First color roll after CLA

[pbromaghin]

Here are lab scans of some shots from the first roll of Portra through my Zeiss Ikonta 521/16 after a fresh CLA. All exposures were taken using Mark-I Eyeball Sunny 16 light meter. It's nice to finally know the real shutter speed.

I'd really like some comments and tips for improving the use of this cameras attributes and/or working around its limitations. Of course, the photographer's (lack of) skill is fair game.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Looks great!

Jeff

 

[Klainmeister]

Did you have a filter on there? I see darkening in the corners.

Those littler cameras are great. My word of advice is to stay between f/8-f/16 for sharpest and opening it up for pictures of people or a somewhat softer look. Getting a fully multicoated filter helps too since those older lenses are prone to flare.

 

[pbromaghin]

Klainmeister - No filter, but that's a great idea because I have learned to keep far away from the sun and to shade the lens if I can't. Maybe a ND? And in the case of using Portra during the day, it pretty much has to stay around f16 because the fastest shutter speed is between 1/250 and 1/300. Hmmm. An ND might help to bring in a little exposure flexibility too. I wonder if they can be found in Series VI.

 

[pbromaghin]

Thanks, Jeff.

 

[Klainmeister]

For daylight, yeah, maybe a nice coated ND would do the trick. I just remember...and lord knows if I still have them lying around.... putting a nice HMC filter on mine and saw a dramatic difference in color, contrast and haze from that camera. Is it the Tessar? At the time, I was using mine for BW with Plus-x and no filter, shooting at f/8 or so with beautifully smooth skins and just enough center sharpness to give a really effective portrait. I then started filtering and took it backpacking and have a shot, which I will post whence I get off work, that was taken with Velvia 50 and it's quite amazing actually. I love these cameras.

 

[pbromaghin]

Tessar? Sometimes I wish it were, but I don't shoot much wide open where it shines. This is the simpler Novar. A UV filter would probably be a very good thing, so that's been added to my list for the Denver swap meet this weekend.

I did shoot a roll of Velvia last fall and it was pretty disastrous. I had thought the lens just didn't handle color properly. From this test it's pretty obvious it was the photographer's fault.

The first B&W roll (Tmax 400) is waiting for time to process it. It has shots comparing the same scene with no filter vs green, yellow and red. I hope it won't be too grievous a violation to include a digital color shot for reference.

It has Pan F in it now so there will be some tests with wider apertures in the future.

 

[Klainmeister]

The Novar is still quite a fine lens. I just wouldn't expect miracles from it. I'd love to see the filter test.

 

[Argenticien]

I did shoot a roll of Velvia last fall and it was pretty disastrous. I had thought the lens just didn't handle color properly. From this test it's pretty obvious it was the photographer's fault.

I've loved most Velvia shots that most people have shared on flickr. However, I wonder if for each of those there are 35 other shots that got binned. Velvia is, as every posting everywhere has warned, absolutely intolerant of misexposure (underexposure especially). I have tried only a handful of rolls (in meterless cameras, which isn't helping) and never got it right. Probably I should either give up, or go burn through a furlong of Velvia to learn it. It doesn't seem conducive to the middle ground of occasional dabbling. I am keen because one oft-stated benefit of Velvia is that its outrageous oversaturation compensates for the undersaturated color rendering of these old uncoated lenses, to end you back at pleasant color. (I have a similar ZI folder that would benefit.)

--Dave

 

[Klainmeister]

Look about the scene long and hard, realize the middle gray and meter it. Now, meter the highest, brightest spot in the scene. If it more than 3-4 stops above the middle, adjust one down or more accordingly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What you posted appears to have vignetting in the corners. Is that an artifact of scanning or is it on the negatives?

Other than that question, it looks great!

Enjoy!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I know how you feel. I sent in a Super Ikonta IV which my girl friend gave me for CLA. Ran my first roll and it was just grand. The selenium meter still works too. It's compact and the lens is sharp. Enjoy!

 

[pbromaghin]

Sirius, the vignetting is the camera. It doesn't happen at all apertures, but I never kept close-enough track of it to remember when it goes away. This whole roll was shot at f16 because iso 400 is just a bit too fast for the top speed of 1/300. I'm looking forward to finishing up the panf that's in it now to get a better idea of how other apertures affect it. I'm thinking this camera might work best with iso 100 film.

