35mm: Qualities of favorite glass for Kodak Tri-X

[multivoiced]

A general discussion is welcome. In particular, I'm also interested in suggestions for M42- and F-mounts (because I happen to have a Pentax Spotmatic SP II and Nikon N75).

I'm curious to know of any suggestions for seeking out lenses exclusively for shooting with 400TX. The following comment got me thinking.

if there was only one film I would shoot people with Tri-X using a mid century optic like a Summicron or Minolta 58/1.2. Need more sharpness than go up in format.

I sense a preference for character or emotion over technical perfection -- unless I am misinterpreting -- which I easily relate to. What other options are worth considering? Can words describe the effect of using old lenses, or at least old lens designs, as Jepsen stated?

 

[xkaes]

The goal(s) has to be better specified. If you want sharpness, Tri-X will give it to you with sharp lenses -- used correctly. None of the four Minolta 58mm lenses meet that criteria -- although they are great for other reasons.

 

[AZD]

Er, any lens? The lens you like most?

I see this pursuit as ultimately being two independent topics: How to process Tri-X the way you want it, and which lens do you like.

Over the years I have used Tri-X in all of my cameras except large format. And… they all look great. Unsurprisingly, each camera/lens also seems to retain its fundamental characteristics when used with other films.

So, I think that will ultimately be the answer: the lens you want or already like for some reason.

The good news is you can get M42 and Nikkor manual focus lenses for cheap, so lots to try out.

If I were to make suggestions though, how about this: Takumar Super-Multi-Coated 50mm f1.4 for the Spotmatic and pre-AI single coated Nikkor 50mm f1.4 for the Nikon. Two very different lenses. The Takumar is one of the finest classic 50mm SLR lenses made, and the Nikkor is competent but quirky. Pretty much everything else will be in between.

 

[Dali]

Don't trust everything you read on the internet.

 

[Paul Howell]

I not sure what Richard Jepsen is referring to, I have used Trix with a wide range of lens, Leica, Canon M39, 28mm to 135mm Retina IIIC, 50mm and 35 and 85add on, Spotmatic 24 to 400, Nikon 28 to 300, Minolta MD and A mount, 24 to 600 with late model zooms. Nikon 28 to 300, Konica AE mount 28 to 300, and others, I found that given the age and design of the lens all are capable of excellent results with Trix. For 50mm, the Konica 50 1.7 is one of the sharpest lens with Microfish film reslvoes over 300LPM. The 1.2 may not be as sharp as the 1,7 but has great tones. I have never had a bad Nikkor lens, all are great. My Pentax lens M42 and K work well with TriX. But, in general most computer aided designed lens with modern coating will out perform lens that are now 70 years old. When I looked at the current Trix data sheet (2016) I noticed that Kodak is no longer providing resloution in lines per milameter or grain size. As I recall Trix was reported to have 95LPM, Tmax 400 125 and Tmax 100 200 LPM, so any lens that will reslove 95LMP is as sharp as you need for Trix. A current lens with moderns coating will have improved contrast. So if you like a looks that is bit lower in contrast then an older lens. If you shoot Tmax 200 in Nikon Mount, then a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens will beat any older lens.

 

[multivoiced]

I love the discussion so far. Thank you. And I'm glad you guys brought up sharpness, because it's a sticking point for shooting human beings and their skin. However, I only know it to be a digital problem. I will be careful not to assume that Tri-X can show skin imperfections as happens often with digital cameras. Opinions are welcomed.

When starting this thread, I sort of imagined a trade-off between technical excellence and optical character. While I think this trade-off can sometimes occur with digital cameras, I just don't know enough yet about black and white film. I got exciting results from 400TX just in an old Pentax point-and-shoot. I still lack any point of reference for understanding how Tri-X performs with carefully chosen lenses.

 

[mshchem]

50mm 1.4 Super or SMC Takumar lenses are fabulous. My first serious camera was a used SP 500, eventually I ended up with a 50 1.4, wonderful camera and lens.

 

[chuckroast]

A general discussion is welcome. In particular, I'm also interested in suggestions for M42- and F-mounts (because I happen to have a Pentax Spotmatic SP II and Nikon N75).

I'm curious to know of any suggestions for seeking out lenses exclusively for shooting with 400TX. The following comment got me thinking.



I sense a preference for character or emotion over technical perfection -- unless I am misinterpreting -- which I easily relate to. What other options are worth considering? Can words describe the effect of using old lenses, or at least old lens designs, as Jepsen stated?

I'm surprised, because a mid-century (aka 1950s) Summicron is going to be sharp, but relatively lower contrast to later lenses from Leica as well as most other manufacturers.

