Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-24-2012, 11:51 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Hilo Quote
Or get an enlarger and make a beautiful print !
Doing color enlarging at home is not fun at all in my experience. All night to get a few prints by trial and error. Maybe with a sophisticated color analyzer you can improve things but it still needs to be calibrated each time you change the light bulb. With BW the tones are thin and not very rich as you stretch the grain apart with anything much beyond a 8x10 print compared to medium and large format.


Last edited by tuco; 10-24-2012 at 12:19 PM.
10-24-2012, 04:01 PM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Albums
Posts: 167
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The lenses don't get much smaller for 35mm film than what you have. A few millimeters here or there on lens size seems insignificant to me, anyway. If you want smaller, go with a smaller film format. It's pretty much that simple.
I agree that a few millimeters doesn't make much difference--though really small lenses can be pleasurable to use in their own right. I agree that if I want better image quality, another film format is the way to go. I also agree that if I want a smaller camera, a small digital camera or a smaller film format is the way to go.

This thread is for those of us who love moderately small 35mm Pentax cameras like the M series for the pleasure that they are to use. We are satisfied with their image quality, we find ourselves taking them shooting more often than we take our medium format cameras or big SLRs.

I've had some good experiences with the lenses I already own. I'm curious to hear about others' experiences with lenses that they own.

I'd still love to hear from anyone who has used the Voigt 20 or 40 on Pentax.
10-24-2012, 08:54 PM   #33
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,167
QuoteOriginally posted by jakeblues Quote
Yup. I want the best small lenses for the Pentax K mount and the 35mm film format. I refuse to believe that high quality, small lenses don't exist. Too many engineers were competing for too many decades for that to be possible. Heck, some engineers are still competing to make the best high quality small lenses for 35mm.

I also refuse to believe that I have to shoot digital or medium format to get good image quality. Call me naive.
The Pentax-M and Pentax-A series are compact and quite good. Any of the Limiteds would be considered to be "best". If you are willing to consider adapted M42 glass, the multi-coated Takumars (S-M-C and SMC) would definitely meet your qualifications. You might also consider third-party offerings as well. My Vivitar 28/2.8 CF is a very good lens and is tiny.

Regarding Tuco's comment...You may well be a bit naive. To equal, say, the K-5 in image quality with 35mm film you will have to use excellent technique, materials, and processing. You will also have to use a scanner with at least 4000 dpi actual resolution or invest in an excellent traditional enlarger. $$$$ either way and at the end of the day, a 645 or 6x7 image of the same subject will mop the floor with your 35mm results, even if scanned with a $500 flatbed scanner.

What you get with 35mm film over digital is a FF option with small form factor and relatively low price. You also get the benefit of superior monochrome imaging. If you want or need great quality, medium and large format film are still the most cost-affective options. Sorry, but that is the way it is.


Steve


(Shoots about 1/2 film, including 35mm and has spent enough money on such to buy a couple of FF dSLRs......)
10-24-2012, 09:02 PM   #34
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,167
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Doing color enlarging at home is not fun at all in my experience. All night to get a few prints by trial and error. Maybe with a sophisticated color analyzer you can improve things but it still needs to be calibrated each time you change the light bulb. With BW the tones are thin and not very rich as you stretch the grain apart with anything much beyond a 8x10 print compared to medium and large format.
What he said. Traditional color darkroom work sucks.

I will have to disagree a little in regard to B&W enlargement with 35mm. I have several very nice 11x14 enlargements hanging in my home that are anything but thin and "not rich" and which I am confident are good to 16x20, but not much more. The wonders of Panatomic...

A 6x7 negative on the other hand...do you think you have a wall big enough?


Steve

10-24-2012, 10:11 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I will have to disagree a little in regard to B&W enlargement with 35mm. I have several very nice 11x14 enlargements hanging in my home that are anything but thin and "not rich" and which I am confident are good to 16x20, but not much more. The wonders of Panatomic...
They may be. But I suspect if you saw the same image from say a 6x7 next to it your impression might change. Of course really fine grain film stretches the generalized 10X enlargement rule of thumb.

