35mm Film: what do you suggest? And a question about lens

[Antigen]

Hi to all!

I have an old EOS camera by Canon that i use with my 50mm STM 1.8 lens, i have two question:

- the use of a lens born in the digital era, can cause some lower quality respect to the same 50mm 1.8 from canon but born in 1980 where there is no "digital lens"?

- i see that there are a lot of producers of film, I know only TRI-X by Kodak, but they are little overpriced in my zone, what do you suggest of other cheap producers? Kentmere, FOMA, etc... ?

Thanks very much

 

[markbarendt]

Newer lenses have better coatings typically. No problem either way.

Ilford HP5 maybe.

 

[Peltigera]

I use both Fomapan and Agfa Vista colour film in my EOS cameras and use modern 'digital' lenses with them.

 

[John Bragg]

You cant go wrong with HP5+ as a general purpose 400 film and Kentmere has a good reputation as well. Both fine products.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[Antigen]

A suggestion, Kentmere vs FOMAPAN?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

A suggestion, Kentmere vs FOMAPAN?

I have used Fomapan 400. I haven't tried Kentmere, but its made by Ilford and I think it would be better. My experience with Fomapan 400 is that it often had issues with ghosting around bright objects because it has poor antihalation backing. That means light goes through the film, bounces off the camera's pressure plate, and hits the film again from behind. I've never had that issue with any Ilford product (or Kodak or Fuji). Fomapan is also rather grainy, but it is sharp looking. Even without having used the Kentmere film, I'd go with it. I use a LOT of ilford film and never have issues with it.

 

[Antigen]

The lady question, for a beginner is better start with 100 or 400 ISO film?

 

[Anon Ymous]

The lady question, for a beginner is better start with 100 or 400 ISO film?

400ISO, because you'll be able to grab some photographs without needing a tripod in poorer light. Apart from that, there's no other benefit. Of course, 400ISO would be coarser grained, but it might not matter at all, or be desirable, depending on taste.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I like both Fomapan 400 and Kentmere 400.
Different films for different things.
For a beginner, just get the cheapest you can find.
The goal is to get you shooting.

Here is Fomapan 400 in Fomadon R09 (Rodinal)
4-15-2016_038 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Enjoy any film!

 

[Antigen]

But at the same price...what do you prefer? Kentmere or Foma?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

As I said: different films for different subjects and different conditions.
At the same price, I would go with Kentmere.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I really like HP5+ for emulsion quality and huge latitude. It is very forgiving on exposure and predictable in developing film.
I don't have luck, yet, to get fine 400 from Kentmere 400 it works as 200 film for me, which is cheap, but still OK film.
Fomapan 400 was one of the most difficult film for me. Not only difficult to get box speed from it, but to develop it properly.

I don't recommend cheapest one to begin with. Get one which is easiest to work with, but no compromises on emulsion. I also don't see big reason to have 400 film for this time of the year where I'm.
With 50 1.8 you'll get it at f5.6 and fast enough shutter speeds with ISO 100. It must be also good wide open and at f2-2.8. I like Kentmere 100 as affordable, but great film for summer time days. And FP4+ is also very nice and more on the classic bw film side.

 

[Antigen]

Some review about the FOMA 200 that i read that is very good and incredibile quality?

I can pay a Kentmere 400/100 near 3 EUR and FOMA 100/200/400 near 3,20 euro

P.S: I ask a comparison about Kentmere and FOMA because i see some image and I find that Kentmere is more sharp and modern, and FOMA are more old film, with a '900 quality and more dark.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5-Plus is my go to film in all formats up to 8x10... I love the look... but I also love TMY-2 in 35 and 120!

 

[jeffreythree]

I use Kentmere 100 a lot, sort of my standard 35mm film. I did not care for the 400 though, and thought I would since I like the 100. I recently fell in love with the look of Foma in my current developer, 510-pyro. It gave me a look similar to what I was getting from some old '80's Tri-X, but with less grain and none of the age fogging. I would boil down the differences as the Kentmere negatives look clean and modern to me while the Foma gives me more of an antique feel. I need to wet print more of the Foma negatives to see how that translates in the darkroom. I believe the Foma 200 is quite a bit different than Foma's 100/400 films, and many consider it a 100 speed film even though it works well at 200 for me.

 

[ColColt]

I think if there's enough light for the apertures you want to use it's hard to beat FP-4 for sharpness and tonal range. Otherwise, I use HP-5 and Tri-X depending which one says, "pick me, pick me!!"

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I believe the Foma 200 is quite a bit different than Foma's 100/400 films

Yes, it is. Please, read the Foma datasheet.
It uses "hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains".

 

[markbarendt]

But at the same price...what do you prefer? Kentmere or Foma?

The question you are asking Antigen is akin to "do you prefer blonds or brunettes?"

Photography is an art.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi to all!

I have an old EOS camera by Canon that i use with my 50mm STM 1.8 lens, i have two question:

- the use of a lens born in the digital era, can cause some lower quality respect to the same 50mm 1.8 from canon but born in 1980 where there is no "digital lens"?

- i see that there are a lot of producers of film, I know only TRI-X by Kodak, but they are little overpriced in my zone, what do you suggest of other cheap producers? Kentmere, FOMA, etc... ?

Thanks very much

If I were you ,I would only buy name -brand film (Alford or Kodak). To save money, be more selective on what and how much to shoot but cheap film is not the answer and a big waste of time.

 

[railwayman3]

I'm always reminded of when I started photography as a schoolboy.....I had some hopeless results from some random cheap film (probably from Woolworths) and was ready to give up photography as an over-rated pastime, My Dad gave me a roll of Ilford 120 (actually it was HP3 then!), saying "try this, you won't go far wrong"...I never did and still use HP5+ as my go-to film ! (Apologies, I know I've told this story numerous times, but without this advice I'd never have had my life-time main hobby of picture-taking.....).

 

[Fixcinater]

I would use Kentmere over Foma as I prefer the newer "look" but that's just me.

I would strongly suggest using fresh, recently purchased film over anything expired until you know what you are going to get. Expired film may be cheaper but can cause headaches that a new film user does not need to add.

 

[M Carter]

Where's the love for Ilford FP4+? That's a really fantastic film when you don't need higher speed (the OP mentioned that) or want to shoot with more open f-stops. I've found it to be a really wonderful film. Very forgiving and very controllable.

 

[trendland]

Yes where is Fp4 today ? It has been seen by one local store last summer.

Agfa APX 100, APX400 are simple films two.

Is it now originally from Kentmere?

Ilford Delta100, it is not the cheapest - sure it is not.

The cheapest film I personaly now is not longer avaible.

152,5 m rolls poypan f !!!! $64,- including shipping.

I got one of the very last rolls/one year before the price has been cut by half.


with regards