Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,735   Posts: 1,515,429   Online: 1093
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    T think the 38mm Biogon is a fine lens JJ but I believe David would prefer the 75mm. Of course David can speak for himself.
    Whoops - format slip! Sorry!

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,135
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    T think the 38mm Biogon is a fine lens JJ but I believe David would prefer the 75mm. Of course David can speak for himself.
    Well, if a 75mm Biogon with a Tech V/MT cam showed up on my doorstep one day, I wouldn't turn it away.
    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
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Well David it probably will not help much but if you post your address who knows?

  4. #14
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Contax G lenses: Yes they really are that much better.

    When I first got mine and ran the first roll of Tri-X I processed it with two rolls shot using my Canons. And you could see the difference immediately, with the naked eye, just looking at the negs. Contrastier, sharper, less flare, great stuff.

    Part of it is that RFs are snappier than SLRs, part of it is that they're truly great lenses even among RF lenses. The 45, the 28, the 21, the 90 -- all killer. People like to dis the 35 but it's only because compared to the others it's the poorest -- there's nothing better save the Leica 'cron at something like 5x the price

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  5. #15
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    Check out www.photodo.com to see tests of some of the best lenses in the world including Zeiss/contax. They out perform even leica. This is not a subjective (looking at negs and pick what you like) test this is objective scientific testing of the lenses resolving ability. I love my leica MP but my contax G2 is sharper, I just hate the noise it makes focusing. And the lenses are one quarter to one third the price of leica lens.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by raucousimages
    Check out www.photodo.com to see tests of some of the best lenses in the world including Zeiss/contax. They out perform even leica. This is not a subjective (looking at negs and pick what you like) test this is objective scientific testing [...]
    The eye is not a camera; it doesn't live on an optical bench: it responds to qualities that photodo ignores; their method may be scientific, but it is largely irrelevant.

  7. #17
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    The eye is not a camera; it doesn't live on an optical bench: it responds to qualities that photodo ignores; their method may be scientific, but it is largely irrelevant.
    Silly camera makers, they should have asked you. Care to elaborate on those mysteriously-unnamed lens qualities, or are they beyond common ken?

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    Ken might understand but perhaps Bjorke might not.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  9. #19
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    A poor lens is a poor lens no mater how the good the photographic vision. Image quality or lack thereof is in part due to quality of the lens.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  10. #20
    edz
    edz is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by bjorke
    Silly camera makers, they should have asked you. Care to elaborate on those mysteriously-unnamed lens qualities, or are they beyond common ken?
    In fact the camera makers do ASK YOU and what they (opinion research) have heard over the last few decades is that geek factor is the way to keep things going. Like soap suds it does not matter if its really "new or improved" but its important to tout that things are new and improved and to suggest technological progress. The people at Zess marketing have in their "Camera Lens News" gone so far as to present specifications that violate the laws of optics. It seems (to anyone but the most carefull reader) that their ZM lenses resolve onto film more than is theoretically possible (but, again, anything is possible in marketing as long as it sells). It does not matter what "looks better", what matters to happy consumers is that it looks better on paper: so tweak the switching timings (audio), pump up the GHz (computers), push the top-speed and horse-power (automobiles) and blind the consumer with progress and false economy (digital cameras).

    What is the relevance of resolution and contrast of camera objectives in 35mm photography (or even worse 120 rollfilm given its planarity)? What's the resolving power and dynamic contrast range of photographic paper? What's photography about? Its seems 100 years ago photographers had more of an idea. Back then there was a whole realm of optics not designed to have higher resolution but to serve an artistic function as the brush of a painter. The finest brush may be able to resolve the most detail but yet...........
    Edward C. Zimmermann
    BSn R&D // http://www.nonmonotonic.net

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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