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

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

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

"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

"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

"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

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.

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.

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.

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