Sorry I know I am boring (another lens ?)

[Joe P]

Matthew,

I'm thinking of a new lens. Can't decide between the Pentax 40mm Limited or the Voigtlander 90/2.5 SL Close Focus (i know where there is an used one in Pentax mount for £200).

Get the Voigtländer. I was hoping someone whose opinion I trust would dip a toe into the water to see if their SLR lenses are any good.

Joe

 

[matthewr]

Ah yes, in my exhaustive Balanced Scorecard decision making system I was forgetting "Perform consumer research for Joe"

I think the Limited will be more use but those SL lenses have a certain desireability about them (at least from pictures) and I suspect one in K mount and already in the UK is very rare.

 

[Joe P]

Matthew,

Ah yes, in my exhaustive Balanced Scorecard decision making system I was forgetting "Perform consumer research for Joe"

You know I would do the same for you. In fact, I do do the same for you. I let you know what sci-fi/vampire TV shows are worth watching, what old, manual-focus Nikkors are worth getting, and what hot chix are worth Googling. This service is worth thousands of pounds on the free market, but I offer it willingly and free of charge.

Please, no thanks are necessary. I'm a philanthropist and like to help the people.

Joe

 

[Heath]

I just bought a 35mm f/2 from 7dayshop for £170.

Now I just need to wait for my replacement camera battery to arrive from Nikon after their product recall.

Heath

 

[garyi]

Thanks for the heads up Heath I'll check me battery later.

I got one on ebay for four quid which seems to be exactly the same spec and has performed well thus far. I love the fact these things go on and on, something else I do not miss with my E10

Thanks for all the info on the lenses. What I sense here is a case of suck it and see and just be a lot more critical of what you think you have achieved.

The main danger of a manual of course is that you get home and have no idea what the aperture was set too. There might be a case for trying to keep the aperture at one stop for each session then it will be easier to compare picks and see where each lens performed best.

 

[AlexG]

The main danger of a manual of course is that you get home and have no idea what the aperture was set too. There might be a case for trying to keep the aperture at one stop for each session then it will be easier to compare picks and see where each lens performed best.

Or just take a small pad of paper and a pencil with you.

 

[cliffpatte]

Chaps

F1.4 or even F1.2 lenses are not "for ****ers". If you want to do a hand held shot in low light, you want a lens which can handle it, period.

As for telephoto lenses, its pretty hard to hand hold a 400mm lens with an F stop of F8 when trying to snap something like a shot of someone scoring a goal, which is why the sports photographers all buy these £3000 lenses that can stop down to F2.8 or better. There are some sooperdooper lenses available these days at around the £3K mark that try to do image stabilisation as well, which allows them to get away with poorer F stops to a certain extent.

iGary - just remember that the F stop that you need will become obvious the more you play with using your camera in different lighting conditions. Sticking a flash on top of the camera is not necessarily the answer in all conditions.

cheers
Cliff

(****er with an F1.4 50mm lens on his OM4Ti)

 

[James]

F1.4 or even F1.2 lenses are not "for ****ers". If you want to do a hand held shot in low light, you want a lens which can handle it, period.

I think you misunderstand my point, Cliff. 50/1.2 lenses sell for around three to four times the price of a 50/1.4. All this results in is half a stop of extra speed. But relatively few shots are taken at full aperture anyway if you want to obtain maximum sharpness, which is invariably a few stops down from fully open. So the only gain is a slightly brighter viewfinder, but I seriously doubt it makes or breaks the shot. Same deal with the superfast mega-telephotos.

Unless you need to shoot with a fast aperture, a 50/1.2 has more novelty than functional value. IMO of course.

James (*ist DS, SMC-A 50/1.4)

 

[matthewr]

James -- Seen this : http://tinyurl.com/ce9os

 

[Paul L]

I understand entirely what Cliff is saying. My own earlier post and shooting needs would mean that the 'nocturnal' lenses would be an unecessary extravegance in cost and an unecessary bulk. But Cliff is right, it's all about choosing the right tools for the job.

Which reminds me of another point actually. I would absolutely not object to a 1.0 or 1.2 Leica to go with an equally nice M6. Definite extravegance but combined with a fast film for deliberate grain, I might be inclined to shoot in lower light situations.

The likes of Leica/Hassy are traditionally claimed to be more immune to the relative ebb and flow of lens arguments in the thread i.e. Zeiss, Schneider etc. allegedly do not produce any lens which is not of outstanding quality etc. I expect that nice Mr Parry has a cabinet full.

 

[Joe P]

I think the point James is making -- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- is that there's little point in getting a fast 50 (or whichever focal length you desire) if you don't shoot wide open. But if you do, well, then, yeah. Get a fast lens. A 50mm f/2 will not open up to f/1.2, but a 50mm f/1.2 will stop down to f/2.

Getting a fast lens if you never shoot wide open is the ****er thing to do. It's about looking the part, instead of taking great pictures.

By the way, I think we all agree here. It's just that we're missing each other's points.

Joe

 

[matthewr]

"Getting a fast lens if you never shoot wide open is the ****er thing to do. It's about looking the part, instead of taking great pictures"

Is this the right time to recall that Mick once owned a £2k f1.0 Noctilux?

Arf

 

[Artioneer]

This one is even faster,waste of time really.

These are the 'really' important ones,in the darkroom.

 

[AlexG]

Getting a fast lens if you never shoot wide open is the ****er thing to do. It's about looking the part, instead of taking great pictures.

Round these parts it's called 'all the gear, no idea'.

 

[James]

James -- Seen this : http://tinyurl.com/ce9os

Thanks Matthew. The AF SMC-FA or SMC-F 100mm/2.8 macro comes up fairly often on eBay. I'm not convinced by the optical performance (nor plastic construction) and would much prefer the metal-bodied MF SMC-A 100mm/2.8 macro. These are truly rare but tend to go for stupid money. I was hoping someone had one they'd like to sell for reasonable money. Otherwise, I might just have to console myself with the more common (and cheaper) SMC-A 50mm/2.8 macro.

If not this ...

Then I might have this ...

James

 

[Joe P]

Matthew,

Is this the right time to recall that Mick once owned a £2k f1.0 Noctilux?

Or time for my embarrassing admission that I spent $100 on a secondhand 55mm f/1.2 Nikkor only to find out that it's crap wide open.

Joe

 

[James]

Getting a fast lens if you never shoot wide open is the ****er thing to do. It's about looking the part, instead of taking great pictures.

Here are some comments from Stan's Pentax Photography Site in relation to the SMC-A 50/1.2

Pål - Pentax made SMC Pentax 50/1.2 and SMC Pentax-A 50/1.2 lenses (I guess they are of the same optical design). The A-lens is not particularly good unless stopped down to about f:8. It's particularly bad wide open (useless if you ask me). However, the lens is absolutely beautifully built and gives an extremely bright viewfinder and is a joy to focus with. . .

- - - - - -

Yoshihiko Takinami - . . . A50/1.2 is an excellent performaer at f/8-11 with very high resolution and very good visual sharpness. Its visual sharpness at f/8-11 seems comparable to K55/1.8, or K55/2, at the same apertures in my own experiences.

Fred - I agree, Yoshihiko, but all of the A 50mm lenses seem to do very well at f/8-f/11 (and, in fact, this is where most lenses, of any variety, tend to do best). My testing (both for resolution figures as well as for "normal" photos) with the A 50/1.2 shows that it is a good lens at such apertures, but not better than its less expensive siblings (and not as good as the A 50/1.4).

The A and K 50/1.2's really are nice to use for their focusing ease, and in dim light they may be the only lenses that can do the job at all, . . .

- - - - - -

Lu San-Hwan (from the Web) - the lens feels very nice and it is an item worth having, and it actually is not very heavy nor large. Downsides: the aperture is not that different from an 1,4, neither in regard of lowlight use nor in regard of DOF; also there is noticeable pincushion distortion

James

 

[Joe P]

James,

Here are some comments from Stan's Pentax Photography Site in relation to the SMC-A 50/1.2

Yeah, I know. These fast 50s are generally not well regarded if used wide open, but they do look the part, which is why I parted with $100 to get one. I now know better. (My 55 makes a good loupe, though, so it's not a complete waste of money.)

Joe

P.S. The Noct-Nikkor and Leica Noctalux are exceptions -- they're amazing wide open -- but they have a price tag to match their performance.

 

[James]

Fitness for Purpose

Hey Joe,

One thing you can help me clarify in my mind before I take the plunge should the opportunity become available - is a 100mm/2.8 macro lens as good as a regular 100mm/2.8 lens at infinity? I'd like to have a prime lens around 85-135mm in length (presently have the SMC-M 135mm/2.5, which is fantastic but I miss the auto-aperture control) and was thinking that I can combine a macro and medium telephoto in one lens. None of the MF SMC-A lenses around that focal length are particularly good, except for the A*85mm/1.4 and A*135mm/1.8 but again, these go for stupid money.

James

 

[Artioneer]

P.S. The Noct-Nikkor and Leica Noctalux are exceptions -- they're amazing wide open --

Joe,

Just an observation,how can you possibly deliberate about a lenses quality/resolving performance without you have tried the aforementioned lens in ideal conditions with a HR film ie Kodak TechPan (resolves nearly 300 lppm) and then enlarged the negative to at least 10" x 8" or better still 12" X 16" using 'good' darkroom practice and the very finest enlarging lenses available ?

One thing I realised long ago is that virtually every photographer has a semi super negative in their collection/file,it would just take a master darkroom printer - Gene Nocon,Ansel Adams(dsd) to bring it to it's full fruition,the darkroom is where the real expertise exists.

PS Anyone see Prince Andrew's mediocre photo's a long while back and how they were transformed in the darkroom by a craftsman ?