That said, I did notice at one point that there was one lens that I gave me only a couple of photos I liked. It was a 50 mm Zeiss 2.8 (as I recall) made by Kyocera for the Contax 645. The lens didn't agree with me wide open. Somewhere beyond f11 it became tolerable. I don't think it was a bad lens. It just didn't produce what I wanted and I sold it.
Doug On Mar 30, 2008, at 8:51 AM, ERoustom wrote:
Past work always looks better than current work. I notice this in my printmaking, commercial printing, and my photography. I still have slides I shot when I was a teenager that make me wonder why I didn't pursue photography as career (though I'm glad I didn't). Last summer's slides are better than this winter's. I think when you forget what your expectations were, you see your work for what it really is.That being said, I think you have too many lenses, and I don't have enough : )E. On Mar 29, 2008, at 5:51 PM, Thor Legvold wrote:I sat this evening and went through part of my archive, leafing through page after page of slides and B&W negs taken with the 6008i2 and the Bronica SQ-Ai the last 10 years or so.Now I know it isn't the cameras fault, but it seems to me I got better results with the Bronica. Maybe I had more time (student), maybe I was a more driven photographer (took free-lance jobs, went through a lot of film, practiced all the time), maybe I had a fresh view that I've subsequently lost.My expectation is that my expression should be getting better with age and experience, not worse. I have taken some amazing shots with the new kit, it's just that I'm not as consistent as I used to be. Maybe I don't spend as much time looking for/being open to good shots. Maybe the auto-everything encourages me to shoot and move on, instead of spending time and making sure everything is perfect before I hit the shutter.However one thing that struck me was that the PS110/4 Macro that I used to use as my standard lens was a stellar all around performer. I have nice landscape shots, both loosly and tightly framed portraits, flower details, city/street scapes.So while I was sitting here looking through this stuff, I wondered how much focal length has to do with my results. I like getting in close. The Schneider glass has much larger minimum focus distance in general than the Bronica, resulting in me ending up further off than I want to. I don't 'see' 80mm as standard (especially after I started using glasses). For years and years, I went everywhere with the SQ body and 110/4 Macro as standard lens, using the 40/4 now and then for dramatic effect, landscapes, etc. In fact I never got to the point where I got a tele/portrait lens. Looking over my shots tonight, I'm very happy with the results.Today I have a Super Angulon 40/3.5, Xenotar 80/2 and tele-Xenar 150/4. The 40/3.5 is great, no regrets at all there. The 80/2 and 150/4 are also great performers, but I notice that I can't get in as close as I'd normally like to with them. I'm not sure at this point what my options are. I like doing 'quasi' macro, i.e. being able to close in on a flower, detail or similar while out shooting, but don't like carrying a bag full of add ons to do it. I like being able to move in close for a portrait in one case, and for the next shot focus at infinity to capture a moving clound system. The Bronica, as I now realize, allowed me to do that. Close focus limit was 0.6m. The current lenses I have don't. But before I go out and buy something else, I wonder what my options are. I think I can use extension rings (I have a 17mm) to get closer, but am not sure how much light (stops) I lose by doing that. There's also the Retro-adapter, but I don't think it can be used without a bellows or variable extension ring. More to carry, more to fiddle with. Also, if there was one lens that would do what my old one did, that might be a better alternative for me. I've been considering a 180/2.8, but the focusing distance isn't any better than the 150/4. A 90/4 might be similar enough to the old PS110/4 that I would feel at home (and offers 1:2 magnification as compared to the Bronica 1:4). There's also the 110/2, but I think it might be very heavy. Although I really like having the extra speed and do shoot wide open on occasion, I can't say I'm taking better pictures having f2 instead of f4. Another option might be to use the 1.4Longar with the 80/2 for a while and see if that cures me.In case you're wondering after all this, there isn't any real point to this post, I'm just thinking out loud. It might be that the changes I've noted have more to do with how my life has changed the last 5 years rather than any technical/equipment related things, I don't really know. Anyway I do know I'd like having the ability to get closer, a general purpose lens that fits the way I "see", as well as a (slight) macro capability. Any suggestions?Cheers, ThorP.S. By the way, I've been shooting a bit with the 2.8D as well lately, lovely camera. Same thing here - I'd like to get in closer with it, so I think a Rolleinar is in order.--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list