Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,748   Posts: 1,670,536   Online: 928
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt
    I really appreciate this discussion, not as an academic process but as a real life use and results by actual users of the lenses. I bought a 127 Kodak Ektar to try it out. It was $75 with clean glass and a fully functioning shutter. I haven't tested the 101 Woll. very carefully to see what it will do other than checking for light leaks and roll film operation. I am not after the magic bullet but would like a very good performer.

    Thanks,

    Curt
    Curt, lenses' reputations when new are interesting but not that relevant to how well they'll do when old and, perhaps, abused. Stories users tell about how well their old and possibly abused lenses do are interesting but not at all relevant to how well your old and possibly abused lens will do. The only entity capable of telling you how well a particular lens will do is the lens itself.

    Get off your computer, take your 101 Wolly out, and interrogate it. It might do for you, it might not. But until you ask it how well it does for you, you'll be, um, totally ignorant about whether it can do more than pass light and form an image. Shaddup and go shoot!

  2. #22
    MattCarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,303
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    I have doubts about the 105/3.7 Ektar's superiority to the 101 Ektar. I've had one, got it as a superior -- I hoped -- replacement for my 101/4.5 Ektar. I didn't like what the 105 did, so sold it and still use the 101. Chris Perez' tests show the 101 ahead across the frame except at f/5.6.
    When I tested my 105mm ektar, I found that the resolution at about f16, using a tripod, was good enough that it was better than my scanner. I could definitely see that the resolution was better than for other lenses I tested.

    Soon after that, I stopped testing my lenses for resolution.

    Matt

  3. #23
    medform-norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    863
    Images
    1
    I don't have an outspoken favorite amongst my lenses, all are good tools for something, even the 'bad' ones, like the 127mm Raptar harvested from a Pola 110, or a very flary Ross thingummie in barrel that could improve with good shading but may not just as well. Recently I have started to avoid my 80mm Biometar as it has horrid bokeh and, more annoying, barrel distortion, whereas a year ago I was still sort of happy with it. So, percecption on what is a likeable lens and what not develops with time and experience (and needs).

    That being said, I confess to have a weak spot for TTH stuff and huge old portrait lenses no one seems to want, so I just buy them instead, in spite of the fact that I don't do portraits. Am intending to experiment with a giant Goerz Hypar 360/3.5 - I mean, this one can really kill you - if and when I get it mounted on something practical in a stable manner.
    Want to reach a wide audience? Place your ad here! Contact me for details and discuss your sponsorship today!

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by MattCarey
    When I tested my 105mm ektar, I found that the resolution at about f16, using a tripod, was good enough that it was better than my scanner. I could definitely see that the resolution was better than for other lenses I tested.

    Soon after that, I stopped testing my lenses for resolution.

    Matt
    That's nice, Matt, real nice. You've just explained why users' anecdotal reports on just one lens aren't that informative. We don't know what your scanner can do and you haven't told us whether your 105 Ektar is better than than the alternatives. All I know now that I didn't know before I read your post is that you like your 105 Ektar. I liked mine too, after comparisons decided that I like my 101 better.

    Perhaps you need a better scanner. Perhaps you need to get away from digital.

    Cheers,

    Dan

  5. #25
    MattCarey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,303
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    That's nice, Matt, real nice. You've just explained why users' anecdotal reports on just one lens aren't that informative. We don't know what your scanner can do and you haven't told us whether your 105 Ektar is better than than the alternatives. All I know now that I didn't know before I read your post is that you like your 105 Ektar. I liked mine too, after comparisons decided that I like my 101 better.

    Perhaps you need a better scanner. Perhaps you need to get away from digital.

    Cheers,

    Dan
    Gee, sorry I wasn't helpful. This subject (the 105mm Ektar) has been covered so many times on usenet that spending any real time on the actual numbers is a waste of time.

    It is the sharpest lens I have. I no longer care about sharpness. If you want raw numbers for lines/mm they are listed in tables. Google is your friend. I checked before I got mine--the 105 ektar is highly rated. If you want to take pictures of resolution charts, you have more time on your hands than I ever did.

    My scanner is 3' away from me, covered in dust. It hasn't been fired up in literally months.

    Flat out--stopped down, the 105mm ektar is damned sharp. Wide open it looks very nice. What's not to love? I have one, my brother has one, they are both great. You can find 35 hits on google groups for "105mm ektar knoppow" with a lot good to say about both the 101 and the 105mm Ektars.

    You had one lens. You didn't like it. What was that I heard about "anectdotal"?

    A wise man said
    "All this said, this kind of discussion is pretty academic. What matters is how the lens in hand shoots for you, not how another one shot for someone else."

    I gave my opinion of how I liked the lens.

    Consistency is your friend.


    Matt

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,565
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    Tom, Ricksplace, could you have the 80/2.8 in mind? Ah can't find no 85/2.8 in Schneider's Archiv.
    Sorry for the late reply. You are right. 80/2.8 it is. I guess I have turned off my proofreading for the summer. Still a helluva lens.
    Rick Jason.
    "I'm still developing"

  7. #27
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    I used to use a 5.6/120mm Schneider Apo-Symmar and a 5.6/58mm Super-Angulon XL with that format, I recommend both.
    If you're not taking your camera...there's no reason to travel. --APUG member bgilwee

  8. #28
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,106
    Images
    1
    Kodak 127mm Ektar. ( Hi Matt! )

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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