Old slides v recent slides

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

On 2004-09-20 18:06:50 -0400, said:

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

there are so many variables here it is difficult to explain the
difference. Film technoogy has changed radically as has commercial
processing. Lens technology has changed radically. Some may pretend
that older lenses are superior to current lenses, which in some
specific examples of simple desings is probably true. Look at zoom lens
technology. The zooms of the 70's and 80's were garbage compared to
todays zooms and cost 3 to 10 times as much in 1980 dollars. While I
treasure my Nikkor 105 2.8 prime.... my 80-200 F2.8 blows away any
zoom and most primes built before 1990. Computers are a wonderful
thing. I will say that my Nikon 28-85 requires careful exposure and
attention to stray light. When I consider these factors I get great
exposures and saturated color. I believe that your Sigma is probably a
signifcantly netter lens tan the average lens of the 70's/80's .,

BTW.. when critically comparing slides, get a light box (ie PortaTrace)
and a good loupe. Examine the slides first and then scan. Scaning is
not a good way of judging the quality of the slide. I examine my
slides, and adjust the analog gain depending on shadow density that I
observe when examing manually. I find this a much more satisfactory
method than scan and fix.

Jim