Ed Sawyer wrote:
More Mamiya 7 / 43mm / Ektar 100 goodness:
As before, these are ho-hum flatbed scans from rather quite nice hand-printed RA-4 prints. I don't have a film scanner. The prints look a whole lot better in person.
Wonderful!! I think it looks very good, maybe with exception for critical sharpness, but it also makes the images "calm" in a good way.
Thanks Makten! I have a better scanner in storage (Agfa T1200), it's a SCSI one so I would have to run it on my older Mac, but it could do a better job on the prints than the cheap all-in-one USB scanner I used for these, I think.
denoir wrote:
I got back my first Velvia 100 slides, and I really like the colors.
Nice! Where did you send it for development?
And by the way, you really should get the 105/2.4. I think it would suit your shooting better, since it gives even shorter DOF at large distances, and the bokeh is much smoother. The distortion is also close to zero and vignetting is lower than with the 90/2.8.
Schönherrs has one (the oldest 6x7 version) for 1900:- SEK, but I was offered to buy it for 1000:-, which is a bargain. If I remember correctly, the glass was clean and focusing smooth.
Morfeus - Yep, I scanned them myself (Epson v700 scanner)
Makten: Crimson (http://crimson.se) develop my films. They are pretty good at everything except scanning. Thanks for the tip about the 105/2.4.
I have not exactly been awestruck by the 90/2.8 but I'm not sure yet that I want more lenses for the 67. The whole 'film' thing to me is just basically an amusement, more or less just to learn it and prove to myself that I can handle the medium. If I want to do it more seriously then I should really get a metering prism first. As for lenses, the 105/2.4 does look like a good lens but I'd probably like something wider instead - around 50mm. I'm more comfortable with a moderate wide angle if I have to pick one lens.
Regarding the 90, I think it does best at short distances. A reason for using the 105 is that you'll then really get something that is impossible on 24x36. The 90 renders much like a very sharp 35/1.4 or so, while the 105/2.4 gives a look that is different from a corresponding ~50/1.2.
Around 50 mm would be the 55/4, which I'm looking for myself. But considering how hard it is to focus the 75/4.5, I don't think you'd want to use it wide open anyway, but rather well stopped down for landscapes and such.
