Neither Fish Nor Fowl

[Theo Sulphate]

Live view. Oh, wait...


Yeah, f/1.8 -- I think that may have been asked for by the Marketing department: competitor has f/2, we have/1.8 ... or f1.7! I've seen f/1.9, f/1.8, f/1.7, and f/1.5 -- no f/1.6, what's wrong with f/1.6? There's been f/1.4, f/1.2, f/1.1, f/1.0, and f/0.95 -- no f/1.3 that I know of.

Full stop scale: 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, ....

Half stops: 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, 3.3, 4.0, ...

Thirds: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, ...

 

[Kirks518]

Fuji had a 50mm f/1.6.

It's f/1.3 that I believe has never existed.

 

[Arklatexian]

The problem with a 135 lens for portraits is that you cannot get too close or people look like Jimmy Durante or WC Fields.

I often use a 35mm when working in cramped surroundings such as street photography. This focal length does not have the distortion that a 28mm has. Then too it is also available for RF cameras without resorting to a separate viewfinder.

An older Leica 135mm Hektor is my most used 135mm lens. I unscrew the 135mm lens from its focusing mount and screw it into the bellows which is mounted on a Visoflex 1. This allows me to shoot from 1:1 to infinity without removing the lens. The Visoflex 1 also allows me to shoot vertical or horizontal without removing any of the rig from my tripod. Great for nature as well as some portraits though I prefer an older 90mm Elmar for head and shoulder shots even though that lens is not as easy to use with the bellows as the 135. I have found that the answer to the "big nose syndrome" is to use a longer focal length lens so you don't have to sit in the sitter's lap as you would be forced to do with a 50mm or 35mm lens mounted on the camera body......Regards!

 

[Helinophoto]

What about aperture? What's the purpose of f/1.8? Give me f/2 or f/1.4....

The point (for me anyway), is that lenses that are that fast, are usually superb by f2.4-f2.8.
A lens that is f2.8 to begin with, needs to be stopped down to f3.2 or f4 to perform at it's best.

I have the Canon 85 f1.8 and the Canon 50 f1.4 and I usually shoot them both at around f2.4-f2.8 with lovely results.

 

[pdeeh]

gosh people do seem to take these sorts of threads very seriously ... it's as if someone else having a preference is a personal affront to them., or require a formal rebuttal. or both.

 

[baachitraka]

135mm is rather good but to hand hold it needs the shutter speeds > 1/125 and that demands a good light.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The point (for me anyway), is that lenses that are that fast, are usually superb by f2.4-f2.8.
A lens that is f2.8 to begin with, needs to be stopped down to f3.2 or f4 to perform at it's best.
...

I wonder about that. A lens designed for 1.4 or 1.8 has to have compromises in its design in order to have that wide aperture. Usually they're best around 5.6 or 8. A lens designed with maximum aperture of 2.8 might also be best at 5.6 or 8, but because it is an easier design (fewer compromises), at 2.8 and 4 it might be better than the 1.4 lens at those apertures.

Just a theory - I do not know.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder about that. A lens designed for 1.4 or 1.8 has to have compromises in its design in order to have that wide aperture. Usually they're best around 5.6 or 8. A lens designed with maximum aperture of 2.8 might also be best at 5.6 or 8, but because it is an easier design (fewer compromises), at 2.8 and 4 it might be better than the 1.4 lens at those apertures.

Just a theory - I do not know.

It depends on the lens. Look at the MTF curves or try the lens yourself.

 

[Wallendo]

For me it's ISO 200 film. It's not that much faster than 100, and not far from 400 in quality.

That is likely why very little "professional" film is available at that speed. It may be a reasonable compromise, but I'd rather shoot 100 or 400.

 

[frank]

Many of the items/products mentioned as "not making it" are "inbetweeners".

200 speed film between 100 and 400
35mm lens between 28 and 50
135mm lens between 105 and 200
1/2 frame cameras between Minox and 135 full frame

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For focal lengths, the choices are highly personal.

I've taken a zoom, ranging from 28-120, and found that my preferences fall at 35, 50, 85 (based on what I see in the viewfinder, not the setting on the ring).

It takes an act of Congress before I'll use 28mm - anything wider is out of the question. 105mm and 135mm work as well when I'm just walking around looking for shots.

 

[fdonadio]

gosh people do seem to take these sorts of threads very seriously ... it's as if someone else having a preference is a personal affront to them., or require a formal rebuttal. or both.

I can get through a thread like this unharmed... But I have to tell I prefer not to talk about how seriously people take these threads.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I wonder about that. A lens designed for 1.4 or 1.8 has to have compromises in its design in order to have that wide aperture. Usually they're best around 5.6 or 8. A lens designed with maximum aperture of 2.8 might also be best at 5.6 or 8, but because it is an easier design (fewer compromises), at 2.8 and 4 it might be better than the 1.4 lens at those apertures.

