Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 04-13-2011   #26
mrisney
Registered User
 
mrisney's Avatar
 
mrisney is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 292

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrisney/4820922147

Carl Zeiss Biogon T* 2.8/21 for Contax G.
Distortion is minimal, even have used it for portraits, small, amazing lens.
__________________
Analog : Leica MD-2, Mamiya 6, Minolta Autocord, Horseman SW612
Digital : Hero GoPro3, Sigma DP2M, Canon 5D MKIII
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #27
Louis Cantin
Registered User
 
Louis Cantin is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5
Smile

Foigtlander 21M on a R4M
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #28
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
Roger -- wow. Those are stunning shots. You have controlled the shadows and highlights on an Ansel-Adams kind of level; really beautiful (of course I suppose the trick would be to print them that way but I know nothing, yet, of that art so cannot say). Is that developer you mention a divided developer like Acufine? What EI / ISO did you shoot the Tri-X at? How long in what formula did you develop? Obviously I'm hankering to try the same approach.
Thanks
Vince P
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Zuiko 21mm f/2.0
Old 04-16-2011   #29
philosomatographer
Registered User
 
philosomatographer's Avatar
 
philosomatographer is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 227
Zuiko 21mm f/2.0

I have no RF 21mm, but there is no question about it in my mind as to the most spectacular SLR 21mm lens - The Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2.0. It's virtually glued to my OM-3Ti as my daily walk-around combination (I see wide...) and, though not stellar at f/2.0, it's pretty decent, and it's spectacular from f/4.0 on. This tiny lens is about the same size as anybody else's SLR 50mm f/1.8, and has very little distortion compared to even the giant Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (it's closest "competitor"). If you shoot Olympus OM or Canon EF SLRs, I can't recommend this little jewel enough.







(all three are scanned darkroom prints, 8x10in)
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #30
helenhill_HH
a Mod /to Light & Love
 
helenhill_HH's Avatar
 
helenhill_HH is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,193
21 Super Angulon
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #31
helenhill_HH
a Mod /to Light & Love
 
helenhill_HH's Avatar
 
helenhill_HH is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,193
21 Super angulon ...

__________________
flickr

Last edited by helenhill_HH : 04-17-2011 at 03:11.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #32
helenhill_HH
a Mod /to Light & Love
 
helenhill_HH's Avatar
 
helenhill_HH is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,193
Thank You Thomas ...
Ii think we both fell in love with the 21 SA's 'character'

But I too no longer use that focal length much
At present I am flirting with a 28mm
And continuing to be Strong & Steady with the 50 Lux & 50 color skopar
Cheers- H
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #33
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 31
Posts: 1,365
I can say of the one I have, the ZM Biogon 21/2.8. I use it with a CV 21mm plastic viewfinder. Very versatile due to the 2.8 aperture, a bit on the large side but pleasing to use. Beautiful tones, and wide open it gives some 3dness (is that even a word?).
__________________
Gear:
• right eye
• right index finger
• cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #34
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
I think the word you want is 3D-itude. Some oldsters might call it depth but that's boh-ring.
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #35
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
PS I want that Zuiko 21/2 badly but as mentioned higher up the last one I was watching sold for near $1000. Yikes. I picked up the Zuiko 21/3.5 instead which also has a good reputation, though not AS good, but haven't given it a proper run yet.

Anyone use the Minolta Rokkor 21mm lenses? They had a very fine reputation but I don't know which is which.
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #36
PMCC
Late adopter.
 
PMCC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 987
Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #37
ZeissFan
Registered User
 
ZeissFan is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,167
I have a 20mm Nikkor that I bought in the 1980s for my Nikon SLR. Nice lens although it shows some barrel distortion.

I also have a 21mm Biogon for the Zeiss Ikon Contax rangefinders of the 1950s. Excellent lens, although very heavy and very little distortion. Pretty much, none.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #38
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 31
Posts: 1,365
zm biogon 21/2.8


below the station by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


brooklyn bridge by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

bokeh at 70cm

21/2.8 bokeh by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


ped xing by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr


corner by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr
__________________
Gear:
• right eye
• right index finger
• cameras & lenses

What I've seen around: flickr

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #39
sepiareverb
-
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMCC View Post
Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?
One here, a magnificent lens indeed, perhaps the best of the Gs.


via Tapatalk.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #40
The Meaness
Registered User
 
The Meaness's Avatar
 
The Meaness is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: MD, USA
Age: 30
Posts: 246
21/4.5 c biogon or 21/2.8 contax g (adapted to m) are my dream 21s...

check flickr - you can study the differences between the m mount 21s until the day you die.

M Mount group:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/


Helen & Marcelo - great shots!
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #41
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 70
Posts: 3,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMCC View Post
Any other fans of the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 for Contax G?
Yes, this is the lens that makes it worthwhile to buy a body just so you can use this lens. I am keeping mine.

