Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: Back to film!
From: dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:27:52 +0200
References: <856435263.14342281342280813571.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs12> <CC273F31.211E2%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Well, I have several of those too, Mark. When I wrote "old" I meant
the old 50/2.8 not the modern "new" 50/2.8 Elmar. I'd love to have one
of those. I keep my eyes open every Friday.

Daniel

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
wrote:
> The old 50 elmar would be a 3.5 not 2.8?!?!?
>
> - - from my iRabs.
> Mark Rabiner
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>
>
>> From: Gene duprey <grduprey at mchsi.com>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:46:53 -0500 (CDT)
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: Back to film!
>>
>> 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.htm>
> l
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] IMG: Back to film!)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] IMG: Back to film!)
In reply to: Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] IMG: Back to film!)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] IMG: Back to film!)