposure than the lens. The lens plays a very small part here. I don't know where you get yoru film processed or how tightly the controll their c-41 but many mini labs don't run in controll particularly places like costco, walmart and drug stores. I would'nt blame my equipment untill I ruled out process/ film and exposure. Too many of us that have used the planar have had different results which would lead me to believe it's something other than the lens.
mfogiel
Veteran
x-ray
Sorry to deviate slightly from the topic, but I would appreciate your comment on what would be according to your experience, the most suitable silver B&W film for scanning in 35mm (both slow and fast). I have been shooting XP2 so far (developed in a pro lab) but am in a process of evaluating the pros and cons of using a traditional film. I know I'd have to target negatives of lower density, but it would be nice to tap a professional's experience to save myself many lab hours of tests... I'm afraid I am limited to CS 9000 as a scanner, so virtual or real drums are out of my reach. Thanks in advance.
Sorry to deviate slightly from the topic, but I would appreciate your comment on what would be according to your experience, the most suitable silver B&W film for scanning in 35mm (both slow and fast). I have been shooting XP2 so far (developed in a pro lab) but am in a process of evaluating the pros and cons of using a traditional film. I know I'd have to target negatives of lower density, but it would be nice to tap a professional's experience to save myself many lab hours of tests... I'm afraid I am limited to CS 9000 as a scanner, so virtual or real drums are out of my reach. Thanks in advance.
Austerby
Well-known
I'm certainly no expert, but have been very satisfied with the results I'm getting using FP4+ and HP5+ mainly, developed in ID-11 1+1 or 1+3 and scanned on my Epson v700. I started off experimenting with other films and developers but decided to reduce the variables and take the advice of one film/one developer. I'm planning on extending to PanF+ as it looks like it's going to be sunny enough in the UK this weekend to use it, at last...
mfogiel
Veteran
Austerby
Thanks for your comment, unfortunately I'd like to be able to enlarge my pictures at least 12 times (from 24x36), and this excludes flatbeds, though they are easier on silver negs than dedicated film scanners.
Thanks for your comment, unfortunately I'd like to be able to enlarge my pictures at least 12 times (from 24x36), and this excludes flatbeds, though they are easier on silver negs than dedicated film scanners.
x-ray
Veteran
I think you're making the right move to get away from the c-41 films. These films were designed with the mini lab in mind and generally for small enlargments that are easy for a machine to print.
I have some very strong likes and dislikes in B&W but that's a strong area in my experience.
For dedaces i used Tri-X but the Tri-x of today is nothing like te old and I really dislike it. Tmax is another film that I don't care for at all. I was one of Kodaks trade trial testers on the Tmax emulsions during the development of the film. It tends to have poor shadows if rated at the normal ISO's and if exposed and processed for the shadows the upper values do not seperate well. In all I don't care for any of the current Kodak films.
Ilford is superb! You can't go wrong with any of the Ilford films. I also did the pore release trade trial testing for Ilford on the Delta 100 and 400. These are super films that I've used thousands of rolls and sheets of and always found to be first rate. I run it in 1:47 or 1:32 Ilford HC or HC110. Many good developer combos with this film. HP5 and FP4 are more old school looking and great films too. Also Pan F is stunning.
Recently I've started using some Fuji Acros and Neopan. Wow! I forgot how beautiful these films are. Acros is probably the smoothest film in the 100 ISO range on the market. I shoot it at 80 and process in Ilford HC 1:31. Stunning tonality and seperation. Sharpness and grain are excellent. Neopan 400 is almost like Acros in tonality, grain and sharpness. I also use Ilford HC with it. Again there are a number of good developers you might try.
It's been years since using Agfa but it's worth a try.
For ultra fine grain but contrast can be a problem on harsh lit days is Adox / Efke 25. Incredable film with beautiful tones if the scene isn't too contrasty and virtually no grain. I use Rodinal per the instructions.
Low sulfite developers will retain more shadow and highlight detail. Examples are rodinal and HC or HC110. DDX is another good choice. The tradeoff is slightly more grain but with care this has never been an issue.
Take a look at Acros for a first try and rate it at 80 then process per instructions in ilford HC or HC110. It's a winner.
Scanner software and how you scan will play a HUGE part in tonal seperation. Film profiles are major factors here. This is an equal factor with film/developer/exposure as elements in tonal renditionand seperation. The least influence on tonality comes from the lens.
I have some very strong likes and dislikes in B&W but that's a strong area in my experience.
For dedaces i used Tri-X but the Tri-x of today is nothing like te old and I really dislike it. Tmax is another film that I don't care for at all. I was one of Kodaks trade trial testers on the Tmax emulsions during the development of the film. It tends to have poor shadows if rated at the normal ISO's and if exposed and processed for the shadows the upper values do not seperate well. In all I don't care for any of the current Kodak films.
Ilford is superb! You can't go wrong with any of the Ilford films. I also did the pore release trade trial testing for Ilford on the Delta 100 and 400. These are super films that I've used thousands of rolls and sheets of and always found to be first rate. I run it in 1:47 or 1:32 Ilford HC or HC110. Many good developer combos with this film. HP5 and FP4 are more old school looking and great films too. Also Pan F is stunning.
Recently I've started using some Fuji Acros and Neopan. Wow! I forgot how beautiful these films are. Acros is probably the smoothest film in the 100 ISO range on the market. I shoot it at 80 and process in Ilford HC 1:31. Stunning tonality and seperation. Sharpness and grain are excellent. Neopan 400 is almost like Acros in tonality, grain and sharpness. I also use Ilford HC with it. Again there are a number of good developers you might try.
It's been years since using Agfa but it's worth a try.
For ultra fine grain but contrast can be a problem on harsh lit days is Adox / Efke 25. Incredable film with beautiful tones if the scene isn't too contrasty and virtually no grain. I use Rodinal per the instructions.
Low sulfite developers will retain more shadow and highlight detail. Examples are rodinal and HC or HC110. DDX is another good choice. The tradeoff is slightly more grain but with care this has never been an issue.
Take a look at Acros for a first try and rate it at 80 then process per instructions in ilford HC or HC110. It's a winner.
Scanner software and how you scan will play a HUGE part in tonal seperation. Film profiles are major factors here. This is an equal factor with film/developer/exposure as elements in tonal renditionand seperation. The least influence on tonality comes from the lens.
Turtle
Veteran
Generally scanning is somewhat easier with fine grain and relatively low density negs. Many swear by tanning/staining devs for scanning, suh as pyrocat.