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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
On Jun 30, 7:23?pm, Tony Polson wrote:
VARIOUS SNIIPS AND SNIPPETTES TO LEAVE THE "HYDEISH" TASTY BACON BITS WASHED DOWN BY A "DR. JEKYLISH" BOTTLE OF FRESH PRESSED CAROT JUICE :-) The lens I would recommend is the Carl Zeiss (Jena) 20mm f/2.8 MC which comes in M42 screw mount. It works fine with Pentax K mount SLRs using the M42 to K adapter, provided that you can tolerate stopped-down metering (I have a feeling that this would not be a problem for you). Plus, it won't break the bank. ;-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I was actually consiering this lens (or was there a Schneider of the same focal length just like it?) but was hoping for at least a K mount (no stopped down metering). Would you know how either the Zeiss Jena 20 (I am geussing this is the old screw mount from the '70s, not one of the newer ZS (Zeiss screw mount)lens line that has been "revivified"?, compares with either the two Pentaxes 20/2.8 FA or 20/2.8 A (assuming this is the same lens design as the FA) in terms of resolution, contrast, color rendition/saturation, etc.? Yes, it is a 1970s Zeiss (East Germany) design. There is no K mount version, only M42 and Ekakta bayonet. So it is stopped down metering only. Compared with the Pentax 20mm, rectilinear distortion is much lower. Distortion is a real weakness of Pentax fixed focal length lenses. Wide open, the corners are slightly soft but not excessively so. Once again, the performance is much better than the Pentax. At f/4, sharpness returns to the corners, and at f/5.6 the lens is sharp across the frame. I think it is a wonderful lens, a lot better in terms of sharpness than the modern Carl Zeiss (Contax) 18mm. I have heard that "Flektagons" (is that the Zeiss Jena type of lens designation vs. the Contax Zeiss Distagons) have a reputation for flimsiness/fragility/breaking down - is this true or an "Urban Myth"? What are the Flektagons weak spots mechanically/optically if any? The 21mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss (Contax) Distagon is a slightly better performer, with even better sharpness at or near wide open and very low distortion, but try finding one, let alone at a reasonable price! The 20mm f/2.8 Jena version is an excellent buy at $250-300. If we didn't live half an ocean apart I would gladly lend you mine to try. The thought is much appreciated. I may have to do a side by side (if I purchase it off of KEHor eBay) vs my 20-35/4 from wide open to about f/ 8 or f/11. I am really more concerned about clarity/color saturation/ micro-contrast rather than rectilinear distortion as I mostly photograph people (some who wouldn't be hurt by a little "distortion" ;-)) so I am wondering if their is just a slight difference in clarity/look/microcontrast/color saturation or a lot - edge sharpness and distortion are of lesser concerns to me than the two main factors I care about - crystal clarity (contrast and micro- contrast are important, resolution, not as much) and overall punchyness of the colors (saturation), the 50/1.4 SMC-M has both of these in spades, especially when stopped down two or three stops from wide open (very Zeiss-like if not better). For $250-$350, not to seem ungrateful, I can almost get a brand new Pentax 24mm f/2 A* lens with K mount for all exposure modes and AF to boot (plus, despite its noted "heaviness" in weight to carry around (some carp about its heaviness, but what do you expect in an f/2 lens, a tiny fullframe AF Olympus in Pentax FA mount? ;-))I would always have a nice bright f/2 viewing aperture for both AF and MF regardless of whichever apertuyre I was shooting at) so the 20 Flektagon would have to be a _major_ notch higher in micro-contrast/contrast/clarity (not necessarily in resolution) than the 20-35/4 (which I already own) or even the 24/2 FA* for me to consider paying equal money for it as the 24/2 FA* considering the latter lens' advantages just mentioned. It may be just me but I think that the newer Kodacolor 200 v. 7, though finer grained than v. 6 is slightly less sharp, but the conditions were more than slightly shazy and the sun was coming from my back, reflected into my glasses which might have made it more difficult to precisely focus the 20-35's f/4 lens on my MZ-S than normal. All I know is that my 20-35 on a tripod with flash (as opposed to handheld with flash as in this shot) is very good to excellent in sharpness vs. the OK to good sharpness in my "SHOWDOWN" shot. I also realise, in that making the newer K 200 a finer RMS that maybe the evenness/smoothness of the granularity may make the sharpness appear less sharp since the eye doesn't have the hard edges of the grain to lock onto. It would be apity if I would have to switch to a new film, yet _again_, just becuse Kodak "improved" the old film (in some areas) fineness of grain and "dis-improved" the film in other areas (sharpness and possibly saturation according to the density numbers on the 3 layers vs. the grainy slightly older v. 6 of the film). I am also testing out (when I find subject matter worthy enough) the new 160 VC which _may_ have finer grain, better saturation and sharpness than Kodacolor 200 but at nearly _twice!?