B&W and Color in Barnacks

[frederics]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello fellow collectors & users,

 

Just wondering, I tend to use my IIIF & II for B&W only. And use my M's for color slides.

Do you use one vs the other for different uses? Just wondering, as I find the old glass rather nice for b&w and like the newer stuff better for color look.

 

BTW, I tried my RS Elmar on an M8 the other day & shot a few pics at F4 and was surprised at how well that lens performed. It was sharper than my 35 summicron shot at F2 by a mile!

 

Looking forward to hearing your user preferences

 

Cheers,

 

Frederic

[L Palette]

I bought my first Canon EOS last March and since then has acquired an EOS 1n, then EOS 1v, and most recently a decent shape Leica IIIf body, and later an Elmar f=50 1:2.8. (It now has a yellow fiter on it for B&W pics)

I practically started photography with the EOS, liking the bulk, quality built, the speed, the convenience, and the coolness. I love using Fuji Reala with the EOS and am proud of my progress.

Then came the IIIf. Wow, the 50+ year old body and lens gave me absolutely incredible sharpness (using only fuji superia xtra 400, cheap film) I wasn't expecting. and I haven't even gone the CLA routine.

Since it is totally manual, I started using the EOS as a meter, but lately I went cold turkey and shoot without. Often set to 100 and f8 of f5.6. Of course still experimenting with exposures. I have mastered film loading into the iiiF, but have sacrificed one roll as learning fee.

Having said all that, I am experimenting with B& W with the IIIf and leave color to the EOS. Although I know the IIIf is capable of doing an excellent job with color. Next time I will try Reala with the IIIf.

BTW, love the stealth, quiet shutter, mobility, lineage, heft, and the quality of the IIIf.

 

 

Cheers!

[lars_bergquist]

Screw thread Leicas do handle standard 35mm film, so it's not the cameras, it's the lenses. Coating makes a lot of difference, at least with fast lenses. So don't expect much from an old uncoated Summar.

 

The old 5cm Elmar however is an unexpectedly brilliant lens--probably largely because of the placement of the aperture diaphragm--and does well with modern negative colour films (but do use a hood). A coated Summarit is a very useful lens. Have fun.

 

The old man from the year Barnack died

[tobias.f]

I use whichever lens i want the "feel" of for the image. I generally can't even notice a difference in colour between images taken with coated or uncoated lenses. The first Leitz lens I bought is the first type Elmar 50/3.5, and I have used that with most kinds of film, and it has always produced incredibly sharp images. In the lab I even asked the tech to try and distinguish the which negs were taken with the Elmar and which with a Tessar 50/1.8, colour, and he had to guess based on the frame mask, as the sharpness and tonality was comparable.

 

Said this, the best suggestion is to try it. preferably compare between a couple of lenses, or a couple of cameras, so that you can see the difference. If you are not doing colour reproduction, then it should not matter, and you never do colour reproduction with a 35mm rangefinder anyway.

[jc_braconi]

I tried my RS Elmar on an M8 the other day & shot a few pics at F4 and was surprised at how well that lens performed. It was sharper than my 35 summicron shot at F2 by a mile!

Try it again at 5.6

[earleygallery]

I like the muted colours I get from the Summar. The red scale Elmar is an excellent lens and perfectly good for colour work. I also use a CV 25mm Skopar - the photo of the windmill in my portfolio was taken with the lllf and Skopar, and the blue door was with the Elmar.