 

[pbromaghin]

Maniac - this Ikonta has made me look longingly at the Super Ikontas, especially the 534 that was at the end of the line. Somebody has posted some really nice stuff on here using it. Flickr, too.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Didn't know what I had

Maniac - this Ikonta has made me look longingly at the Super Ikontas, especially the 534 that was at the end of the line. Somebody has posted some really nice stuff on here using it. Flickr, too.

My girlfriend handed me a box of old camera gear and I found his dad's old Super Ikonta. I didn't even know how to open the folder. I told Frances that it's a "Rubik's camera" because it was a puzzle to open. When I did, it opened up like a beautiful blooming flower. I found the focusing mechanism was stiff, and didn't know how accurate the shutter is. I sent it in to Essex photo repair for a CLA. I shot with it a couple of weeks ago and made some enlargements. A gorgeous camera. I didn't know it was Zeiss's last Ikonta. From what Frances told me, his dad in the 80's fell into using easier 35mm cameras. I don't think the Japanese 35mm camera lenses aren't as sharp. I've shot with Canon FD lenses for over 30 years and there's no comparison.

 

[pbromaghin]

Here's one from a couple years ago. Delta 100 in DD-X, I think, and probably around f5.6 or f8. Notice the absence of vignetting. The high-res version shows wonderful detail in the jewelry.



Edit to add: I really like the well-mannered bokeh. It just softens into a completely non-distracting blur.

 

[MattKing]

Here's one from a couple years ago. Delta 100 in DD-X, I think, and probably around f5.6 or f8. Notice the absence of vignetting. The high-res version shows wonderful detail in the jewelry.

View attachment 50346

Edit to add: I really like the well-mannered bokeh. It just softens into a completely non-distracting blur.

Maybe it is just me, but I seem to see vignetting in at least 3 of the corners.

But I agree about the rest.

 

[Klainmeister]

Kinda odd, my Super Ikonta never had issues with vignetting. I'd get out of focus areas in the corners due to the lens design, but never darkened. Hmmmm.

If you do ever find yourself in a position to pick one up with the Tessar, the 6x9 format is AMAZING coming from 35mm and 6x6.

 

[pbromaghin]

Matt King - I can't decide in this particular case if the darkening in the bottom corners is vignetting or if it is because there are objects there to cause shadow as seen under his cart. If it is vignetting, it is much less pronounced than in the other shots. I haven't shot it enough to know just how it behaves, but the vignetting you see in the OP is about as bad as I've experienced.

Klainmeister - The Super Ikontas really are very different cameras. I would like a 6x9, but I'll need a new enlarger. When you consider the cropping needed for usual print dimensions, the 6x6 is really closer to 645, so that 50% larger negative is closer to effectively double in usable size.

Funny, but at $100 this camera was the cheapest entry that I could find into medium format, so I'll gladly accept it's limitations. It is just too fun to use.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Here's a shot with my Ikonta. Sometimes, the left edge is darkish.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mainecoonmaniac/5209993221/in/photostream

Here's the camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mainecoonmaniac/5204075341/in/photostream

I think if you can find one for under $300, it's a steal.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

The tessar is quite amazing. Mine has bad fungus over it, even so it grabs great detail. Mine does not vignette. Internet is down so I'm on my phone and can't upload examples.

 

[PaulMD]

I have a 521/16 with the fast f/3.5 Novar. I don't think I would shoot it wide open unless as a last resort, because of both the optics and the difficulty of hitting focus with that depth of field. Nevertheless, from f/5.6 on down it's a pretty sweet performer. Certainly not as good as the Tessar versions, but at least as enlargeable as a nice 35mm lens. It's also extremely pocketable, and because it was so cheap I take it places I would not take an expensive setup.

 

[Diapositivo]

I did shoot a roll of Velvia last fall and it was pretty disastrous. I had thought the lens just didn't handle color properly. From this test it's pretty obvious it was the photographer's fault.

For slide film I would suggest you upgrade your Mark-I Eyeball Sunny 16 light meter (which is generally sufficiently accurate with negative) with Any Brand can Work SBC incident light meter. Your results will miraculously upgrade from pretty disastrous to pretty well exposed as well

 

[pbromaghin]

For slide film I would suggest you upgrade your Mark-I Eyeball Sunny 16 light meter (which is generally sufficiently accurate with negative) with Any Brand can Work SBC incident light meter. Your results will miraculously upgrade from pretty disastrous to pretty well exposed as well

Good advice. I intentionally have never used a meter when shooting this camera. I am trying to improve the Mark-I Eyeball. It was a bad idea to do it with Velvia, though.