Unscience: Nikkor HC f2 and Canon f1.8

[alexnotalex]

I was going to write "vs" but there's not much in it and i'm not sure I can tell the difference.

Both shot at f2.8, 1/60 Kodak 400CN same roll, same lab.

Which is which? Ben doesn't care. They're both a good choice, dad. You get a little more shadow detail with the Nikkor, and a little more 3D with the Canon. Maybe. Stop taking pics, i've pee.

 

[Ranchu]

Kid's laughing smile is the best part!

🙂

 

[rover]

Kid's laughing smile is the best part!

🙂

Absolutely.

the bottom is the sonnar (?????)

 

[alexnotalex]

Rover's right. What gave it away?

 

[rover]

I will lie and say the beautiful tones and transition from sharp center to edge softness....

might have just been a guess though.

I am not telling.

 

[back alley]

Rover's right. What gave it away?

i told him...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

It's easy.

The Nikkor produced the bigger smile...

and in the first one, He's pointing to the Nikkor and is telling you to use it.

THAT Nikkor is a unique lens. The new front module really does it justice.

 

[Mackinaw]

To my eyes both pictures look identical. If you really want to show the differeces between the two lenses, shoot them wide-open. By F2.8, they're pretty equal.

Jim B.

 

[alexnotalex]

I get better results from the Canon wide open, but I think that's more down to my technique.

HC again at f2.8. This is the one Brian nursed back to health with a new front module, the coating on the original one was very damaged.

Canon at f2. Smile's gone. Brian, you may be on to something...

 

[alexnotalex]

Hmmmm here are the same after some processing in LR to make them look more like my idea of BW.

Nikkor

Canon

Naive of me to think that my BW film results would look like BW without some post processing.
Maybe it's my choice of film, technique, processing, the lab... I have so much to learn.

Alex
🙂