Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,771   Posts: 1,516,531   Online: 799
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: old lenses

  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    DF, yes I hear all of you who said that 70's lenses aren't so much different from modern lenses, and thank's I've learned something new.

    A question for me...

    Well, mostly the way highlights behave, the way skintones look, the way shadows look etc. Mostly things tied to film emulsions of that time.
    Of course Kodachrome brakes the rules because it is like a time machine. But color negative has developed in a pretty linear way time-wise, so its easiest to put it somewhere in time. Of course with a margin of at least 10 years.
    It's harder as the format gets larger, because things get smoother, sharper, cleaner etc. But when I look at 8x10 negatives from Stephen Shores work from early 70's, I can clearly see the "look" of negative material of that age, same look I see in my own snapshots from that time (well not my own cause I wasn't alive back then, but images tied to my family), at least the aspects of that "look" tied to tonality (grain and sharpness not being the issue in his 8x10 work)
    I notice these things because I really care, cause I find that kind of tonal distribution more pleasing, more rounded, and smoother, than the modern more realistic tonality of films.

    When it comes to movies it is much easier, because a certain age carries its typical lighting style and many other things.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    "Go for something uncoated and shoot with a bright light source and the resulting coma gives a wonderful glow."
    tony, this sounds interesting, whas do you mean by "coma" and "glow", could you be more technical?, I think this is the "definition" I was looking for, I think I've seen what you mean..

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,293
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed_Davor
    tony, this sounds interesting, whas do you mean by "coma" and "glow", could you be more technical?, I think this is the "definition" I was looking for, I think I've seen what you mean..
    Ed, coma is an off-axis aberration that is affected by aperture -- stopping down reduces it. The only post-WWII lenses that I know for sure are said to have severe coma problems are tessar-type Wollensak Raptars; this according to Richard Knoppow, who insists that there was a design problem.

    But these are lenses for 6x6 and larger formats, and we're in the 35 mm forum so I think you must be interested in lenses you can easily use on a 35 mm camera, probably an SLR. I don't think you can accomplish what you want by using post-WWII lenses made for SLRs. Your best bet is to do what's needed to shoot pre-WWII lenses in Exakta mount near wide open with grainy B/W film. You may need to use ND filters to accomplish this.

    Don't insult Kodachrome. I still have 50 + KM 135-36 in the freezer and IMO there's nothing that matches it. Velveeta is a synthetic cheeselike substance, not an acceptable replacement or substitute for KM.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,565
    Images
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
    FYI, 50/4.5 and 75/4.5 Enlarging Ektars are 5/3 heliar types. Ektar is a prime example of a trade name that's been applied to a wide range of designs. And there have been many, many triplet type enlarging lenses.
    I have often wondered why my 75/4.5 Ektar enlarging lens is consistently sharper than my equivalent componon. I thought the Ektar was a 4 element and could not understand why it was sharper than the six element componon. I thought maybe I just had a bum componon, so I borrowed a buddy's. Same thing. Just proves that trying the lens is the important part. Did I mention I paid $15 for the Ektar?
    Rick Jason.
    "I'm still developing"

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,565
    Images
    47
    I have a Zeiss Kodak Anastigmat No. 4 f6.3 pat Feb. 24 03 in a compur dial set 1-200. It covers 4X5, seems like it is around 160mm. My friend who gave it to me said it came off a Kodak 2-1/4X4-1/4. It is quite sharp and definitely has a different look to the images. I'll see if I can find a few negs shot with it and post a print.
    Rick Jason.
    "I'm still developing"

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Don't insult Kodachrome.
    I was not insulting it, I like it because of that, because it looks like something from 50's

  7. #47
    tony lockerbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bega N.S.W. Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,290
    Images
    373
    Hi Ed, I'm not a technical sort of guy I just call 'em as I see 'em. The coma that I speak of may not be the correct term and someone will probably corect me. Astigmatism may what I mean, or maybe a combination of both. I will give you my experience with a couple of old lenses, the first being a Voigtlander Nokton from the early fifties. When shooting colour with this lens you can see a blue fringe around the image which I presume is astigmatism(anybody?). When shooting on B&W with this lens the result is a well defined image but with a slight glow from the unfocussed blue light. I get this result also from old and fast leica lenses (Summar, Summitar) and an uncoated Tessar on my Super Ikonta. I have an old uncoated sonnar from a Contax that doesn't have this effect however, so it's probably a case of suck it and see.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,293
    Quote Originally Posted by tony lockerbie
    Hi Ed, I'm not a technical sort of guy I just call 'em as I see 'em. The coma that I speak of may not be the correct term and someone will probably corect me. Astigmatism may what I mean, or maybe a combination of both. I will give you my experience with a couple of old lenses, the first being a Voigtlander Nokton from the early fifties. When shooting colour with this lens you can see a blue fringe around the image which I presume is astigmatism(anybody?). When shooting on B&W with this lens the result is a well defined image but with a slight glow from the unfocussed blue light. I get this result also from old and fast leica lenses (Summar, Summitar) and an uncoated Tessar on my Super Ikonta. I have an old uncoated sonnar from a Contax that doesn't have this effect however, so it's probably a case of suck it and see.
    Color fringing is a symptom of chromatic aberration, Tony.

    Astigmatism makes it impossible for lines at 90 degrees to each other to be in focus simultaneously. My late unlamented Celestron C-90 is an example of a lens with horrible astigmatism; it couldn't give me a good image of, e.g., a window screen.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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