Jump to content

Im totally into film!


pwrdesign

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do NOT take the Canon 0.95!!! It's a terrible lens! I already have the 1.2 and it's soft, prone to flare etc...plus the coating of the second group tend to contaminate the first element after the diaphragm! The 0.95 is NOT a Noctilux, at that time you could only have a fast lens or a sharp lens, not both!

I already have the 50/.095 Canon, and I love it. Its far from optical perfect but I don't need that, I love the look of it.

I would probably never buy it, but my father pretty much found it in a dumpster at work and I got it converted to M-Mount and CLA'd at DAG, so I've payed around 500 USD for it including everything :)

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two more :)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stort grattis Patrik, välkommen i filmklubben!

 

The Summilux 35 FLE will work beautifully on film. While 35mm isn't a favourite focal length of mine, the lens as such is nothing short of stellar. As Ian says, f1.4 will make a real difference when shooting film and this is the reason I bought mine. Some may be lucky to be able to own smaller Summicrons for daytime use, and pricy Summiluxes for evening/indoors use, but if one gets only one lens in 35mm as a film shooter this is the one to get imo. I would say the previous Asph Summilux should perform equally well and might be found for a bit less but if you got a good deal on the FLE, then you should be very happy indeed. The previous, previous version (Aspherical) is a rare collectors' piece sold for ridiculous sums that is, technically, not as strong as the later models. The even earlier ones are, to quote our dearly missed Swedish forum member Mr Bergqvist, dogs in many situations wide open. Then again some like that look. I should say that I happily shoot decades-old lenses too, but wouldn't use them for my main lens.

 

Again, welcome Patrik. I'll take this opportunity to put in a plug for the slightly randomly occurring photo meet ups I'm organising in Stockholm. I am working to have the next (the third) one in late summer or early autumn. I take the liberty to add you to the list :)

 

 

Forgive me Adam, but I just have to ask. Aren't (or weren't) you also using the 28 Summicron? That would surely also count as an expensive lens with a poor cost-benefit ratio on film? True, the new price of the FLE and the 28/2 differs by about 800€ to the 28's advantage but on the used market these days the relative difference is smaller. I'm just curious about your view on the 35 FLE.

 

Br

Philip

Please do Philip!

 

We're already a group of Leica users in Stockholm who are meeting up on a weekly basis for photo-walks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I see, thanks Adam. I asked because you have film shots in your Flickr with the 28/2 (which seem well focused to me).

 

 

I find 35mm a tricky focal length and have toyed more than once with selling the Summilux (which competes with my 1938 13,5cm Hektor for the position as my least used lens). Like all wider focal lengths one needs to be close to get interesting people shots. I realise this is very subjective, but all too often I see "meh"-like pictures (also out of my own cameras erm) with 35mm and wider (I wrote about these things in my review of the lens). I think a main reason your street photos are interesting is that they are up close and personal with the subjects.

 

As with virtually every aspect of photography, it comes down to subjective preferences. I find it very inspiring when experienced and established photographers say that they use, and for the longest time have used, the same equipment. 

 

br

Philip

 

I bought the 35 fle for use with the M9.  Even though I have sold all my digital I still have it b/c I can't part with it given what I'd get for it in the used market.  Don't get me wrong - it is an AMAZING lens and a real work of art.  But I just haven't gotten that sublime sharpness and micro contrast upside with my film as I have with the digital.

 

I toyed with getting a 28mm cron but in the end I couldn't find one that didn't have a focus shift problem.  So instead I have gone old school and am using the 4th version of the pre-ash elmarit, which is in great condition and cost me about $1000.   I am very happy with this for my film shooting from a cost-benefit perspective.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1.2 is not like the 0.95. The Noctilux 0.95 has great contrast, but lousy OOF.

Oh, and it is ten times the cost of the Canon 0.95.

Sometimes older is good.

(That is F. Gregory Stafford, the author of Glorantha, founder of Chaosium.)

 

Yes, the 1.2 is supposed to be better, here there's a good article on these two lenses:

 

http://www.antiquecameras.net/canon50mmf12ltm.html

 

This is what I've seen with the 1.2:

 

2j0i7wy.jpg

 

2dkj1oj.jpg

 

5pezaf.jpg

 

Still one of the coolest lenses I've ever seen.

 

2ue0faq.jpg

 

But today I would take a 1.4.

 

I already have the 50/.095 Canon, and I love it. Its far from optical perfect but I don't need that, I love the look of it.

I would probably never buy it, but my father pretty much found it in a dumpster at work and I got it converted to M-Mount and CLA'd at DAG, so I've payed around 500 USD for it including everything  :)

 

 

 

If you paid that money for it congratulations, I've seen that on ebay they want silly prices for it, I paid $300 for my 1.2, but can I ask if these pics are digital and what happens if you shoot counterlight like in my first pic? And how much does it intrude in the viewfinder with a hood?

Edited by Cuthbert
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The examples are shot with my Leica M-P(240).

I haven't tried shooting against the sun.

 

Steve Huff have some more examples in his review: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/06/03/the-canon-50mm-f0-95-dream-lens-an-amazing-dreamy-classic-50mm-on-the-m-240/

 

Yes I saw that article and I saw the other article on the f1.2, actually I read that one before buying the lens.

 

That's the reason why I disregard ANY review with digital pics: they are all post processed or better faked and they can make look a mediocre lens as something marvellous. Then I developed the film and I've seen these shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I see, thanks Adam. I asked because you have film shots in your Flickr with the 28/2 (which seem well focused to me).

 

 

I find 35mm a tricky focal length and have toyed more than once with selling the Summilux (which competes with my 1938 13,5cm Hektor for the position as my least used lens). Like all wider focal lengths one needs to be close to get interesting people shots. I realise this is very subjective, but all too often I see "meh"-like pictures (also out of my own cameras erm) with 35mm and wider (I wrote about these things in my review of the lens). I think a main reason your street photos are interesting is that they are up close and personal with the subjects.

 

As with virtually every aspect of photography, it comes down to subjective preferences. I find it very inspiring when experienced and established photographers say that they use, and for the longest time have used, the same equipment. 

 

br

Philip

No worries, Phillip.  I would also say, though, that the 28/2 was a pre-digital lens design, if I am not mistaken.  The 35mm fle was a post-digital design.  This is a valid distinction in my mind.  The higher performance of the 28/2 over the 28/2.8s were in the context film and I think they do in fact materialize quite well on film.  It is just a little too much for me to spend given my current lens stable (which is a bit over-extended given my now total film workflow...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also enjoy shooting with film so much more. Despite generally being a tech head.

Don't have time to do my own processing or scanning however. Might try scanning in the future though as its a pretty expensive service from developers for what it actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep dreaming about selling all my current gear and buying the best Rolleiflex I can find. But then apart from liking photography in general I do like using the different cameras I own - far too many if I'm honest.

You might be interested in this: https://luminous-landscape.com/rediscovering-craft/ (seen on RFF)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also enjoy shooting with film so much more. Despite generally being a tech head.

Don't have time to do my own processing or scanning however. Might try scanning in the future though as its a pretty expensive service from developers for what it actually is.

Harold do it yourself development film and silver paper  :) picture better than scan and inkjet print  !

You'll feel a great pleasure

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Best

Henry

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I already have the 50/.095 Canon, and I love it. Its far from optical perfect but I don't need that, I love the look of it.

I would probably never buy it, but my father pretty much found it in a dumpster at work and I got it converted to M-Mount and CLA'd at DAG, so I've payed around 500 USD for it including everything :)

 

 

 

 

makes me want to find one of those lens now! ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...