Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,983   Posts: 1,523,901   Online: 1052
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jjstafford
    Uh oh! Here come the ULF contact printers!
    So far LF only, but ULF is approaching... But I enlarge LF too! A little while ago I enlared 35mm negatives for the first time in several years. I had entirely forgotten how small they were, and how grainy, and all that!

    But a good enlarger lens is an absolute requirement, and not where you should save money. I have (big) Rodagons and (small) Meopta Anaret S'es.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #32
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,168
    Images
    20
    I like all sorts of exotic old lenses, but I agree with the idea of using the best enlarging lenses, if one must enlarge. I use 50mm and 90mm Apo-Rodagons and a 150mm Apo-Componon HM. I don't think I would be able to afford them, though, if there were still much of a market for enlarging lenses.

    On the other hand, I know people who like diffusion at the enlarging stage and enlarge with lenses not really made for enlarging. Wollensak even made a Verito for enlarging.
    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. #33
    edz
    edz is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    I like all sorts of exotic old lenses, but I agree with the idea of using the best enlarging lenses, if one must enlarge.
    Enlarging too, I think, is part of the artistic process. In general, however, the best (whatever that means) objectives as part of an appropriate optical system are what should always be selected. Intentional soft-focus, distortion etc. don't typically work well in enlarging. The problem is, however, what "best" means since its tied in very much with the choice of illumination. I find myself, for example, switching between cold light to point source--- and quite a few combinations in between--- depending upon what I'm trying to do. I have, however, also a few "special purpose" objectives that I use for "special effects" such as a zoom (Schneider Betavaron).
    Edward C. Zimmermann
    BSn R&D // http://www.nonmonotonic.net

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    92
    To clear up a few points . . .

    MTF testing is not irrelevant. If it were, lens makers, including Leica, wouldn't be using it. It's a tool. Like any other tool, it has its limits & like any other tool, it must be used appropriately to be of any value. It's certainly true that MTF tests are not the last word in the assessment of any given lens, but to say that it is irrelevant is absurd.

    Those uncorrected aberrations that we may love so much in certain older lenses weren't put there by the lensmakers to cater to the needs of the artiste. They are there because it was the best the lens maker could do at that stage of optical development. The goal of the lens maker is the most accurate possible 2-dimensional representation of reality - distortion & aberration free. This is evidenced by their continuing effort to improve on old lenses by the use of aspherics, etc. They make no effort to continue to produce those old lenses with their classic look. Of course, the photographer may have a liking for a certain look & may love to use certain older lenses.

    Photodo is not now nor was it ever a distributor of Hasselblad or anything else, as was claimed above. In fact, Photodo doesn't even exist any more. It was an independent testing company, founded by some former employees of Hasselblad, which is a whole different matter.

    Zeiss marketing does not claim specifications that violate the laws of optics. As far as I know, they do list specifications that are beyond the capability of the human eye to see. But that is another matter. The information about their specs & resolving power is available if you care to write to them or to the tester who developed the data. It's all available for you to critique.

    The 35 mm lens for the Contax G, which has been criticized by some users, is a Planar. For the new M-mount series of Zeiss lenses, Carl Zeiss has substituted a Biogon, which is drawing rave reviews by users.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,122
    Is it OK to say "shift lens" to Zeissoholics?

  6. #36
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,168
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Biogon Bill
    Those uncorrected aberrations that we may love so much in certain older lenses weren't put there by the lensmakers to cater to the needs of the artiste.
    True except for soft focus lenses, in which those uncorrected aberrations were put there precisely to cater to the needs of the artiste.
    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

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    There is no problem saying shift lens to me. I have a 35mm PC Distagon and a 28mm Schneider PC Super Angulon from a Leica R adapted to contax/yashica mount both of which I use on my Contax RTSIII.

    Why do you suppose there would be a problem in saying shift lens to Zeissaholics?
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    There is no problem saying shift lens to me. I have a 35mm PC Distagon and a 28mm Schneider PC Super Angulon from a Leica R adapted to contax/yashica mount both of which I use on my Contax RTSIII.

    Why do you suppose there would be a problem in saying shift lens to Zeissaholics?
    It sounds so...Shifty.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,122
    I had not heard of a Zeiss shift lens and did not realise adaptations could be made in 35mm,I wrongly supposed you had to buy another make camera to do architecture.Thanks for the info.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    You are welcome.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

Page 4 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