ChrisN
Striving
And that's all that matters!
MCTuomey
Veteran
mauro, i'm completely humbled by your work. gorgeous, especially the third from last one.
Last edited:
Kozhe
Well-known
The point is... those pictures would be as good with a 50$ Jupiter 8. Great job!!
Krosya
Konicaze
Based on this it looks like Hexanons are very good - which doesnt surprise me much at all.
marduk
Well-known
Mauro,
These are outstanding photos. Thanks for sharing.
These are outstanding photos. Thanks for sharing.
Looked at the flare test results linked to by Dan. Those tests must be circa 1971 or so. Pentax was the only manufacturer that had multi-coated lenses tested, the others were single coated The Nikkor-S 55/1.2 was not tested, and would have done quite well. It was Nikon's first lens to use multi-coated optics, ~1969. The very first multicoated Nikkors were not marked "SC", but only multicoated the rear elements. A computer was used to optimize the surfaces that were multi-coated.
No lens hoods were used for the test. A test for "normal use" would include the use of a hood.
I tend to not put much creed in tests like that. It appears to selectively test Multi-coated optics from one manufacturer and only single-coated optics from others. All of the major manufacturers started multi-coating optics over thirty years ago. And Hoods were available even when I was young. We used them to shade the Stone that we chiseled engravings into.
No lens hoods were used for the test. A test for "normal use" would include the use of a hood.
I tend to not put much creed in tests like that. It appears to selectively test Multi-coated optics from one manufacturer and only single-coated optics from others. All of the major manufacturers started multi-coating optics over thirty years ago. And Hoods were available even when I was young. We used them to shade the Stone that we chiseled engravings into.
Meleica
Well-known
Brian
With all due respect, you put stock in Pop Photo's tests ?
Dan
With all due respect, you put stock in Pop Photo's tests ?
Dan
Yes, I put stock in the Pop Photo tests done in the 1970's. The test include Percent contrast @50LP/mm, Coma, Astigmatism, Lateral Chromatic, Longitudinal Chromatic, Spherical, Percent Barrel/Pin Cushion Distortion, Vignetting, and Centering. The F-stop and T-stop are measured. Percent Flare is also given. This is in the May 1976 issue. The Summicron came in at 1% flare, and was in the lower 1/3rd of lenses in that category tested.The Pentax 55/1.8 came in at 0.6%, and was the best in the group. The wide-open percent contrast for the 50LP/mm test target was much lower for the Pentax, it was the bottom rung and the Summicron was the best in that class.
I'm not going to run my own optics bench test, so I keep this issue and other 1970's Photo mags handy. Optical bench tests are boring, and I only do them when its required for my work. And then, (pinky to Lip), I get to use LASERS.
I'm not going to run my own optics bench test, so I keep this issue and other 1970's Photo mags handy. Optical bench tests are boring, and I only do them when its required for my work. And then, (pinky to Lip), I get to use LASERS.
Last edited:
Meleica
Well-known
ok, you win...you dismiss one test because they didnt use hoods* but trust tests by a magazine known to never dislike a product because it might offend an advertiser...Pop photo - even in the 70's - had (has) many credibility issues. But, I wont try to change your belief system, to each his own opinion....
*why would it matter to you that hoods werent used ? If all lenses were sans hoods - isnt that an equal playing field ? Wouldnt the relative results be the same with hoods ? just curious....
*why would it matter to you that hoods werent used ? If all lenses were sans hoods - isnt that an equal playing field ? Wouldnt the relative results be the same with hoods ? just curious....
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
Mauro these are amongst the best photos I have seen posted on this forum - and not just because you shot them with a good lens either! Artistically and compositionally they hit the bullseye. Top Marks.
Many people who shoot rangefinders struggle to take these kind of street shots. Few get it right (and I am not one of the few - I am good at more static photos but struggle with the " decisive moment".) But I appreciate the opportunity to see examples of effective use of the camera in this manner.
Many people who shoot rangefinders struggle to take these kind of street shots. Few get it right (and I am not one of the few - I am good at more static photos but struggle with the " decisive moment".) But I appreciate the opportunity to see examples of effective use of the camera in this manner.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I think this sums up what I've been thinking about these photos, they really are just superb, even to look at on a computer screen. I really hope you get some prints of these done, preferably nice FB wet prints but prints of these in any manner would be great for your collection.
To me it's not the lens, but the tonality, the scene, everything just works nicely. And not being funny -- I'd buy a book of your work *clicks fingers* like that
Have you looked into Blurb.com ?
The test that I dismiss centered around flare, and tested multicoated lenses from only one vendor. They left out multi-coated lenses from other vendors available at the time of the test.
>*why would it matter to you that hoods werent used ? If all lenses were sans hoods -
>isnt that an equal playing field ? Wouldnt the relative results be the same with hoods ?
>just curious....
Testing lenses without matching hoods gives an advantage to lenses with recessed front elements. A Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 essentially has a built in hood. Other lenses such as the 105/2.5 Nikkor had the front element "way out front". They were sold with hoods, and the hood was made to store on the lens.
>*why would it matter to you that hoods werent used ? If all lenses were sans hoods -
>isnt that an equal playing field ? Wouldnt the relative results be the same with hoods ?
>just curious....
Testing lenses without matching hoods gives an advantage to lenses with recessed front elements. A Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 essentially has a built in hood. Other lenses such as the 105/2.5 Nikkor had the front element "way out front". They were sold with hoods, and the hood was made to store on the lens.
mauro scacco
Established
FPjohn
Well-known
Hello Mauro:
Do you look for subjects as part of preconceived photo-essay or do you trust to serendipity?
Summicron or not - the images are impressive.
yours
FPJ
Do you look for subjects as part of preconceived photo-essay or do you trust to serendipity?
Summicron or not - the images are impressive.
yours
FPJ
novum
Well-known
Thankyou for the compliment. I've been using the Sonnar's a lot lately.
I also have the Wetzlar Summicron that Mauro used for his beautiful photo's.
It is probably the most under-rated of all the Summicrons. "Best 50", hard to prove and sets people off. "50 that I like best", no one can argue with. The Wetzlar Summicron is one that"I like a lot". But I like my Collapsible Summicron better.
I also have the Wetzlar Summicron that Mauro used for his beautiful photo's.
It is probably the most under-rated of all the Summicrons. "Best 50", hard to prove and sets people off. "50 that I like best", no one can argue with. The Wetzlar Summicron is one that"I like a lot". But I like my Collapsible Summicron better.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Most all the lens makers had been multi-coating for several years before some genius in Asahi's marketing department started hyping "seven layer multi-coated" Pentax Takumars.
mauro scacco
Established
Thx FPJ, my pictures are absolutely casual, not preconceived, representing real life...
I look for these moments of joycian visual and emotional "epifany" for shooting...
Mauro