QuoteQuote:
A 6x7 negative on the other hand...do you think you have a wall big enough?
Steve
I can't find the link but there is a formula frequently used to determine the largest print you can make at the highest quality. It is largely a function of the MTF of the optical system ( enlarging and camera lens) and format with assumptions about the human eye's resolution plus viewing distance. For medium format, with the typical lens being around 50-80 lp/mm would not yield an optimum wet print much larger than 16x20. A higher resolving lens ( and film) near 100lp/mm could do around 20x24, if I recall correctly. It's not a cliff though where suddenly the quality just drops off. You can go larger of course.

Last edited by tuco; 10-24-2012 at 10:24 PM.
10-24-2012, 10:23 PM   #36
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
QuoteOriginally posted by jakeblues Quote

I'd still love to hear from anyone who has used the Voigt 20 or 40 on Pentax.
Yes, I forgot this question before: for my OM I got the first version Voigtlander Ultron 40mm SL1. Well built lens but I found it too hard and contrasty. I am still struggling when I have to print some negatives from this lens. There's a 2nd version, the SL2, but I never tried it . . .
10-24-2012, 10:32 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,999
RioRico - or Rico has a couple of threads on a very similar topic. He was putting together a 3 / 4 lens set that was high quality, very small and extremely light weight. Here are the threads.
10-24-2012, 10:50 PM   #38
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
Regarding the discussion on image quality of 135 film versus larger format film: I found the first post of this thread so refreshing because I could see a photographer who not only "thinks" technically, but who values other parameters as well. One of those parameters being that a "small rig" is a pleasure to work with and can give you fantastic images. Of course I agree with Tuco that the large format negative gives beautiful results, photography is so full of examples that this goes without saying. But I hope that he would agree with me that, for instance, the work of Cartier Bresson in The Decisive Moment, or The Europeans, could never have been photographed with large format cameras.

One can ask what this has to do with image quality. For some it is only about grain, tonality and sharpness, and that is very ok. For others it is about that and more, also very ok. I had the feeling the OP belongs more to the 2nd . . .


Last edited by Hilo; 10-24-2012 at 11:16 PM.
10-24-2012, 11:30 PM   #39
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Hilo Quote
But I hope that he would agree with me that, for instance, the work of Cartier Bresson in The Decisive Moment, or The Europeans, could never have been photographed with large format cameras.
A lot of his style of photos of could be done with something like, say, a Mamiya 7II and similar medium format rangefinders, IMHO. Maybe not as conveniently due to things like fewer frames per roll but still these cameras are really easy to carry around, pretty darn light, comparatively small lenses and shoot just as quick and easy as a 35mm rangefinder. I shoot the street sometimes with my M7II, anyway. And if I had Bresson's vision, I'd be getting those shots with that camera.

I have 35mm film cameras too. I like them but just can't find the time for them. The problem with too many cameras is that it's hard to get out and shoot them all.

Last edited by tuco; 10-24-2012 at 11:50 PM.
10-24-2012, 11:45 PM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
A lot of his style of photos of could be done with something like, say, a Mamiya 7II and similar medium format rangefinders, IMHO. Maybe not as conveniently due to things like fewer frames per roll but still these cameras are really easy to carry around, pretty darn light and shoot just as quick and easy as a 35mm rangefinder. I shoot the street sometimes with my M7II, anyway. And if I his vision, I'd be getting those shots with that camera.

I have 35mm film cameras too. I like them but just can't find the time for them. The problem with too many cameras is it's hard to get out and shoot them all.
Tuco, don't you ever sleep there in Seattle?

You have a point! But: In Cartier Bresson's days that handy Mamiya 7II was not around. And in a way it still isn't. One can buy a heap of film for the difference between any of the lenses discussed here and the Mamiya 7II. But many of us can't afford both.
10-25-2012, 07:21 AM   #41
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,070
Hi Jakeblues
I liked your op and I have similar sentiments, I have put m4/3 and aps-c away to revisit 35 mm color film for a while.
I just spent 5 weeks through India, Hong Kong, Australia, Korea with a carry on bag and a minimal Ricoh kit of KR-5, Rikenon P Zoom 1:3.4~4.5 35~70 mm macro, XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50 mm and the Rikenon Hood 52 mm. All up weight less the bag is 905 gram, the KR-5 body is 396 gram.
https://www.box.com/s/d7q8zgqtuprkjuqmeicf
I put some shots up in "Ricoh Digital Cameras & Film SLRs" and i will put some more up when the remaining rolls are processed.

