Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/28

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

Subject: [Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Sat Oct 28 07:20:21 2006
References: <000c01c6f9c8$5a3f9690$33031aac@luispersonal> <06CEB101-CB27-46ED-8E37-5459CCB0A39A@ncable.net.au> <4542C4E0.3080304@waltjohnson.com> <520ADF86-E4E0-4955-80D4-49B7248D2D9B@comcast.net>

Len

Right now I've a bag full of Fomapan 400 and a stockpile of Rodinal. I 
can't really tell any difference between TX and HP5 and if it were not 
so overpriced I'd shoot Bergger. It had been quite a few years since 
shooting any E-6 film but recently I scanned a transparency and it blew 
me away. They make fine monochromes for those seeking details. I've 
tried to give up b&w film in favor of C-41 and Photoshop but something 
keeps tugging at the back of my mind.

For one thing, when I process my own b&w it is done right. Dropping my 
C-41 off  at a lab  always makes me nervous. Kodak's Ultra Color C-41 
would almost make doing your own color neg processing worthwhile though 
since it is amazing film.

Walt

Leonard Taupier wrote:

> Have you tried an old style film like the Efke (Adox) KB25? I like it  
> a lot even if you have to be careful how you handle it. I always  
> preferred Panatomic-X and Plus-X to get the tonality in my landscapes  
> and still life photos in the 60's. Currently I use APX100 and Fuji  
> Acros 100 with X-tol. I still like my DR but when a certain mood hits  
> I bring out the Efke and the collapsible Summicron. My type of photo  
> never needed the speed or the grain of Tri-X. As film shooters we are  
> still very fortunate to have these choices. Film ain't dead yet.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2006, at 10:48 PM, Walt Johnson wrote:
>
>> I've always labored under the assumption slower, thin emulsion  films 
>> have steeper curves and consequently are higher contrast. I  wished 
>> it were possible to find some Tri-X circa 1970 because these  newer 
>> films really seem to lack depth. They  are certainly sharp as  hell 
>> and grainless but also toneless  compared to what once was. I  picked 
>> up a collapsible a few years back with the usual haze that  can be 
>> hard to see. Leitz redid it for me and image wise it  compares with 
>> my late model Summicron.
>> I sure can;t help but feel the look we all knew and loved related  to 
>> film and developer rather than lens characteristics.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> Alastair Firkin wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, at last I can offer an opinion ;-) I have the collapsible   
>>> Summicron on my M3. It is a lens I choose above others when I want  
>>> a  slightly 1960's feel to the result: using this lens with Plus   X 
>>> like  film makes images I recognise, gives a feeling that is  
>>> different to  the more modern glass: I suppose its "softness" and  
>>> would suffer in  lens tests, but it would have been perfect for  
>>> your "grab" shot the  other day of the two people kissing.
>>>
>>> Others will prefer Tri X, but I never liked Tri X. Being a  
>>> contrary  bastard, I really disliked the high contrast grainy  
>>> images my peers  were making in the 1970's and therefore always  
>>> bought Plus X Pan ---  I use mainly APX 100 for the similar  feeling 
>>> now.
>>>
>>> One down side to the lens is that the f stop ring is a bit stiff  
>>> and  rotating it sometimes unlocks the barrel, but I'm used to  that 
>>> now.  One plus is that it can be used to pre-focus with its  "tab" 
>>> far more  easily (certainly than the DR summicron which  lacks the 
>>> tab) because  the focus ring is "exposed" when the lens  is 
>>> "mounted" and easy to  feel without looking.
>>>
>>> Great lens in "some" ways and good travel companion.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> On 27/10/2006, at 23:03, Luis Ripoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate your experienced opinions about the  
>>>> Collapsible  Summicron
>>>> 50mm. I had the "Rigid" Summicron, I've sold it because it had   
>>>> fungus and
>>>> make a lot of haze, but I regret the nice richness of grey tones   
>>>> that this
>>>> lens gave me.
>>>>
>>>> Now I have 3 lenses of 50 mm: Summicron model of the year  198/199...,
>>>> Summilux (1964), and the new Elmar. I'm looking for the Collapsible
>>>> Summicron to have the "nostalgia" subtle tones of the past.
>>>>
>>>> Could I have some opinions about how it will compare with my  
>>>> actual  50mm
>>>> lenses (Summilux and Elmar)?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance for your opinions and advice
>>>>
>>>> Saludos desde Barcelona
>>>> Luis
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
In reply to: Message from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Luis Ripoll) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)
Message from len-1 at comcast.net (Leonard Taupier) ([Leica] Opinions Collapsible Cron vs. Elmar or others)