_ the price. I may have to "EeeK" bye with Kodacolor 200 for its price advantage (which ='s twice as much film for the same price as 160 VC) and buy/test "new" used 20mm (or 24mm?) ffl lenses that would give me that extra bite of sharpness/contrast/color saturation/clarity over my zoom all the time regardless of film I used. Strange as I find myself saying this after bouncing back and forth between Kodak and Fuji (mostly, with occaisional trips to Agfa and other lands) and my preference for slides (yet still bouncing back and forth between slide film and color neg film (for its greater latitude and quality vs. speed) I find myself preferring the Kodak pallette, especially on skin tones. Figures, just as I start loving a film, they end up "improving it"... Tell me about it! That was the story with Ektar. Best print film ever, but where is it now? Alas, already shot through the cameras of us 1990s photographers. Its a shame that future generations won't see its like just as its a shame that we wont see Autochrome, the three color Technicolor or many other films/processes which have bit the mass marketing dust bin of history... Somewhere, before even being released, an even better film is waiting to hit the shelves as Ektar, and Kodak is already thinking of its discontinuation date ;-). For me its alway been a balance between quality and price and it may mean me having to shoot a more expensive (Zeiss? Other?) lens if I want to keep my film/processing expenditures under control since no one else is paying for this passion except for me ;-)... It may boil down to me having to eventually bite the bullet and bye a 21mm Contax lens for either my Contax SLR system or a Contax G camera but I'd prefer to keep it "All In The (Pentax) Family" and ideally an AF mount if possible to get maximum versatility out of my two Pentax AF SLRs. I made the same suggestion above before I read this paragraph, sorry. But at least we are thinking along the same lines. :-) All (extra) advice appreciated, yet again. Wild card: the SMC Pentax 24mm f/3.5 K mount lens is a gem. I'm not sure whether metering at full aperture works on the MZ-s, but at least the lens mounts without an adapter. Thanks for the suggestion (have heard good things about this lens, I think) but its a bit too close in aperture (to my zoom) and not wide enough in focal length for the aperture it has to woo me over to it unless its majorly ultra cheap and I absolutely fall in love with its optical quality (very hard for me to do as my Zeiss-like standards are so high). How is it wide open in overall micro-contrast clarity (_not_ edge resolution) and how is it stopped down one or two stops - is it in the same league as the Pentax 50/1.4s? Better? Worse? My 50/1.4 SMC- M, though crappy in sharpness wide open, by f/2-2.5? or so it becomes quite usable, by f/2.8-4 sharpens up nicely with luscious best of class smooth liquidy bokeh and by about f/8 its one of the best lenses I have ever seen sharpness-wise shy of Leica with wonderful color rendition. ?The Carl Zeiss (Contax) 25mm is not worth considering - it is a major disappointment, as it lacks sharpness. I know, from what little Isaw of the lens' sharpness/overall look (projected at a slide show years ago) it makes me want to use my 28mm (which is probably a 29mm in reality) Zeiss Contax lens and just pretend its something wider by backing up when/if I can ;-). Regards and best wishes/happy shooting, And to you too, Lewis. I'm pleased that you are well, and that you are still shooting film.- Hide quoted text - Thanks for all the well wishes :-). Are you shooting film these days or have you gone entirely digital now? Regards, Lewis |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
On Jul 3, 1:00 am, Paul Furman wrote:
wrote: Paul Furman wrote: Ken Nadvornick wrote: "Lewis" wrote: http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn.hrm "LEWISVISION" Eeeek! Is LewisVision broke?? http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ Thanks Paul for the link :-). Sorry Ken. 'My bad.' I must have hit a typo - previous/original Lewisvision link should have been: http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn.htm The "r" in "hrm" should have been a "t" as in "htm" :-). There are some broken links within the site but this is summer time and my heart, hands and camera are fixed on shooting right now :-). Lotsa broken links, I did find some live ones though :-)http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll11.htm Regards, Lewis(vision ;-)) -- Paul Furman Photographyhttp://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nurseryhttp://www.baynatives.com :-) Try your web browser's "relaoad" button - sometimes its not the links that are broken but AOL itself. For example, when I first clicked on the following link I got an AOL Hometown page instead of my own... http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll20.htm But then I clicked on reload and got to the page I wanted (in this case "IN MY LIFE..."). Some of the home page links may be broken but it will probably be a very rainy day before I re-download a later version of Netscape Communicator in order to fix it. Plus my Zip drive (from my other more ancient Mac/OS) that has a copy of the web page as it should be (hopefully without broken links) has been on the fritz for quite a few years and I'd rather spend my money on new film/developing and/or a new lens right now ;-). Regards, Lewis |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
VARIOUS LEGGO PLASTIC SURGERY (NIPS AND TUCKS) AS NEEDED...