Most shots were 35 ~ 50 mm range; I was needing a 28mm wide angle at times.

I see the D800E is 1000 gram body/battery not including lenses and charger, so a 35mm dslr with a lens is going to be around 1500 g.
I would have to leave that spare pair of Khakis at home!
And would I let such a $3000 camera lie around an industrial worksite or take out at night in a pocket or a plastic bag?

My next trip (Thailand, Australia) I could take the Pentax MX, SMC Pentax 1:2 55mm, SMC Pentax 1:2.8 24mm + 52 mm hood for 962 gram.
or perhaps more versatile, the -M lenses:
the Pentax MX, SMC Pentax-M 1:2.8 40mm, SMC Pentax-M 1:2.8 28mm + 49 mm plastic Pentax hood + vivitar 2X teleconverter for 905 gram.

The XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50 mm is really well made, a bright lens to compose.
I find my old SMC Pentax-M 1:2.8 40mm to be a rather good one, even at wide aperture:
https://www.box.com/s/ec1756e7f656e3c15e71

Last edited by wombat2go; 10-25-2012 at 07:35 AM.
10-26-2012, 08:18 AM   #42
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Photos: Albums
Posts: 167
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
Hi Jakeblues
I liked your op and I have similar sentiments, I have put m4/3 and aps-c away to revisit 35 mm color film for a while.
I just spent 5 weeks through India, Hong Kong, Australia, Korea with a carry on bag and a minimal Ricoh kit of KR-5, Rikenon P Zoom 1:3.4~4.5 35~70 mm macro, XR Rikenon 1:1.4 50 mm and the Rikenon Hood 52 mm
I'm not familiar with this camera or these lenses. Thanks for the tip.

QuoteOriginally posted by wombat2go Quote
I find my old SMC Pentax-M 1:2.8 40mm to be a rather good one, even at wide aperture:
https://www.box.com/s/ec1756e7f656e3c15e71
Yes, I've dismissed this lens for years as not worth my time. However, I probably owe it a look. Thanks for your comments.
10-26-2012, 09:47 AM   #43
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
Jakeblues,

As promised here another image with the Ultron. I meant to find some more images but ran out of time. This one was shot wide-open on a rather dark day, it rained now and then. Did nothing special with the film development, nor with the printing: used a grade 3 (normal) filter for multigrade paper. Used a Leitz Focomat 1C enlarger. Straight scan of the print on a 60 euro Epson flatbed . . . Did not do anything in photoshop, except retouch a bit . . .

Left and right in this image was photographed through windows, which accounts for a slight loss in contrast . . . maybe again not such brilliant test image to show a lens. Hope it tells you something
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Hilo; 10-26-2012 at 09:53 AM.
10-28-2012, 09:26 AM   #44
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 161
Last LX & Ultron 50/1.8 shot. This lens was built 1968 - 1972, if I remember well. It came in M42 mount. Someone wrote a review here: Carl Zeiss 50mm F1.8 Ultron Lens Reviews - Carl Zeiss Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Attached Images
 
10-29-2012, 02:47 AM   #45
Veteran Member
wanderography's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Hayward, California, USA
Posts: 567
The Voigtlander SL2 20 and 40 are my two go to pancakes wether on my MX or my K-01, and if you want another pancake to go even wider there is the takumar fisheyes, thats probably the next lens on my list to complete my little 3 pancake kit...

EDIT: Heres some images from my CV 40, cant remember what film used, terrible accidental reverse scans by walgreens







some color, also cant remember the film used






Last edited by wanderography; 10-29-2012 at 02:52 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, camera, lenses, pentax, quality, recommendations, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Handy is Your Small Camera? Rupert Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 241 03-18-2013 08:01 AM
Small Camera Shooters Rupert Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 11-29-2011 05:42 PM
AF.C made my camera a worthless brick? crf529 Photographic Technique 23 08-05-2011 07:26 PM
small 'non-camera' camera bag -- anyone tried a cartridge case? Nass Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 4 10-09-2009 05:19 PM
automotive camera rig? cinaibur Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 19 04-14-2009 02:58 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top