Xpan or Xpan II?

[Spluff]

Hi Guys,

I'm sure you have all been asked this question before; whether to go for the Xpan or the Xpan II. However, my question is, how much of a premium should I pay for an Xpan II over the Xpan? There are a number of Xpan and Xpan II's on eBay, but I'm not sure which to go for. A few years ago I tried the Xpan and loved it, but I have not had any experience of Xpan II.

Also, if anyone out there is looking to sell an Xpan/Xpan II with a 45, I would be interested.

Thanks for your time!

 

[Thomas W]

I would also be very interested in the answers, as I am thinking of getting a used x-pan. Also, more specifically, is the centre filter absolutely necessary for the 45mm lens, for shooting slides?

Thomas W

 

[Rayt]

The exposure info in the XpanII finder is really important if you use it handheld. The Xpan MKI only has the info on the back LCD which is just about useless unless you shoot on a tripod. You might as well meter manually. The centre filter is important if you plan to shoot wide open often.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I have both versions and in practical use for me, they are very similar. I don't need to see the shutter speed in the viewfinder of the II, the meter display is different: two orange opposing arrows in the II and red "-" "0" "+" diodes in the I. ASA is changed in the menu mode on the II and on the front dial on the I. The bulb time is much longer on the II which would be very useful for long exposures. I don't find i need the expensive centre filter on the 45mm lens - however i shoot only b/w and usually wide open or @5.6 and the slight vignetting doesn't bother me.

What does make a practical difference is the design of lenshade on the II version lens which has a lock - i find my lenshade made for the version I 45mm can slide when carried on my shoulder.

I only use them handheld.

 

[bradwaters]

I've just got back some pictures taken in the Swiss Alps. My only regret is that I didn't have a centre filter at the time (just bought on ebay). Unless you are happy to shoot at f/11 - 4, or are happy with strong vignetting, I would definitely recommend you purchase one too. For your reference, I shoot with velvia 50, which may (or may not) contribute to the vignetting effect.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I get very little vignetting when shooting @F4 using the 45mm lens - but then i shoot in b/w so the slight darkening of the edges helps me pictorially. You can take this out easily in CS3 anyway and it's easy to dodge in the darkroom when making a wet print. YMMV.

 

[Ali Riza Kutlu]

I own a Xpan I and had a look at II as well. I found that there is no big reason to spend money for II version. If I were you, I would go for Xpan I and extra lens addition to 45 mm lens. I am also very happy with little vignetting though on Tri-X.

Good luck and happy shooting...

A

 

[drewbarb]

I have used both, and practically speaking I wouldn't worry about the differences. When shooting AE, I don't care that much about having my shutter speed info in the finder- I know generally what the exposure will be, and if it's too slow to hand hold, I will know it.

The other big differences are the infra-red film light-tight issue (the I isn't; the II is, so if you want to shoot IR, get the II) and the longer times possible with the bulb. For most shooters this is pretty minor stuff, so unless you see an issue that indicates the II over the I, get which ever you find a deal on.

As for the center filter, get it, especially if you want to shoot slides. Even with b&w film there is noticible vignetting, and pulling prints was sometimes an issue for me until I got the center filter. Shoot one frame on slide film wide open with the sky in the shot, and you'll want the center filter.