I have shot Tri-X in it's various incarnations (it's changed over history) in every format from 35mm to 4x5. Since you asked about F mount lenses, my favorites in this family are (note that I only shoot monochrome film, I've no idea how these do with color):

20mm f/2.8 AIS
24mm f/2.8 AIS (mine is in AI, but I don't think it much matters)
35mm f/1.4 AIS
85mm f/1.5 AIS
105mm f/2.5 AIS
180mm f/2.8 Nikkor-P (I'm sure the newer AI and AIS variants are all great too)

I think you find all of these sharp and contrasty when you used appropriately.

I don't think brand alone makes that much difference. The specific lenses within a brand do, but that's got pretty much nothing to do with Tri-X specifically. The Nikkor 43-86mm zoom is a piece of garbage on any kind of film. But, the lenses listed above are great on every film I have ever tried. Similarly, I'm not fond of older Leica optics because I find them too low contrast for my tastes. But everything I've tried of theirs from the 1970s onward has been superb in my experience, irrespective of film. Even the older LTM Color-Skopars do a shockingly good job.


In any case, I am not sure what "qualities of glass" or "optical character" even mean. Is it sharpness? Contrast? Bokeh? With modern optics from Nikon (or Leica, or Canon, or ...) there may be some lenses that are better in these regards than others, but overall, they are all going to be terrific. My experience is that the "look" of Tri-X you get has a lot more to do with how the film is processed and the developer used than the lens (noting that things like edge-to-edge sharpness and bokeh do play a role).

I think this often gets overworked as a concern. I know people who will go on and on (and on and on and on ...) about how their Voigtlander in an F mount is the sharpest lens ever made and will be happy to demostrate this on a 40 Mpix digisnapper shooting something across the street. But when you look at their actual pictures, they are boring beyond words. Your vision and execution matter more than anything else.

 

[reddesert]

Ideally, a proper lens for Tri-X would have gray and yellow aperture/focus scale markings to match the box colors. Lenses with purple and yellow markings are more suited to Plus-X, and those with green numbering are good for Fuji Acros. If the markings are plain white, Ilford makes a variety of suitable B&W films.

I don't really know Richard Jepsen's intentions with his remark. I will speculate that what he was thinking was that Tri-X is a little grainier and has slightly less resolving power than finer-grained or slower speed B&W films, so he was thinking about using a midcentury fast lens rather than worrying about the extra resolution a slightly later, probably multicoated lens might deliver. My opinion is that good prime lenses are all pretty good at f/5.6 anyway. So unless you are dogmatic about always shooting wide open, it's worth spending time thinking about subject, composition, exposure, focus technique, etc rather than the specific name of the lens.

 

[MattKing]

Absent some very particular demands - e.g. document storage or extreme pint enlargement - there really isn't any particular reason why certain lenses might work better with Tri-X than other lenses. It is a very flexible film!

 

[koraks]

I sense a preference for character or emotion over technical perfection -- unless I am misinterpreting -- which I easily relate to.

I can sort of see what this is about, and it seems sensible to an extent. In a lens, one might appreciate the way it renders out of focus areas, or things like very mild coma ('glow'). And I can also see how someone might like how this combines with certain aspects of how a film renders a scene in terms of curve shape and granularity. These are factors that are difficult to operationalize and it's often even difficult to get on the same page when discussing such intricacies and subtleties. I would encourage a discussion that would involve (1) example images and (2) attempts that identify or clarify what it is that the poster likes in that particular image. Perhaps that way things can become more tangible.

 

[xkaes]

When starting this thread, I sort of imagined a trade-off between technical excellence and optical character. While I think this trade-off can sometimes occur with digital cameras, I just don't know enough yet about black and white film. I got exciting results from 400TX just in an old Pentax point-and-shoot. I still lack any point of reference for understanding how Tri-X performs with carefully chosen lenses.

You're still not saying what you want to achieve. If you want an "understanding how Tri-X performs with carefully chosen lenses." just test it with the lenses -- but you'll still have to know what you are looking for in order to run the tests.

 

[loccdor]

Very versatile film. You can get a wide variety of image types from it. Use it with any lens. It doesn't hold up great to expiration in my experience, much better to shoot it fresh.

Some examples with lenses of different eras from oldest to newest. These are all 35mm full frame. Some M42 included.


1965 M42 Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Rodinal stand development 1+100 1 hour @400

1973 Canon FD 135mm f/2.5, HC-110 dilution H @400

1980 Olympus XA2 Zuiko 35mm f/3.5, Diafine @1250

1985? M42 Promaster 70-210mm f/3.8, Rodinal stand development 1+100 1 hour @400

1991 Canon EF 100mm f/2 with extension tube, film expired 2013 @200, 510-pyro stand development 1+300 1 hour

As you see, it can be anything under the sun. It's almost never a bad choice.

 

[retina_restoration]

I still lack any point of reference for understanding how Tri-X performs with carefully chosen lenses.

