Quote Originally Posted by Newt_on_Swings View Post
Been going the old screw mount rangefinder route lately after the acquisition and fixing of a canon vit and a vt, and I'm starting to feel that lenses dont always have to be always pin sharp and super contrasty, the older glass performs very well and is actually quite pleasing, and handles very nicely.

And on the other hand, my continued use of my fuji gw690ii and the negatives and prints i have been getting out of it, makes me want to sell off all my 35mm gear. not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, as gas has already made me invest deeply into Olympus and Nikon fast glass.
I like my old Summitar lens a heck of a lot for portraits. With a 25mm aperture the depth of field is perfect, and that lens really shines. Then I put it on a tripod and shoot Kodak TMax 100 or Fuji Acros, and do landscapes with it. It's amazing to see medium size prints (16x20) made with this lens stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8.
Then I sometimes use my Hasselblad, which has lenses that display a fair bit more contrast, so I have to give more exposure to open up the shadows, and process with much reduced agitation in order to get a similar tonality from it.

I guess my contribution to the 'discovery' theme is that I find 35mm perfectly adequate for landscape, and while I have always felt this to be true, I'm still stunned every time I see a 16x20 come up from a tiny, but well exposed and processed 35mm negative. It's even cropped a little bit in its aspect ratio, in order to yield a 1" border around periphery of the paper sheet. And the lesson I keep learning, over and over again, is that often times it's a good idea to at least challenge 'conventional wisdom' and go see for yourself.