Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,679   Posts: 1,669,352   Online: 722
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: "best" 127mm

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    And if a 135 Caltar II-N isn't in the budget, consider a 135 Symmar convertible.
    Camera won't work with 135.

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,764
    Images
    20
    Oh, well.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,679
    Will it work with a 125mm? Fuji sells one and it doesn't seem to be that expensive used.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,030
    None of my lenses suck. Or blow. Or levitate, gyrate, rumba or funky chicken. In fact they don't do much of anything except hang out there on the lensboard. The 127 Ektar gives me pretty good service at f/8 which certainly isn't "wide open" on a 4.7 lens. If your associate must shoot wide open I suggest getting one and painting out all the numbers for apertures larger than "8" before letting him/her have at it. My 2-cents!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ukraine
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    231
    Dangerous question - define 'suck'. What is it in particular about them that you don't like? Is it a sharpness fall-off issue? I lurked around here before I started posting, and learned here about those lenses and Bokeh, so none of them were designed to be really sharp near the edges.
    Is it a contrast issue instead? What would you like to see different?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by JiminKyiv
    Dangerous question - define 'suck'. What is it in particular about them that you don't like? Is it a sharpness fall-off issue? I lurked around here before I started posting, and learned here about those lenses and Bokeh, so none of them were designed to be really sharp near the edges.
    Is it a contrast issue instead? What would you like to see different?
    Look, I am not disrespecting the lens. I said mine suck, and they do. Maybe yours are better. There are variations among lenses, you know, some because age/condition. Mine don't deserve to be on a 4x5. It's a waste of film. Soft as heck, plenty of flare, poor cross-frame rez/falloff. If I want soft, I know where I can get better soft. If I want bokeh, I know where to find better bokeh. It is not in the 127 Wollensaks I have.

  7. #17
    JG Motamedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    471
    if you can deal with an uncoated lens, the 5" f/4 Ross WA Xpres is (or can be) amazing.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ukraine
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    231
    Ah, good. Details. Thanks!

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by JG Motamedi
    if you can deal with an uncoated lens, the 5" f/4 Ross WA Xpres is (or can be) amazing.
    And it can also be terrible. I have one, ex-MoD, that's very flary and soft at all apertures. A bust, but for only $10 I can't complain much.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin