Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- From: contaxman@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:40:00 -0700
On Jun 30, 7:23?pm, Tony Polson <t...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
VARIOUS SNIIPS AND SNIPPETTES TO LEAVE THE "HYDEISH" TASTY BACON BITS
WASHED DOWN BY A "DR. JEKYLISH" BOTTLE OF FRESH PRESSED CAROT
JUICE :-)
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.
I have heard that "Flektagons" (is that the Zeiss Jena type of lens
designation vs. the Contax Zeiss Distagons) have a reputation for
flimsiness/fragility/breaking down - is this true or an "Urban Myth"?
What are the Flektagons weak spots mechanically/optically if any?
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.
The thought is much appreciated. I may have to do a side by side (if I
purchase it off of KEHor eBay) vs my 20-35/4 from wide open to about f/
8 or f/11. I am really more concerned about clarity/color saturation/
micro-contrast rather than rectilinear distortion as I mostly
photograph people (some who wouldn't be hurt by a little
"distortion" ;-)) so I am wondering if their is just a slight
difference in clarity/look/microcontrast/color saturation or a lot -
edge sharpness and distortion are of lesser concerns to me than the
two main factors I care about - crystal clarity (contrast and micro-
contrast are important, resolution, not as much) and overall
punchyness of the colors (saturation), the 50/1.4 SMC-M has both of
these in spades, especially when stopped down two or three stops from
wide open (very Zeiss-like if not better).
For $250-$350, not to seem ungrateful, I can almost get a brand new
Pentax 24mm f/2 A* lens with K mount for all exposure modes and AF to
boot (plus, despite its noted "heaviness" in weight to carry around
(some carp about its heaviness, but what do you expect in an f/2 lens,
a tiny fullframe AF Olympus in Pentax FA mount? ;-))I would always
have a nice bright f/2 viewing aperture for both AF and MF regardless
of whichever apertuyre I was shooting at) so the 20 Flektagon would
have to be a _major_ notch higher in micro-contrast/contrast/clarity
(not necessarily in resolution) than the 20-35/4 (which I already own)
or even the 24/2 FA* for me to consider paying equal money for it as
the 24/2 FA* considering the latter lens' advantages just mentioned.
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?
Alas, already shot through the cameras of us 1990s photographers. Its
a shame that future generations won't see its like just as its a shame
that we wont see Autochrome, the three color Technicolor or many other
films/processes which have bit the mass marketing dust bin of
history...
Somewhere, before even being released, an even better film is waiting
to hit the shelves as Ektar, and Kodak is already thinking of its
discontinuation date ;-).
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.
Thanks for the suggestion (have heard good things about this lens, I
think) but its a bit too close in aperture (to my zoom) and not wide
enough in focal length for the aperture it has to woo me over to it
unless its majorly ultra cheap and I absolutely fall in love with its
optical quality (very hard for me to do as my Zeiss-like standards are
so high). How is it wide open in overall micro-contrast clarity (_not_
edge resolution) and how is it stopped down one or two stops - is it
in the same league as the Pentax 50/1.4s? Better? Worse? My 50/1.4 SMC-
M, though crappy in sharpness wide open, by f/2-2.5? or so it becomes
quite usable, by f/2.8-4 sharpens up nicely with luscious best of
class smooth liquidy bokeh and by about f/8 its one of the best lenses
I have ever seen sharpness-wise shy of Leica with wonderful color
rendition.
?The Carl Zeiss (Contax) 25mm is
not worth considering - it is a major disappointment, as it lacks
sharpness.
I know, from what little Isaw of the lens' sharpness/overall look
(projected at a slide show years ago) it makes me want to use my 28mm
(which is probably a 29mm in reality) Zeiss Contax lens and just
pretend its something wider by backing up when/if I can ;-).
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.- Hide quoted text -
Thanks for all the well wishes :-). Are you shooting film these days
or have you gone entirely digital now?
Regards,
Lewis
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- References:
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- From: Tony Polson
- Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PIC] Just the Three of Us
- Next by Date: Re: March of the Turtles
- Previous by thread: Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- Next by thread: Re: "GOOD DAY SONSHINE" :-)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
