Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #21 Posted January 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Frustration: I stick photos for folks on Picasa…it's easy. But today to show you the test pano…. I find that they’ve changed everything in that site. Oh well, if I was lucky you may view my test pano as it is first in the Pano folder. Click on it in the folder and it should open…. the way they are doing the folders is a mess. https://plus.google.com/photos/102198595359647177099/albums?banner=pwa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Washington, Take a look here Which 135mm would be best for the job?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #22 Posted January 9, 2012 It was in the teens today so I could not do a proper tripod set-up. Both photos are shot at f8…. and hand held with is a bit unfair… but I had no choice. 1- Hektor 2- Elmarit 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170087-which-135mm-would-be-best-for-the-job/?do=findComment&comment=1892524'>More sharing options...
gvaliquette Posted January 9, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 9, 2012 ....You are rude. Washington, I did not mean to be rude. I you feel I was, I do apologize. I do not have the Hector. I do have the Elmarit, in the R version. But I do like the suggestion to use both, and then to let us know. I do appreciate the exchange of ideas and facts on this site, and look forward to further exchanges, including your contributions. Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EJohnE Posted January 9, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 9, 2012 It is probably irrelevant with digital and post-production, but my 13.5 Hektor had noticeably colder colour rendition than later lenses, Also, that Hektor, used directly with the rangefinder, and on Visoflex 1 and 2 using the appropriate mount focused accurately , but was fitted with a (Leitz??) shim for rangefinder use. Very easy to lose, and not needed for Visoflex use. John. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #25 Posted January 9, 2012 John, I have no such shim. Hey, this Leica stuff is really (uh) strange! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphoenix Posted January 9, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 9, 2012 1- Hektor 2- Elmarit Of the 2 images, the Hektor would be my choice. There is a kind of radiance with image 1, which 2 does not have. In fact 2 appears slightly flat. Nice photography by the way. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Geschlecht Posted January 9, 2012 Share #27 Posted January 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Rip, Nice photos. The first photo seems to have more contrast & looks sharper. Nicer colors also. The second looks like it might be effected by light coming into the lens from outside the lens's angle of view & reflecting on internal surfaces. Did they both have their proper lens hoods? BTW: Did you ever think of using a small solid table tripod w/ large ballhead & cable release against a tree, rock, car w/o the engine running, etc? Even against your chest? It helps sometimes. Also: As to the #'s: I think all of the lensheads of separable lenses have @ least the last part of their measured focal lengths engraved or scratched on a surface on the lens head so it is normally hidden from view when the lenshead & mount are assembled. You should see this # on that part of the lens head which is normally unseen inside the focussing mount. This # is necessary in order to match the actual focal length w/ a compatible focussing mount. Most, not all, 50mm & longer lenses engrave the last mm & 1/10th w/o the decimal to the right of the Infinity mark on the focussing scale of the lens mount as seen when you are looking @ the lens from above from behind the camera. On a 135mm Elmarit it should be just under where it says "Canada". It might say "55" or "60" or some other 2 digit #. The entire lens serial # should be inside the separated focussing mount somewhere. Engraved, typed on a piece of tape, or scratched. This is in addition to the 2 digit focal length above. Unless the mount was purchased alone separately. The mount should still have the 2 digit # on the outside. Best Regards, Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #28 Posted January 9, 2012 Hey Guy: no problem! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted January 9, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 9, 2012 the hektor looks GREAT! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted January 9, 2012 My ongoing theme is the tool for the job. Of what use is the sharpest lens in the world when your ultimate goal is to print a 6’ canvas??? For this particular I have found ‘’soft’’ lenses fill the need…… on the other hand, if you plan to print a small tack sharp print with important detail on aluminum: then we need the sharpest lens possible! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted January 9, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 9, 2012 Ineed...but for a lens that can be had for under $80 your photo is a ringing endorsement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #32 Posted January 9, 2012 When the light and sky are right along the Lumpy Ridge I do believe I will be using the old hector. And then, to make things more interesting, I will take another with the Sony NEX with the same lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 9, 2012 Share #33 Posted January 9, 2012 No surprise from the pics posted : Hektor, when stopped down 1-2 stops, is still an excellent lens, and probably the Elmarit 2,8 must be of the 2nd version to make better (me too have the 1st version... time to time think to find a 2nd, but my "usual" 135 is the Tele Elmar... probably even better, and using a 135 at 2,8 is someway risky...). Post the NEX pics when you'll have... I've always thought that the best usage of those tiny mirrorless is indeed with long focals... not only for the known issues with WAs, but also because their focus aids, for what I have read, seem me to be more useful with long lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 9, 2012 Share #34 Posted January 9, 2012 Yup, and you get the crop factor for extra reach. K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 9, 2012 Share #35 Posted January 9, 2012 That hotel - I seem to recall it from a film - is that correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 9, 2012 Share #36 Posted January 9, 2012 That hotel - I seem to recall it from a film - is that correct? That wouldn't surprise me at all. Rip would know. Stanley Hotel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stanley_Hotel I have been there a few times. Just a wonderful place. K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc_braconi Posted January 9, 2012 Share #37 Posted January 9, 2012 It looks like a V1 due to the 2 piece hood, but some V2 wears this 2 piece one,the V2's have better lens It is really strange that it does not focus with the original M mount I used different 2.8/135 lens & Version I & II on M8s and they focused very well, even at full aperture. For illustrating, here a pict from a test with one Elmarit 2.8/135 V2 (but with large knulered focusing ring) on M8 at minimum focusing distance.ISO 320, 1/500, 2.8. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/170087-which-135mm-would-be-best-for-the-job/?do=findComment&comment=1893356'>More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #38 Posted January 9, 2012 jappv, Late in the season when the hotel was empty he stayed there, got drunk, and wandered around getting ideas. The ideas became ''The Shining.'' The Stanley (pictured) was not used for the Kubrick film as it was not remote enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share #39 Posted January 9, 2012 I completely forgot the crop factor! To get the same field of view: ….. and wow! do I ever have some weird old 90’s to try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted January 9, 2012 Share #40 Posted January 9, 2012 jappv,Late in the season when the hotel was empty he stayed there, got drunk, and wandered around getting ideas. The ideas became ''The Shining.'' The Stanley (pictured) was not used for the Kubrick film as it was not remote enough. ... and lacks the famous green labirynth in front of the Overlook Hotel... (great film....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.