There is nearly zero relationship between the "performance" of any film and the lens you choose to work with. Film "performs" as designed to, and as you use it, IE: how it's exposed and developed and printed/scanned.
Use the film you want to use, and the lenses you have. Test them and see what you like/dislike, then modify your technique to get what you want. It's erroneous to think that there's an "optimal" combination to be had.

 

[BrianShaw]

Given that Tri-X and M42 and F lenses have existed and been used considerably for decades, if there was a “magic bullet combination” it would have been known long before the advent of digital photography.

Perhaps a PM to @Richard Jepsen would be a better way to understand the comment.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The shadows drop pretty hard in typical Tri-X work. I've been mostly a large format guy for a long time, but coveted the look of my old Kodachromes taken with the screw mount lens of my old Pentax H1a. I recently tried to replicate that more open look with my Nikon FM2n, and stumbled into an old single-coated 50/2 S already Ai'd and in perfect condition. Just what I needed. Not as harsh and clinical as more modern lenses, but still plenty sharp for any kind of snapshooting purpose. I only shoot TX once in awhile, more often in 6X9 format. But when you need it, you need it. It has it's own look.

 

[Paul Howell]

I love the discussion so far. Thank you. And I'm glad you guys brought up sharpness, because it's a sticking point for shooting human beings and their skin. However, I only know it to be a digital problem. I will be careful not to assume that Tri-X can show skin imperfections as happens often with digital cameras. Opinions are welcomed.

When starting this thread, I sort of imagined a trade-off between technical excellence and optical character. While I think this trade-off can sometimes occur with digital cameras, I just don't know enough yet about black and white film. I got exciting results from 400TX just in an old Pentax point-and-shoot. I still lack any point of reference for understanding how Tri-X performs with carefully chosen lenses.

Trxi is very good for skin tones, in D76 stock a fine combinations. In terms of lens, in Nikon or Pentax M42 the 105 2.5 or 2.8 along with 85 1.9 are great lens for Portraits. At 95LPM Trix is less likely to show skin imprefections than Tmax 400 or 100. In terms of skin imprefections I would think about Foma 400, at 95LPM is is a bit softer in terms of detail than Trix, had nice tones, works well with most develoers, but although rated at ISO 400 by Foma is actulaly more like an ISO 200. Foma rated at 200 in Xtol I think would be a great combo.

 

[JensH]

Well, I never have used TX in 135... but often in 120.
It is a great film for vintage Rolleiflexes, like my Originals with the preferred f/4.5 7.5cm uncoated Tessar.
I guess a pre war f/3.5 5cm Tessar or Leitz Elmar would work very well, too.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

interested in suggestions for M42

As for M42 lenses and regarding...

stumbled into an old single-coated 50/2 S already Ai'd [...] Not as harsh and clinical as more modern lenses, but still plenty sharp for any kind of snapshooting purpose.

... I'd recommend old Carl Zeiss Jena lenses from the 50s or 60s.

I suppose that at least the 135 mm Sonnar might produce pictures of fine character. I myself only have an uncoated Jena Sonnar from 1937 and a coated Zeiss-Opton both for Contax RF (and love them both - it seems to me that they have got a nice kind of working with sharp contrasts) but I suppose that an M42 post-war Sonnar from Jena might produce similar pretty results.

There are also for example Biotar 58 mm f/2 (have one for my Exaktas), Tessar 50 mm f/2.8, Flektogon 35 mm f/2.8, Biometar 80 mm f/2.8 and 120 mm f/2.8 ... and of course Sonnar 180 mm f/2.8.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's interesting. But I shoot 35mm only intermittently, and TX rarely. And I like the color rendering too I get with that old mid-60's single-coated Nikkor S 50/2. I really only need that plus my 85/1.4 Ai for all my 35mm casual snapshooting needs. Technical work on the copystand is a different subject. And if I have a tripod along, it's MF or larger.

 

[laservampire]

If sharpness is what you're after, you can't beat a Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 or the Nikkor-H 50mm f2.

 

[multivoiced]

The wisdom in this forum is incredible. I'm still digesting the insights shared here.

If sharpness is what you're after, you can't beat a Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 or the Nikkor-H 50mm f2.

I don't know if sharpness is all that important, especially knowing what it can reveal on human skin. Some of the best (or most historically recognized) photographs ever made were not sharp. But I am open-minded about it.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I sense a preference for character or emotion over technical perfection -- unless I am misinterpreting -- which I easily relate to.

While your choice of film and lens can contribute to the character and emotion of a photograph, I believe that contribution is so small, it almost negligible. Subject, light, exposure, framing, and composition are vastly more significant in their contribution to the character and emotion of a photograph.

 

[Sanug]

While your choice of film and lens can contribute to the character and emotion of a photograph, I believe that contribution is so small, it almost negligible. Subject, light, exposure, framing, and composition are vastly more significant in their contribution to the character and emotion of a photograph.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

Great craftsmen can be pretty darn picky about their tools.