Just a theory - I do not know.

One such lens design is the Tessar. However the design is limited to a maximum aperture of f/2.8. I have two; one on a Rollei 35 and the other in a Pentax mount, Both are tack sharp.

 

[Soeren]

4x5" format. Not that much bigger negative than 6x7cm with all the hazle of LF when loading, shooting and developing the sheets + the small ground glass is a pain compared to 8x10" for composition and focus. Its mostly to small for contacts so you still need an enlager which is big as a house. Apart from the lighter camera versions like chamonix 45 series it's more bulk, heavier and more cumbersome than even RZ67PROII

 

[BrianShaw]

Internet photography forums. For as much time as I've wasted on them, the more I realize how much time has been wasted. It's not like any kind of real human interaction I normally have. Ha ha ha.

 

[baachitraka]

True.

 

[benjiboy]

It is a very personal thing.

For me, the field of view of a 35mm lens just seems to match what resonates for me.

I use a bunch of formats, and if I analyze the lenses I own and use, I realize that I have way more wide angle lenses than longer than normal lenses, and I am way more likely to have on my camera something with a field of view equivalent to 35mm on 135.

This was shot with a 35mm:

View attachment 164267

35mm focal length lenses are great for this kind of environmental portrait that shows people in their surroundings, because they have a wider view than a standard lens but still produce minimal distortion.

 

[removed account4]

4x5" format. Not that much bigger negative than 6x7cm with all the hazle of LF when loading, shooting and developing the sheets + the small ground glass is a pain compared to 8x10" for composition and focus. Its mostly to small for contacts so you still need an enlager which is big as a house. Apart from the lighter camera versions like chamonix 45 series it's more bulk, heavier and more cumbersome than even RZ67PROII

please see my previous post
mf BLECh, lf mmm
( less filling ! <----> tastes great ! )

i agree with your suggestion about a bigger ground glass,
i'd hone in on 5x7 if color was not needed, a 5x7 or 7x11 b/w negative is
the perfect aspect ratio kind of like the golden mean. both look fantastic contact printed on 11x14
unfortunately a 7x11 is a bit harder to find, and you need a dedicated 7x11 camera
or reduce down a 11x14 for it to work and a lens might not be cheep-cheep, but 5x7 cameras are
and sometimes less than 100$ shipped ez to come by and often times lenses for
4x5 work fine on a 5x7. but as said b4, the 4x5 graflex slrs are ez as pie to use, perfectly weighted ..

 

[Soeren]

Read that now but sorry you are wrong there
The ground glass thing is THE issue I have with my chamonix 45F1. And then finding a proper darkcloth and loupe for it.

 

[Soeren]

Oh and 6x6. All that cropping. Why not just shoot 645 from the start when that's the amount of negative size youll end up using anyway

 

[removed account4]

lol

i am with you on the 6/6 || 645 thing
regarding your 4x5 ... ... maybe you need one of those
fresnel magnifier pages ( like these or a clear soda bottle filled with water, cheap
reading glasses, or a toyo monocular loupe to enalrger your
ground glass ( i use a rubber hooded toyo monocular loupe )
i can't help you with a proper dark cloth, mine is a 3 dollar piece of black felt i got from the fabric store ... it's just a dark-cloth

 

[Jim Jones]

APS and 620. the answers to the questions no one was asking.

And digital.

The APS would have had some advantages for film processers and a few others if it had caught on. 620 was only good for pocket size cameras, but absurd in the excellent but massive Kodak Medalist.

 

[Soeren]

lol

i am with you on the 6/6 || 645 thing
regarding your 4x5 ... ... maybe you need one of those
fresnel magnifier pages ( like these or a clear soda bottle filled with water, cheap
reading glasses, or a toyo monocular loupe to enalrger your
ground glass ( i use a rubber hooded toyo monocular loupe )
i can't help you with a proper dark cloth, mine is a 3 dollar piece of black felt i got from the fabric store ... it's just a dark-cloth

What? Those magnifiers will work? Ill look into that. Thanks jnanian. Wauv even when playing provocative grumpy old man I learn something new. Turned out to be a good day after all

 

[removed account4]

What? Those magnifiers will work? Ill look into that. Thanks jnanian. Wauv even when playing provocative grumpy old man I learn something new. Turned out to be a good day after all

yes, but you have to hold it in your hand, its not line one of those fresnel thingamabobs you mount on your camera.
personally i like cheap spectacles ... cheap is good ! !
very best light to you in DK
in gloomy RI
john

 

[Soeren]

And to you too in......RI.....
Rode Island