• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

50mm vs. 50mm

Latest Gallery

Somewhere...

D
Somewhere...

  • 5
  • 2
  • 91
Iriana

H
Iriana

  • 7
  • 1
  • 156

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,750
Messages
2,845,039
Members
101,498
Latest member
Hansue
Recent bookmarks
1
Most lenses have out of focus characteristics that change quite a bit when you compare wide-open to one stop-down. You'll have to see what you like personally as it relates to your photography. Two different lenses at f/2, with one of them being a faster lens, will be two different animals if blurry backgrounds are a big part of your images.
 
Well the -cron is gone now, so no comparing possible anymore.
 
And the -lux is in the clinic and hopefully back soon with a new lease of life.
 
RezaLoghme said:
I’m debating the real-world differences between the Leica 50mm Summilux-M stopped down to f/2.0 and the Leica 50mm Summicron-M shot wide open at f/2.0.

Specifically, when viewing images on a high-resolution screen at 100% zoom, how noticeable are the differences in:

  • Sharpness (center vs. edges)
  • Contrast and micro-contrast
  • Bokeh quality and rendering
  • Color rendition and tonal character
Is the Summicron noticeably crisper and more clinical, while the Summilux delivers a warmer, more “organic” look? Or are these distinctions subtle enough to be negligible for most practical uses?

Would appreciate any real-world experience or sample comparisons if you have them.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

If you really, really care for getting the maximum sharpness and micro-contrast, you should shoot medium format.

Don't lose your time with 35mm if ultimate sharpness and resolution is what you want. Even 6x4.5 will blow the socks off 35mm in those parameters.

Shoot a leica rangefinder if you want speed of operation, compactness and light weight.
 
flavio81 said:
If you really, really care for getting the maximum sharpness and micro-contrast, you should shoot medium format.

Don't lose your time with 35mm if ultimate sharpness and resolution is what you want. Even 6x4.5 will blow the socks off 35mm in those parameters.

Shoot a leica rangefinder if you want speed of operation, compactness and light weight.
Click to expand...

That used to be true, but 35mm T-Max 100 semistand developed in Pyrocat-HD is very nearly what I'd expect from MF.
 
mshchem said:
I don't find this to be. TMX in 35mm is amazing, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

The microcontrast and sharpness approach a good many MF systems. At 8x10 print size, I doubt you can tell the difference reliably, maybe even at 11x14. It all depends on print size and viewing distance.

So, sure, if you compare it to a 'Blad negative enlarged to wall size, you'll see the difference. But in real world viewing situations, the difference is very small if you create the negative properly.

I didn't believe it either until I shot some 35mm TMX and semistand developed it in Pyrocat-HDC. The results were jaw dropping - like nothing I've ever seen from a small negative like this in the past.
 
chuckroast said:
The microcontrast and sharpness approach a good many MF systems. At 8x10 print size, I doubt you can tell the difference reliably, maybe even at 11x14. It all depends on print size and viewing distance.

So, sure, if you compare it to a 'Blad negative enlarged to wall size, you'll see the difference. But in real world viewing situations, the difference is very small if you create the negative properly.

I didn't believe it either until I shot some 35mm TMX and semistand developed it in Pyrocat-HDC. The results were jaw dropping - like nothing I've ever seen from a small negative like this in the past.
Click to expand...

In that case, you should try have fun with 120 :smile:.
Resized of course for Photrio.
Chomp

Chomp

Thanks to @photob , I got to try out his 24mm fisheye lens for the Mamiya 645 system...
Just don't complain when you are trying to use the grain magnifier under the enlarger. :smile:
 
RezaLoghme said:
And the -lux is in the clinic and hopefully back soon with a new lease of life.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can go back to topic.

Still not back. Will see how it works on my M bodies..
 
Last edited:
MattKing said:
In that case, you should try have fun with 120 :smile:.
Resized of course for Photrio.
Chomp

Chomp

Thanks to @photob , I got to try out his 24mm fisheye lens for the Mamiya 645 system...
Just don't complain when you are trying to use the grain magnifier under the enlarger. :smile:
Click to expand...

Haha - it's already a pain with 35mm. I can't wait to try it with my 120 and 4x5 stock in the freezer waiting to be used.

Nice image, BTW.

I will say that TMX and TMY definitely have their own look. TMX doesn't look anything like Plus-X or Agfapan 100, and TMY definitely doesn't look like Tri-X.
 
RezaLoghme said:
Arent you a Mamiya expert, what do you think about the "Press" models
Click to expand...

I think that is a reasonable question, but probably deserves to be in another thread - in the medium format sub-forum.
And while I'm quite familiar with lots in the Mamiya MF ecosystem, the Press cameras aren't among those I have worked with.
 
chuckroast said:
I didn't believe it either until I shot some 35mm TMX and semistand developed it in Pyrocat-HDC. The results were jaw dropping - like nothing I've ever seen from a small negative like this in the past.
Click to expand...

How do you mean that? Microtonal?
 
chuckroast said:
That used to be true, but 35mm T-Max 100 semistand developed in Pyrocat-HD is very nearly what I'd expect from MF.
Click to expand...

...that's because you have not tried Tmax 100 or Acros 100 on Medium Format...
 
chuckroast said:
The microcontrast and sharpness approach a good many MF systems. At 8x10 print size, I doubt you can tell the difference reliably
Click to expand...

I disagree. Even at 8x10" (OPTICAL PRINT, not silly digital prints) you can see the difference. Even moreso using color film (and real optical prints).

I can easily identify the 8x10" prints i made with my 6x7 gear versus 8x10" made with 35mm gear, of which I have many.

I love my 35mm cameras and indeed TMX or Delta 100 or Acros gives much better results than conventional films, but MF still looks better and sharper, mainly because the combined MTF (modulation transfer function) of the system(*) is far higher.

(*) System = lens + film + enlarger lens

Now, if we are going to compare doing average quality flatbed scanning, my medium format negatives, scanned by a crappy Epson flatbed, are inferior to 35mm negatives scanned using a DSLR and macro lens. But that's not fault of the format!
 
flavio81 said:
I disagree. Even at 8x10" (OPTICAL PRINT, not silly digital prints) you can see the difference. Even moreso using color film (and real optical prints).

I can easily identify the 8x10" prints i made with my 6x7 gear versus 8x10" made with 35mm gear, of which I have many.

I love my 35mm cameras and indeed TMX or Delta 100 or Acros gives much better results than conventional films, but MF still looks better and sharper, mainly because the combined MTF (modulation transfer function) of the system(*) is far higher.

(*) System = lens + film + enlarger lens

Now, if we are going to compare doing average quality flatbed scanning, my medium format negatives, scanned by a crappy Epson flatbed, are inferior to 35mm negatives scanned using a DSLR and macro lens. But that's not fault of the format!
Click to expand...

I thought MF lenses are slower than 35mm lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom