[Pentaxis]

Out of all that lot I've got a Helios-44 which came with my Zenit-E which I bought with my first pay packet when I had a summer job delivering pop (soda) in 1977 before I went up to university. The filter ring still has the dent from when my camera fell off the back of a moving moped on Corfu when I was "doing Inter-rail". I've still got the lens and occasionally use it on my K3 just for the hell of it. The Zenit-E actually survived the high speed (stop laughing) ejection from the moped except for the light meter which never moved again. I went through a year or so of guessing exposure values (always a good learning experience, f11 at 1/125 can get you far) before I spent some of my grant money on a Leningrad light meter (still works, no battery). I made up for the lack of photographic kit by having access to the university's darkroom with unlimited chemicals, unlimited because I seemed to be the only person who used it (top academic uni, nothing arty farty or practical you see). I think it is now called "heuristics" but forty years ago it was called "trial and error" or "making it up as you go along", I did have an "A" level in chemistry which helped a bit but not much.

Ah, a kindred spirit!

I got my Zenith E second hand for twenty quid, in 1968, a decade before you did, and most commonly guessed my exposures, despite the selenium meter on the camera (I used mainly Ilford FP4 and processed my own). Even when using colour negative film I could guess pretty accurately.

As I think you will agree, the Helios lens gave an image character that was markedly different to the contemporary Pentax Takumar, Nikon and Minolta lenses. All these were much more expensive than the Russian lens. In my view, and in retrospect, despite my affection for the Helios, in terms of optical and mechanical quality, it is like comparing an ugly duckling to swans. The Pentax-M lenses I now own (bought second hand again) are silky smooth to manually focus: the Helios I owned had a very noticeable degree of mechanical backlash and the coatings were much more basic. (Probably single layer coating of MgF, compared to the multi coatings on the Pentax-M lenses.)

Still, it's all fascinating stuff and I do believe it's the man and not the gear that makes for a good photograph. Thanks for your interesting posting.

[timb64]

Still, it's all fascinating stuff and I do believe it's the man and not the gear that makes for a good photograph. Thanks for your interesting posting.

So true,the analogy for me is with guitarists.David Gilmour says its in the fingers not the equipment,and when you hear what someone like Seasick Steve can do with a cobbled together bunch of old rubbish you can see what he means!

[Cuthbert]

Amateurs worry about equipment.
Professionals worry about money.
Masters worry about light.

Photographers worry about pictures.

Out of all that lot I've got a Helios-44 which came with my Zenit-E which I bought with my first pay packet when I had a summer job delivering pop (soda) in 1977 before I went up to university. The filter ring still has the dent from when my camera fell off the back of a moving moped on Corfu when I was "doing Inter-rail". I've still got the lens and occasionally use it on my K3 just for the hell of it. The Zenit-E actually survived the high speed (stop laughing) ejection from the moped except for the light meter which never moved again. I went through a year or so of guessing exposure values (always a good learning experience, f11 at 1/125 can get you far) before I spent some of my grant money on a Leningrad light meter (still works, no battery). I made up for the lack of photographic kit by having access to the university's darkroom with unlimited chemicals, unlimited because I seemed to be the only person who used it (top academic uni, nothing arty farty or practical you see). I think it is now called "heuristics" but forty years ago it was called "trial and error" or "making it up as you go along", I did have an "A" level in chemistry which helped a bit but not much.

To be honest I find these discussion about sharpness stupid, and the latest lens have such a sterile look that I prefer vintage gear.

I don't have a Zenit E but years ago I bought a 12 XP with a Helios 44m-4. With this gear and a yellow filter I took this picture:



My then landlord saw it and begged me to get an enlarged print, I went to the photographic shop and asked to stretch as much as they could, they couldn't make it bigger than 60cm x 40cm. When I went to retire the print the kid in the shop asked me how many megapixels my camera had.

That is the only picture for which I have been paid so far.

[zapp]

Hello fellow Pentax lovers,


In this week's Amateur Photographer magazine (23 July 2016 UK) there is a major article about "sharpness" in photography. In part of the article the sharpest lens (by DXOMARK) are listed for each major make of camera, below is the list for Pentax:

Top lenses under £2,000.

1. Sigma 35mm f1/4 DG HSM Art
2. Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM
3. Pentax HD DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Ltd
4. Samyang 85mm f/1.4 Asph IF
5. Pentax SMC DA 50mm f/1.8
6. Pentax SMC D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro
7. Pentax SMC FA 50mm f/1.4

The article is an interesting read and in the conclusion says that "if it's out and out sharpness you're after, it's still better to buy primes", but it also goes on to say "moderrn zooms are very good indeed, and noticeably better than those made 10 or 20 years ago". The conclusion also says that "on the whole you get what you pay for" but goes on to say "it's still possible for enthusiast photographers to get excellent results from some comparatively inexpensive primes" , noting the Pentax 35mm f/2.4 in particular.

Perhaps not a surprising conclusion but still interesting. If anybody is interested I can scan the Pentax section of the article and post it here (if that is allowed).

Nick

what's the best lens over £2000?

[Nickrs]

Photographers worry about pictures.



