Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,696   Posts: 1,482,502   Online: 948
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80
  1. #31
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Andrew, thanks for the post.

    With your background, I am curious about your thoughts on the 135's. 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 2.8 vs. 3.5.

    Also curious what you think of the 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not Aspheric model). It is one of my favorites regardless, but I would like to hear what you have got to say about it on a technical level, especially in comparison to the other f/1.2 offerings.

    Thank you.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #32
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    I have the older FL 55mm f/1.2 and I quite like it. It is not sharp wide open but I use it that way, between the narrow DOF and the softness it yields a nice effect.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

  3. #33
    Andrew K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Andrew, thanks for the post.

    With your background, I am curious about your thoughts on the 135's. 2.0 vs. 2.5 vs. 2.8 vs. 3.5.

    Also curious what you think of the 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not Aspheric model). It is one of my favorites regardless, but I would like to hear what you have got to say about it on a technical level, especially in comparison to the other f/1.2 offerings.

    Thank you.
    with the 135mm lenses - the f2 is the sharpest, but in my opinion there is not enough difference to warrant the extra weight over a f2.8. Plus with all the weight in the glass of the f2 lens they are not that quick to focus...

    The f2.5 is an interesting lens - optically about the same as a f2.8. I like them because they are an odd aperture and feel very balanced....I haven't used a f3.5 version, mainly because the f2.8's were common and cheap enough....

    With the 50/55 mm f1.2 lenses I totally agree with hpulley - the FL 55/1.2 has a lovely quality to it, especially when used wide open. Not soft, not sharp, and yes - a little dreamy. I took one of my favorite photos of my wife with one mounted on a pellix..

    If I wanted a f1.2 lens to use I would buy a NFD 50mm/1.2L - it is the sharpest wide open of all the "standard" F1.2 lenses I got to use (which Is most of them - 55/1.2 FL and SSC (I never did get to use the 55/1.2 ASPH - I wish I had but they only made around 360 of them..), the 50 1.2L and 50/1.2 standard. Oh, I forgot I also had a S 50/1.2 on the VT Rangefinder..).

    I kept my 55/1.2 because it is a very early example (it has a chrome filter ring), and is in very nice condition, and as I said, looks great on a camera. Optically I've found it is not that sharp wide open - a little less sharp than the FL 55/1.2 I have wide open, but because of the SSC coating it is higher in contrast. At f4 it becomes a brilliant lens - but thats not why you buy a high speed lens...

    Personally I would buy a Old FD (chrome mount) 50/1.4 SSC lens - for the slight loss of light you get an amazing lens that is sharp wide open, and just that little bit sharper stopped down. I've owned 5 or 6 different ones, and all have been amazingly sharp..

    Of all the 1.2 lenses I used the NFD 85/1.2L was the best. Sharp wide open (you got the eyes in focus, but the eye lashes were just out of focus on a big print...), exceptionally sharp at f2.8.

    And I'll never forget the first time I looked through one mounted on a New F1. I was sitting in my bosses office, and when I looked through the camera the image in the viewfinder was brighter than daylight - that is - brighter than looking at the subject directly..

    It's the only lens/camera combination that this ever happened to me with.....
    A camera is only a black box with a hole in it....

    my blog...some film, some digital http://andrewk1965.wordpress.com/

  4. #34
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Thanks, Andrew.

    I have the 50mm 1.4 S.S.C. It is my most-used lens out of all my lenses in any format. Even with some light fungus, it is sharp. Someone wanted to clean it out for $45, but I said forget it! It is sharp as it is, and I don't want someone monkeying with the elements if I like what I am getting.

    I have the FDn one as well, just because it came in a kit. I use it as a backup or a loaner. No hood, though.

    I also have the 55 f/1.2 S.S.C. with the proper hood. It is one of my favorite lenses aesthetically speaking, as both you and hpulley describe. As you also said, I mount it when "dreamy" or "no-light shooting" are the words.

    The 55 does have the most major barrel distortion I have ever seen in a fixed-focal-length lens, though. So I gave up on shooting brick walls with it.

    I use the 55 with the Canon low light screen. I think it might be called the F screen (old F-1). Still only seems to show the D of F of about f/2.0, even wide open.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #35
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    Andrew thank you so much for your valuable insight! I truly appreciate all the wonderful feedback.

    I'm selling the zooms because I decided that it's just not what I want for this FD setup. I wan't compact and light weight. (Thus choosing the FDn 50 f/1.4 over the SSC version) I also like the 100 f/2.8 because its very small and light as well.

    I think I'm going to be happy with this kit for now but I definitely will be on the lookout for some of these lenses. I also hope to have an F-1 someday as well.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    966
    Images
    1
    This is always the picture I post when someone asks about the 55/1.2 Aspherical

    Duncan


  7. #37
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    What are your collective thoughts on the Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 I hear it's made by Kiron, and thats a good thing.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  8. #38
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    Well I guess the 200mm is coming back. Is pretty beat up but still usable. I sold it with a full description and appropriate images on eBay and I just got a claim filed against me for a refund. Lol people can be so rude when selling things online. I'm often reminded how much I hate dealing with eBay.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  9. #39
    agphotography's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    588
    Images
    14
    Digging up my own thread here but I want to ask a specific question.

    Presently I have the 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 and 35-105 f/3.5. All "New" FD mount. I'm looking to buy the 35 f/2 right now and I have a chance to get the New FD version at a really good price. Is there any reason to prefer the older versions over the latest one? It will be used on a T90 as that will be my only FD body.

    In the future I will look to replace the 28 f/2.8 with the f/2 version and potentially the 100 with the f/2 version as well.
    - Abram

    35mm / 120

  10. #40
    hpulley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,214
    Images
    75
    I like the old 35/2 concave lens SSC II version I have. It is really, really sharp though it has a slight yellow cast. I hear the new ones are just as sharp but without the yellow cast but I've never tried one.

    As I've mentioned before I much prefer my 28/2 to the old 28/2.8 that I had, both new FD mount.

    I use a 100/2.8 (new FD) and while I yearned for a time for the 100/2 I never got it, I got an FL 85/1.8 instead. In fact I use the 100/2.8 more however, including a whole roll I recently shot with it using Delta 100 in my Canon TX. My copy isn't even in that great a condition but I still like the images it produces, go figure. Not sure why but the 85mm focal length has never appealed to me on 35mm cameras though I use 80mm on 6x6 and 90mm on 6x7 all the time as they're more normal lengths there.
    Harry Pulley - Visit the BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE FORUM

    Happiness is...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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