On Jul 3, 4:39 am, Tony Polson wrote: The 20mm Flektogon is pretty robust. Tere was some cost-cutting in later versions of the 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon. The only weakness I have found is that the iris diaphragm will no longer stop right down to f/22. It reliably manages f/11 and f/16 is possible with care. But f/22 is unattainable, even after two CLAs. Sorry to hear that - I will look out for that if I decide to get one. You would be very pleased with the clarity/look/microcontrast/color saturation of he 20mm Flektogon. From what I've seen as examples of large images/etc. on Flickr (from whatever can be limned off of mere web reproduction) this looks to be a sharp lens with nice crisp micro-contrast. For $250-$350, not to seem ungrateful, I can almost get a brand new Pentax24mm f/2 A* lens with K mount for all exposure modes and AF to boot (plus, despite its noted "heaviness" in weight to carry around (some carp about its heaviness, but what do you expect in an f/2 lens, a tiny fullframe AF Olympus inPentaxFA mount? ;-))I would always have a nice bright f/2 viewing aperture for both AF and MF regardless of whichever apertuyre I was shooting at) so the 20 Flektagon would have to be a _major_ notch higher in micro-contrast/contrast/clarity (not necessarily in resolution) than the 20-35/4 (which I already own) or even the 24/2 FA* for me to consider paying equal money for it as the 24/2 FA* considering the latter lens' advantages just mentioned. I have never owned the 24mm f/2 FA but it has a stellar reputation. It could well be the best choice, given that you place a significant value on AF and full compatibility for metering and exposure. I have heard both good and not so good about the lens, but mostly good things. The not so good was about sharpness wide open, I believe (from memory of other comments) as well as someone named Bhup? who did a test of this lens on Sensia II against the Nikon 24-120 which to me is a good zoom with merely adequate performance at the wide end (I saw 16x24" or larger?) prints from this Nikon lens and I wasn't overly bowled away) and said that this Nikon zoom exceeded in color, contrast?, etc. the Pentax 24/2. Either he has bad eyes, his friend had a stellar Nikon zoom sample and/or a sucky sample of the Pentax 24/2 and/or he's not a very good judge of lens quality - take your pick - based on my experience of the final results of the Nikon zoom that I've seen, if the Pentax 24/2 has lesser optical quality than the Nikon 24-120 then it is in deep trouble indeed as an ffl lens :-) ;-). It would be worth investing in a 50mm f/1.4 A or FA. These lenses have much improved sharpness wide open. As you say, the bokeh is outstandingly smooth, and the A and FA versions retain this. On my shopping/dream list (as is the 43/1.9 Ltd because of its fantastic micro-contrast, even if my Pentax 50/1.4 SMC-M (and virtually any other Pentax 50) would "blow it away" in the bokeh department) :-). The 31/1.8 Ltd (as is the 77 Ltd.) is also on my "MONA Santa"'s dream list ;-). Mostly digital. Weddings with Canon EOS 5D and Carl Zeiss lenses (plus Canon L 24-105mm f/4), SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTT!!!!! real estate and construction with a Sony DSC-R1 (no dust problem!) Nice Zeiss lens -- does it come with a hard hat? D'oh! :-) plus the 5D with a Canon 24mm TS-E and Leica (Schneider) 28mm Super Angulon shift lens, "MMMMMMMMMMMMMM Schneider 28mm Super Angulon shift lens".... drool... Does it come in chocolate 24mm with sprinkles? social photography with 35mm rangefinder gear - Leica lenses and Konica Hexar RF bodies. You really have your shooting gear/categories organized. You'd make Tim Allen ("Tim the tool man" from the tv show "Home Improvement") proud. I still have a couple ofPentaxSLR bodies and five lenses, but they get very little use now. They are not worth selling because used prices for film gear are so very low. If you ever feel like dumping some of them over the pond instead of in the pond let me know ;-). "Don't recycle... 're-Lewis'." I'm a veeery good garbage can for free equipment -- especially Pentax ;-) :-). Any 24/2s or 20/2.8s , LOL (LELs? - my initialls, the E stands for the expensiveness of my "hobby"/passion, "leave off the last "s" for savings" ;-))? Regards, Lewis |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We sell and supply Brand New Unlocked Nokia phones"""" | Marc[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 22nd 07 09:48 AM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 1st 07 02:25 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |