Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Daniel, How about some samples from that bottle cap lens? ;) Cheers, Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Ridings" <dlridings at gmail.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 2:35:12 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: Back to film! Well, we've brought up some of my cherished topics, Elmars and film, the last few days. Mark mentioned the 90/4 (or, as another Marc would protest 9cm f4.0 Elmar). So I pulled out one of mine. I was running a roll of Kentmere 100 through the paces. I couldn't find suggested times for Xtol, so I needed to see how my guesstimate would work out, before I trusted it. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-1.jpg.html Somewhere in the settings, Vuescan or my LS-5000 thinks it is Jan 1, 2012. All my scans get dated by that. I'm really going to have to figure out where that is coming from. As long as I was running some film though, I added the 50/2.8 Elmar to the brew (the old one, not the new very, very good one). http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-2.jpg.html 1/30 @ 2.8 I bought that one from a LUGer, John Collier? Can't really remember. It's been a few years ago now. Then I myself was curious about how the Summitar, also wide open, would compare. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/12v28-4.jpg.html The Summitar is probably more know for its out of focus character (won't really say "quality") than anything else. But I wanted a faster lens for the LTM and if you can find one in decent shape (pretty difficult task) they work just fine. The lens shade for my 50 Summicron works on it, so I don't have to use the goofy barn-door one designed for the lens. Here's the stuff. http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/dlridings/oddsnends/20120714-_DSC3839.jpg.html The IIIg 50 and 90 is a nice compact combo. I lost my 35mm viewfinder in Oslo a couple of years back. It fell off the camera while I was walking around on 17th of May celebrations. Kind of pained me. To be totally honest, I took some similar shots with my Nikon D300 and consumer zoom, 24-85 3.5-?? ... and I have to admit, they're better than the film scans. The negative might match the image from the D300, but by the time you scan it, it loses out. :-( Daniel On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Chris Saganich <csaganich at gmail.com> wrote: > I have an ex pat friend in BK Th. Let me know if you go. > > Chris > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Ridings <dlridings at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Tell me more, Jim. I feel there must be typo (wino?) in there. 32/4? I >> don't mind the Contax/Nikon mount (as long as it fits a Kiev) but >> 32/4? You compare with a 21 for Nikon or Contax. Are we talking about >> a decent wide-angle? I have the 21/4 in Voigtlander (if it's color >> Skopar or just Skopje, I don't remember ... decent lens). >> >> Daniel >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:28 PM, jshulman at judgecrater.com >> <jshulman at judgecrater.com> wrote: >> > Welcome back to your senses. My only recommendation is to get the 32/4 >> Voigtlander land in Contax/NIKON mount. It's a sensational lens, and >> likely outperforms the rare NIKON 21 or the vintage Contax 21. >> > >> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone >> > >> > ----- Reply message ----- >> > From: "Phil Forrest" <photo.forrest at earthlink.net> >> > Date: Fri, Jul 13, 2012 3:18 pm >> > Subject: [Leica] Back to film! >> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >> > >> > A few folks here are also members on RFF and may have followed a few of >> > my threads there but I finally shuffled off the digital monkey a few >> > days ago. >> > I traded my M9 (which I had been trying to sell for a while) for a >> > Nikon SP with titanium shutter and a good amount of cash. It was a good >> > deal, I think. I got a *reliable* camera that is compatible with most >> > of my lenses (I sold my Leica lenses and replaced them with RF Nikkors) >> > and the new M9 owner got a camera he wanted. I still have my film M4, a >> > beat up DR Summicron and my Super Angulon but I'm considering the sale >> > of the latter to replace it with the 2.1cm Nikkor for the F mount with >> > adapter. An excellent lens itself but much lower cost. >> > I'm happy because I am no longer tethered to a wall socket to recharge >> > batteries. Film doesn't have a slow buffer time. I can forget about my >> > latent images on the roll for a while and not worry about filling up my >> > limited storage media. It's just a good move. I'm not getting any photo >> > business and I can't rationalize sitting on almost $5000 worth of >> > camera that isn't making me money. >> > It was kind of fun while it lasted even though the headaches of M9 >> > unreliability (and the M8 before it) drove me nuts. I should have sold >> > it a year ago. >> > It's good to be back to film. It feels rebellious, actually. >> > >> > Phil Forrest >> > >> > -- >> > http://philipforrestphoto.wordpress.com/ >> > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Leica Users Group. >> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > Chris Saganich > www.imagebrooklyn.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information