If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Old slides v recent slides
I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a
Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta, Since I started using a Pentax MZ50 and later a Pentax *ist, both with a Sigma 28-80 lens I have not been satisfied with the results. I was reminded of the difference between old and new slides, both Kodachrome 64, when I was scanning some of each recently. the old slides are noticeably sharper and punchier in the preview window than the recent slides, especially of slides taken on dull days. The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? Thanks Mike |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta The Pentax lenses (and probably the Minolta ones, too) from 30 years ago were probably prime lenses, and they had excellent optical qualities. While zoom lenses may offer more versatility and convenience, you will typically see that their image quality (especially in the case of amateur kit lenses) is not up to the quality of those great prime lenses of the 60s and 70s. If you still have your old lenses, try fitting them to your camera, using an adapter if necessary, and see the difference for yourself. With regard to the classic Pentax normal lenses, have a look at this assessment: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta The Pentax lenses (and probably the Minolta ones, too) from 30 years ago were probably prime lenses, and they had excellent optical qualities. While zoom lenses may offer more versatility and convenience, you will typically see that their image quality (especially in the case of amateur kit lenses) is not up to the quality of those great prime lenses of the 60s and 70s. If you still have your old lenses, try fitting them to your camera, using an adapter if necessary, and see the difference for yourself. With regard to the classic Pentax normal lenses, have a look at this assessment: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-11-24.shtml |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"mjmm" posted:
"... The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? ...." Probably. My personal experience is that *many* (if not *most* ... or even *all*) Stigma lenses have low contrast, and the pictures taken with them appear to have an overall haze (flare) For that reason ... I haven't used that "brand" for many years. wrote in message ... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta, Since I started using a Pentax MZ50 and later a Pentax *ist, both with a Sigma 28-80 lens I have not been satisfied with the results. I was reminded of the difference between old and new slides, both Kodachrome 64, when I was scanning some of each recently. the old slides are noticeably sharper and punchier in the preview window than the recent slides, especially of slides taken on dull days. The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? Thanks Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"mjmm" posted:
"... The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? ...." Probably. My personal experience is that *many* (if not *most* ... or even *all*) Stigma lenses have low contrast, and the pictures taken with them appear to have an overall haze (flare) For that reason ... I haven't used that "brand" for many years. wrote in message ... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta, Since I started using a Pentax MZ50 and later a Pentax *ist, both with a Sigma 28-80 lens I have not been satisfied with the results. I was reminded of the difference between old and new slides, both Kodachrome 64, when I was scanning some of each recently. the old slides are noticeably sharper and punchier in the preview window than the recent slides, especially of slides taken on dull days. The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? Thanks Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"mjmm" posted:
"... The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? ...." Probably. My personal experience is that *many* (if not *most* ... or even *all*) Stigma lenses have low contrast, and the pictures taken with them appear to have an overall haze (flare) For that reason ... I haven't used that "brand" for many years. wrote in message ... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta, Since I started using a Pentax MZ50 and later a Pentax *ist, both with a Sigma 28-80 lens I have not been satisfied with the results. I was reminded of the difference between old and new slides, both Kodachrome 64, when I was scanning some of each recently. the old slides are noticeably sharper and punchier in the preview window than the recent slides, especially of slides taken on dull days. The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? Thanks Mike |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
It is difficult to compare slides taken decades apart under different
conditions. However: modern zooms have less contrast than older prime lenses. There is no way around the physical properties of light bouncing between the many more glass elements of a zoom lens than a prime lens. Photoshop cures many ills, real and imagined. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It is difficult to compare slides taken decades apart under different
conditions. However: modern zooms have less contrast than older prime lenses. There is no way around the physical properties of light bouncing between the many more glass elements of a zoom lens than a prime lens. Photoshop cures many ills, real and imagined. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
It is difficult to compare slides taken decades apart under different
conditions. However: modern zooms have less contrast than older prime lenses. There is no way around the physical properties of light bouncing between the many more glass elements of a zoom lens than a prime lens. Photoshop cures many ills, real and imagined. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... I am about to try slide film for the first time since I bought a Tamron lens. I used slide film for 30+ years with a couple of SLRs, Pentax and Minolta, Since I started using a Pentax MZ50 and later a Pentax *ist, both with a Sigma 28-80 lens I have not been satisfied with the results. I was reminded of the difference between old and new slides, both Kodachrome 64, when I was scanning some of each recently. the old slides are noticeably sharper and punchier in the preview window than the recent slides, especially of slides taken on dull days. The only reason I can think of is that the Sigma lens is not as good as the lenses on the old SLRs. Is this likely to be the correct explaination? Thanks Mike Not that I am a big Sigma fan but you did mention that some of your slides were fairly old.........Kodak did change the Kodachrome formula at one point, want to say it was in the late '80s or early '90s (sure someone else here will know for sure). Have heard tales of some of the hardcore Kodachrome pros (the late Galen Rowell comes immediately to mind) buying up all that they could get their hands on and putting it in the freezer because they did not like the new stuff as well. I have a few Tamron lenses (all in their SP lines) and am pretty happy for the most part. Any more all I buy is either the Nikon lens or, if price is too big of an issue, the Tamron SP counterpart. Jeremy makes a good point though, a high quality prime will generally out perform even a high quality zoom. BTW- if you want more "punch", you should really try Fuji Velvia. I prefer the older ASA 50 stuff most of the time but the 100F is great also. The 100F sometimes reminds me of the old Kodachrome stuff I shot in the '80s....... Hope it helps, Bill -- "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." -Theodore Roosevelt |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scanning 35mm Slides | MATT WILLIAMS | Film & Labs | 16 | July 2nd 04 08:41 AM |
Kodachrome (K-14) vs. Ektachrome (E-6) Color Slides | Jeff L | In The Darkroom | 6 | February 16th 04 02:25 PM |
Scanning Old Slides | MBP | In The Darkroom | 1 | February 3rd 04 07:00 AM |
Dark Slides don't fit ARE NOT X-RAY Slides | Ken Smith | Large Format Photography Equipment | 1 | January 23rd 04 04:45 PM |
getting accurate results from slides | Faisal Bhua | Film & Labs | 2 | January 5th 04 10:16 PM |