One of the few lenses that I have never read a negative comment about. In fact I have never heard anyone say they thought there was a better 21mm. As good, yes. Better, no.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #42
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
Check this out, 21mm fans. Apparently only 700 of these babies were made. Bjorn Rorslett praises it but likes the modern VC 21/4 for Nikon S mount better. Which I didn't know existed either....

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-S-2-1cm-21...item4aaa58adab
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-16-2011   #43
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
You could sell the Nikkor and spend the month in Rome taking pictures with the VC.... and whatever else you feel like bringing. The 50 and the 85....

Or you could sell the VC and buy a sweater.
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #44
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 38
Posts: 2,727
21mm Super Angulon f/3.4 "There is no substitute."
Both taken with the SA:





After that one, the ZM 21mm f/2.8 takes second place in my book but it's too big for my taste and isn't a SA. Great lens, but the SA takes the cake here IMO.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #45
helenhill_HH
a Mod /to Light & Love
 
helenhill_HH's Avatar
 
helenhill_HH is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Yawk
Posts: 5,193
I Agree with Phil ..a 21 SA is a Must have ...must Try at least once in your Life
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #46
Ronny
Registered User
 
Ronny is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 347
Very nice P, Helen - As always!
Ronny
__________________

1959 Canon P Chrome
1958 Leica M3 Chrome
1964 Leica M2 Chrome
1963 Nikon F Black 64x
1972 Nikon F Black

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ronnypersson/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #47
rogerzilla
Registered User
 
rogerzilla is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 768
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparrow6224 View Post
Roger -- wow. Those are stunning shots. You have controlled the shadows and highlights on an Ansel-Adams kind of level; really beautiful (of course I suppose the trick would be to print them that way but I know nothing, yet, of that art so cannot say). Is that developer you mention a divided developer like Acufine? What EI / ISO did you shoot the Tri-X at? How long in what formula did you develop? Obviously I'm hankering to try the same approach.
Thanks
Vince P
Thanks.

Aculux is Paterson's standard fine grain developer. 13 minutes at 20 deg C. They are scanned negatives so obviously I've had to adjust the brightness and contrast because they're very grey straight off Vuescan (it doesn't understand that I metered from the mid-tones and *most* of the scene is actually supposed to be dark). In the old days I would print everything on grade 3 Record-Rapid and that's the look I'm trying to get.

To be honest, I'm not totally happy with the negatives. Kodak have reformulated Tri-X and it doesn't seem to achieve its full speed (I rated it at 400 ASA and used a hand meter). The negs are rather thin, although when you're taking pictures of largely black things in dark sheds, you expect fairly light negs. Grain is also excessive, although there is shadow detail if you look for it.

What Tri-X does achieve is remarkable sharpness despite the hevay grain; without any artificial sharpening, the scans are far crisper than from any digital camera. The grains obligingly seem to line up around the fine details.

Now I'll let you into a secret. The scans are very slightly "toned" as if they'd been dipped in selenium toner, by using the Colorize control in Photoshop (the one in Paint Shop Pro does exactly the same thing, so there's no need to spend lots of money on software). This gives them the warm look and the impression of deepened tonality. It's an optical illusion which I discovered a little while ago.

Last edited by rogerzilla : 04-17-2011 at 09:45.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #48
sparrow6224
Registered User
 
sparrow6224's Avatar
 
sparrow6224 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York NY
Posts: 943
I do my vuescan set to RGB rather than b&w -- I should try doing it the right way to see if I get better scans -- but then I have lots of tones to play with. Generally everything has a yellow/red cast much as what a Selenium wash would add, only often too much so.

Anyway thanks for the info. Have you tried Neopan 400? I find it very beautiful these days.
__________________
Best,
Vince



http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2011   #49
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
I have used the CV 21/4, but sold it because it just seemed "character-less".
Perhaps the best characteristic a lens can have.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-18-2011   #50
philosomatographer
Registered User
 
philosomatographer's Avatar
 
philosomatographer is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
After that one [21mm Super Angulon f/3.4], the ZM 21mm f/2.8 takes second place in my book but it's too big for my taste and isn't a SA. Great lens, but the SA takes the cake here IMO.

Phil Forrest
Hmm - for 'character' and '50s charm' - maybe - but in technical respects, the Zeiss Biogon 21/2.8 ZM, and even the Zuiko 21mm f/2.0 (SLR lens) will eat if for breakfast - not so much resolution-wise, but contrast, modern coatings, light falloff, etc.

The Zuiko 21, while no match for the Biogon 21/2.8 whatsoever, is much smaller though (and it's an SLR ultrawide that's a stop faster - quite an engineering feat - length is 44mm, 21/2.8 Biogon is 75mm)

Anyway, I love the 21mm focal length!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.