hefty
Established
The Microflex doesn't have a Ross Xpres - that was the Microcord before it. The Microflex uses a Taylor Taylor Hobson Micronar which is a vastly improved (over the already very good Xpres) lens, manufactured by one of the truly great optical houses.
Don't read too much into the sharpness (or otherwise) of these lenses - this test wasn't intended to show levels of sharpness, hence the lack of brick walls and test charts. This test was all about which lens produced the prettiest picture and the Micronar won.
At the print sizes I make (8"x8" as I mentioned above) there is no difference between any of the lenses in terms of sharpness, even out to the extreme corners. At larger print sizes the Planar may or may not be able to resolve some extra micro-detail that nobody will ever notice but that's pretty much irrelevant to me.
This was judged on emotional reactions, both in myself and the people I showed the prints to (only one of which is a fellow photographer). The Micronar (and to a lesser degree the Tessar in the Ikoflex) produced smiles and long gazes with a soundtrack of happy murmuring. The other three lenses did not. I can't show you the other portraits which illustrate this better as the people who posed don't want their faces shown on the Internet and I respect their wishes, but I'm sure there will be many examples coming from the Microflex over the course of the year which will bear this out.
There's nothing at all wrong with the Planar, indeed it's an excellent lens, but when compared to the Micronar the results look (to me and to my panel of judges) cold, clinical and lacking a real "spark". This isn't something that can be put down to just focussing issues, it's entirely to do with the design of the lens.
TTH has now split into two companies, the part that carries the Taylor Hobson name now makes measuring equipment (mainly for use by other lens manufacturers) and the part occupying the factory that made the Micronar still makes lenses under the name of Cooke. On their website there is an interesting article concerning "The Cooke Look" and I believe that what I have seen from these results is just that. It's very hard to define but it's much more than mere sharpness, it's more like the lens has added something magical to the image.
Anyway, the test has served its purpose for me and I'm now sure I wouldn't swap the Microflex for any of the others. I post these results not to try and persuade others of the suitability of their own gear (everyone has different needs and preferences so that would be futile) but rather to encourage those who, like me, find themselves with too many unused cameras on their hands and who would like some encouragement to try a similar test for themselves. I would love to see some other comparison tests between TLRs as they're a style of camera that appeal to me very much and I've not yet seen anyone else doing this online. 🙂
Don't read too much into the sharpness (or otherwise) of these lenses - this test wasn't intended to show levels of sharpness, hence the lack of brick walls and test charts. This test was all about which lens produced the prettiest picture and the Micronar won.
At the print sizes I make (8"x8" as I mentioned above) there is no difference between any of the lenses in terms of sharpness, even out to the extreme corners. At larger print sizes the Planar may or may not be able to resolve some extra micro-detail that nobody will ever notice but that's pretty much irrelevant to me.
This was judged on emotional reactions, both in myself and the people I showed the prints to (only one of which is a fellow photographer). The Micronar (and to a lesser degree the Tessar in the Ikoflex) produced smiles and long gazes with a soundtrack of happy murmuring. The other three lenses did not. I can't show you the other portraits which illustrate this better as the people who posed don't want their faces shown on the Internet and I respect their wishes, but I'm sure there will be many examples coming from the Microflex over the course of the year which will bear this out.
There's nothing at all wrong with the Planar, indeed it's an excellent lens, but when compared to the Micronar the results look (to me and to my panel of judges) cold, clinical and lacking a real "spark". This isn't something that can be put down to just focussing issues, it's entirely to do with the design of the lens.
TTH has now split into two companies, the part that carries the Taylor Hobson name now makes measuring equipment (mainly for use by other lens manufacturers) and the part occupying the factory that made the Micronar still makes lenses under the name of Cooke. On their website there is an interesting article concerning "The Cooke Look" and I believe that what I have seen from these results is just that. It's very hard to define but it's much more than mere sharpness, it's more like the lens has added something magical to the image.
Anyway, the test has served its purpose for me and I'm now sure I wouldn't swap the Microflex for any of the others. I post these results not to try and persuade others of the suitability of their own gear (everyone has different needs and preferences so that would be futile) but rather to encourage those who, like me, find themselves with too many unused cameras on their hands and who would like some encouragement to try a similar test for themselves. I would love to see some other comparison tests between TLRs as they're a style of camera that appeal to me very much and I've not yet seen anyone else doing this online. 🙂