To be honest I find these discussion about sharpness stupid, and the latest lens have such a sterile look that I prefer vintage gear.

I don't have a Zenit E but years ago I bought a 12 XP with a Helios 44m-4. With this gear and a yellow filter I took this picture:



My then landlord saw it and begged me to get an enlarged print, I went to the photographic shop and asked to stretch as much as they could, they couldn't make it bigger than 60cm x 40cm. When I went to retire the print the kid in the shop asked me how many megapixels my camera had.

That is the only picture for which I have been paid so far.

Is that the famous walkie-talkie building that melted cars?

---------- Post added 07-23-16 at 03:27 PM ----------

what's the best lens over £2000?

Beyond my ken!

[Nickrs]

Here's a photo taken in 1978 with my Helios 44 on my Zenit-E of an old university friend writing an essay, I vaguely recall he was not chuffed about being disturbed. Also developed and printed by mine own hand nearly forty years ago so it is a bit dog-eared. It appears my point of focus was his hair for some unknown reason and I would have estimated (guessed) the exposure, but even though the image is anything but sharp it remains one of my favourites. I lost contact with the subject after we left college, he became a psychologist I think.

[Cuthbert]

Here's a photo taken in 1978 with my Helios 44 on my Zenit-E of an old university friend writing an essay, I vaguely recall he was not chuffed about being disturbed. Also developed and printed by mine own hand nearly forty years ago so it is a bit dog-eared. It appears my point of focus was his hair for some unknown reason and I would have estimated (guessed) the exposure, but even though the image is anything but sharp it remains one of my favourites. I lost contact with the subject after we left college, he became a psychologist I think.

Indeed it's a VERY good picture.

Is that the famous walkie-talkie building that melted cars? [COLOR="Silver"]

Yes indeed! I like that building, as I like the missile in the City.

[Nickrs]

Apparently the phenomenon of a glass façade focusing solar infra-red onto a point with spectacular consequences is known and the architects concerned may have been a bit remiss.

[timb64]

Photographers worry about pictures.



To be honest I find these discussion about sharpness stupid, and the latest lens have such a sterile look that I prefer vintage gear.

I don't have a Zenit E but years ago I bought a 12 XP with a Helios 44m-4. With this gear and a yellow filter I took this picture:



My then landlord saw it and begged me to get an enlarged print, I went to the photographic shop and asked to stretch as much as they could, they couldn't make it bigger than 60cm x 40cm. When I went to retire the print the kid in the shop asked me how many megapixels my camera had.

That is the only picture for which I have been paid so far.

And your argument is against sharp lenses?!That looks the definition of a sharp image.

[Nickrs]

And your argument is against sharp lenses?!That looks the definition of a sharp image.

I think Cuthbert had drifted off sharpness and onto the Helios-44, which was probably my fault, I still love his picture though and agree it is very sharp. In fact I might get my Helios-44 out tomorrow, I have a fancy to photograph some bees.

[Cuthbert]

And your argument is against sharp lenses?!That looks the definition of a sharp image.

My argument is that most of the lenses of the film era are sharp enough.

Excessive sharpness of the new "digital" lenses are counterproductive as they create sterile images.

For the record the Helios 44m-4 was rated by the Soviets with are resolution of 41 lines/mm in the centre and 20 in the corners, they improved that lens until the Mk7 reached 50/30, similar to the Zenitar 50mm f1.9.

Do you need more?

I think Cuthbert had drifted off sharpness and onto the Helios-44, which was probably my fault, I still love his picture though and agree it is very sharp. In fact I might get my Helios-44 out tomorrow, I have a fancy to photograph some bees.

Yes that's the point, other examples of sharp pictures from old lenses:

1962 Industar 61 with Leica IIIb, BW400CN:



(I didn't even meter this shot)



CZJ Sonnar 200mm f2.8 wide open, Praktica VLC3, XP2



Flektogon 35mm f2.4, Praktica BX20, XP2...a guy in the film forum said this is a good lens but soft at the corners.

So the point is...can these newer lenses make better pictures than these? Are they sharp enough?

Also, I don't use PP, the scans are from a minilab....what you see is what you get.

[timb64]

My argument is that most of the lenses of the film era are sharp enough.




So the point is...can these newer lenses make better pictures than these? Are they sharp enough?

Also, I don't use PP, the scans are from a minilab....what you see is what you get.

Yep,you're right we should all throw away our modern lenses and source classic film era glass,(head slap!)
You defeat your own argument by stating modern lenses lead to "sterile" sharp images,but,by the way I can achieve them with my legacy lenses anyway??

[Cuthbert]

Yep,you're right we should all throw away our modern lenses and source classic film era glass,(head slap!)

No keep on spending thousands of £/$/euros on new lenses that are better and are sharper!

[Nickrs]

Perhaps excessive sharpness comes into it's own when an image is radically cropped? With the ever increasing pixel count of modern DSLRs there is the temptation to indulge in radical cropping for artistic purposes, it is also useful as it enables the photographer to avoid exercise (i.e. you don't have to walk as much. ) .

[timb64]

No keep on spending thousands of £/$/euros on new lenses that are better and are sharper!

Wish I had thousands to spend