Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- From: Tony Polson <tp@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:23:23 +0100
contaxman@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:32 pm, Tony Polson <t...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Welcome back, Lewis! Usenet was a much poorer place without you!
Thank you, haven't seen your face (words) in a while too, How are you?
The lens I would recommend is the Carl Zeiss (Jena) 20mm f/2.8 MC
which comes in M42 screw mount. It works fine with Pentax K mount
SLRs using the M42 to K adapter, provided that you can tolerate
stopped-down metering (I have a feeling that this would not be a
problem for you).
Plus, it won't break the bank. ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I was actually consiering this lens (or was there a Schneider of the
same focal length just like it?) but was hoping for at least a K mount
(no stopped down metering). Would you know how either the Zeiss Jena
20 (I am geussing this is the old screw mount from the '70s, not one
of the newer ZS (Zeiss screw mount)lens line that has been
"revivified"?, compares with either the two Pentaxes 20/2.8 FA or
20/2.8 A (assuming this is the same lens design as the FA) in terms of
resolution, contrast, color rendition/saturation, etc.?
Yes, it is a 1970s Zeiss (East Germany) design. There is no K mount
version, only M42 and Ekakta bayonet. So it is stopped down metering
only. Compared with the Pentax 20mm, rectilinear distortion is much
lower. Distortion is a real weakness of Pentax fixed focal length
lenses.
Wide open, the corners are slightly soft but not excessively so. Once
again, the performance is much better than the Pentax. At f/4,
sharpness returns to the corners, and at f/5.6 the lens is sharp
across the frame. I think it is a wonderful lens, a lot better in
terms of sharpness than the modern Carl Zeiss (Contax) 18mm.
The 21mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss (Contax) Distagon is a slightly better
performer, with even better sharpness at or near wide open and very
low distortion, but try finding one, let alone at a reasonable price!
The 20mm f/2.8 Jena version is an excellent buy at $250-300. If we
didn't live half an ocean apart I would gladly lend you mine to try.
It may be just me but I think that the newer Kodacolor 200 v. 7,
though finer grained than v. 6 is slightly less sharp, but the
conditions were more than slightly shazy and the sun was coming from
my back, reflected into my glasses which might have made it more
difficult to precisely focus the 20-35's f/4 lens on my MZ-S than
normal. All I know is that my 20-35 on a tripod with flash (as opposed
to handheld with flash as in this shot) is very good to excellent in
sharpness vs. the OK to good sharpness in my "SHOWDOWN" shot. I also
realise, in that making the newer K 200 a finer RMS that maybe the
evenness/smoothness of the granularity may make the sharpness appear
less sharp since the eye doesn't have the hard edges of the grain to
lock onto. It would be apity if I would have to switch to a new film,
yet _again_, just becuse Kodak "improved" the old film (in some areas)
fineness of grain and "dis-improved" the film in other areas
(sharpness and possibly saturation according to the density numbers on
the 3 layers vs. the grainy slightly older v. 6 of the film). I am
also testing out (when I find subject matter worthy enough) the new
160 VC which _may_ have finer grain, better saturation and sharpness
than Kodacolor 200 but at nearly _twice!?_ the price. I may have to
"EeeK" bye with Kodacolor 200 for its price advantage (which ='s twice
as much film for the same price as 160 VC) and buy/test "new" used
20mm (or 24mm?) ffl lenses that would give me that extra bite of
sharpness/contrast/color saturation/clarity over my zoom all the time
regardless of film I used. Strange as I find myself saying this after
bouncing back and forth between Kodak and Fuji (mostly, with
occaisional trips to Agfa and other lands) and my preference for
slides (yet still bouncing back and forth between slide film and color
neg film (for its greater latitude and quality vs. speed) I find
myself preferring the Kodak pallette, especially on skin tones.
Figures, just as I start loving a film, they end up "improving it"...
Tell me about it! That was the story with Ektar. Best print film
ever, but where is it now?
For me its alway been a balance between quality and price and it may
mean me having to shoot a more expensive (Zeiss? Other?) lens if I
want to keep my film/processing expenditures under control since no
one else is paying for this passion except for me ;-)...
It may boil down to me having to eventually bite the bullet and bye a
21mm Contax lens for either my Contax SLR system or a Contax G camera
but I'd prefer to keep it "All In The (Pentax) Family" and ideally an
AF mount if possible to get maximum versatility out of my two Pentax
AF SLRs.
I made the same suggestion above before I read this paragraph, sorry.
But at least we are thinking along the same lines.
All (extra) advice appreciated, yet again.
Wild card: the SMC Pentax 24mm f/3.5 K mount lens is a gem. I'm not
sure whether metering at full aperture works on the MZ-s, but at least
the lens mounts without an adapter. The Carl Zeiss (Contax) 25mm is
not worth considering - it is a major disappointment, as it lacks
sharpness.
Regards and best wishes/happy shooting,
And to you too, Lewis. I'm pleased that you are well, and that you
are still shooting film.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- From: contaxman
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- Prev by Date: Re: 002 No I haven`t tried T - ADAPTER..any idea of difference?
- Next by Date: Re: Bret Douglas' SOCK PUPPETS at it again.
- Previous by thread: Re: 002 No I haven`t tried T - ADAPTER..any idea of difference?
- Next by thread: Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
