joe88 wrote:
KL, with regards to carrying film through X-ray, make sure you hand carry them. If its ISO 400/800 or below you should be fine for at least 7 to 10 X-ray passes, but it will fog up if its a 1600/3200 or pushed film. There are many opinions and I was also worried initially and asked around, but recently I carried a roll of PortraNC160 a a few rolls of Delta 400/HP 5 Plus round the world (forgot that these were in the bag) and probably after at least 15 to 20 hand baggage scans, the colors still looked good.
Your mileage may vary, but I routinely travel with fast film (400, 800, and the push 3200 stuff) and as long as you carry it on, you will most likely be fine. I've never noticed any significant fogging on the high speed stuff. And this is with multiple passes through the carry on scanner, 4 or more. It's just not worth the worry to try to get a hand check for me.
kidtexas wrote:
Your mileage may vary, but I routinely travel with fast film (400, 800, and the push 3200 stuff) and as long as you carry it on, you will most likely be fine. I've never noticed any significant fogging on the high speed stuff. And this is with multiple passes through the carry on scanner, 4 or more. It's just not worth the worry to try to get a hand check for me.
This has been my experience as well. I always put it through the scanner but have never had an issue. I still worry about it every time though!
Thanks KL Yes, they were all LAB processed, but minimally. I turned down the opacity on the LAB curves adjustments a lot. #1 is a bit special as I used pretty strong LAB processing, but also with a mask on the reds as the face became way too red with the plain a & b channels adjustment.
Charles, thanks #2 is the one I liked best as well. Great shots from the beach! My favorite is #2 - really classic composition and great colors
Thanks Ryan! The portraits of your daughter and wife are just amazing - very poetic! Great shots with the 28 Cron as well. Wonderful rendering, but also great compositions. I especially like #1 - very clever shot
As for getting the 28 Cron, tempting, very tempting. It's one of the Leica lenses that has had great appeal to me ever since I saw some of Charles' shots with it. The problem however is twofold. First my kit is kind of already full. My standard array is now 18/35/50/75/90 and squeezing in another lens would be too much. The second problem is the focal length - I've never really used 28mm. I'm very comfortable with 35 (my favorite all-round FL) but I have great difficulties with 25mm for instance. So I'm not sure I could make the lens justice.
Thanks Joe No, I used my standard resize & sharpen scripts on all shots. I wouldn't agree with you that the 75 Cron is Canon-ish. A Canon lens would have rendered it smoother without the distinct shapes in background. This is typical 75 Cron rendering - exceptionally neutral but with structure in the OOF rendering.
As for sharpness, the 75 Cron is quite sharp wide open - to the extent that it can be very unflattering, especially if you combine it with harsh lighting:
I've been doing some comparison shots between the Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar and the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH, basically trying to find a scenario that would justify keeping the Sonnar.
Open the images in separate tabs and flip between them:
I can see somebody that likes the rendering of the Nocti/1 liking the Sonnar type of OOF rendering. Not me though. Unfortunately I've failed to find a single case where I preferred the Sonnar rendering. I'll keep on investigating though.
Interesting Luka. Test B is just brutal on the Zeiss. A is close...with the sharpness of the Leica giving that one away. The others are clear.....much smoother (understatement) bokeh on the Leica and much sharper as well
All these tests are pretty hard on the Zeiss, IMO. When you first got the Sonnar, you had some tests where you really like its rendering. Wasn't there some horse shots or something?
Joakim, nice flowers, glad to see you using the 50Lux!
Luka, the 50Lux sure looks sharper with smoother bokeh but the Sonnar is not too bad. Did you shoot these at the same WB? I think its the unpredictability of the Sonnar that is its undoing (or personality, so to speak)? I would consider selling the Sonnar and get a 50Cron instead but I can't remember if you have a ZM50 Planar?
Any test shots stopped down at medium or far distances?
That leica 50 1.4 asph is almost tempting to get on a mirrorless, just to get that performance, too bad it has a longish minimum focus and is quite expensive.
carstenw wrote:
All these tests are pretty hard on the Zeiss, IMO. When you first got the Sonnar, you had some tests where you really like its rendering. Wasn't there some horse shots or something?
There are plenty of shots with the Sonnar where I've liked the rendering. These are all the shots I've posted here: http://peltarion.eu/img/m9/zm50.html
You'll find the horse shots somewhere near the middle. The trouble is that in the cases where the Zeiss did good, I think the 50 Lux would have done at least as well, if not better. I'd like to find a case where I prefer the Sonnar over the Lux.
joe88 wrote:
Luka, the 50Lux sure looks sharper with smoother bokeh but the Sonnar is not too bad. Did you shoot these at the same WB? I think its the unpredictability of the Sonnar that is its undoing (or personality, so to speak)? I would consider selling the Sonnar and get a 50Cron instead but I can't remember if you have a ZM50 Planar?
Any test shots stopped down at medium or far distances?
I don't have a Planar, but I see no point in getting a Cron when I have the Lux. The big question is if there is a point in keeping the Sonnar. I think I should try to do some portraits with both.
As for stopped down shots, yes, I've done those before and the Lux just obliterates the Sonnar. The reason why I got the Lux was not for wide open performance - I was more or less content with the Sonnar but because of its inadequate stopped down performance.
denoir wrote:
I don't have a Planar, but I see no point in getting a Cron when I have the Lux. The big question is if there is a point in keeping the Sonnar. I think I should try to do some portraits with both.
Got your point. The 50Lux ASPH works great as a single 50mm lens in the kit. I think stopped down the 50Cron or even the 50 Planar seems close to the 50Lux ASPH looking at pictures (not test charts). Again, its a matter of taste, but I would bet my own money that I'll prefer the portraits with either the 50 Sonnar or a 50 Cron over the 50Lux ASPH. Something intangible in the flaws of older glass design that gives them their personalities.
The 50 Summicron flares a lot more than the 50 ASPH in my opinion. It's one of the reasons I sold mine (latest version). It's by no means a bad lens; it's quite good. But I never understood the large amounts of praise it gets - I think it's a bit over hyped nowadays. I'd rather have the 50 ASPH for all occasions. Maybe I'm blind to some 'classic' look it gives you or something.
For an 'alternate' look at 50mm, on the rare occasions I want it, I just use a Nikkor 50/1.4 that I got for $250. But quite frankly, I can't be bothered to haul around multiple 50s.
joe88 wrote:
Got your point. The 50Lux ASPH works great as a single 50mm lens in the kit. I think stopped down the 50Cron or even the 50 Planar seems close to the 50Lux ASPH looking at pictures (not test charts). Again, its a matter of taste, but I would bet my own money that I'll prefer the portraits with either the 50 Sonnar or a 50 Cron over the 50Lux ASPH. Something intangible in the flaws of older glass design that gives them their personalities.
I would tend to agree with you- of course, i don't have any experience with the 50 Lux... I have an older 50/summicron that is just awesome wide open - but once stopped down past 3.5 its pretty incredible. If i buy a 50/lux - i would probably get it to use at 1.4-2 almost all the time. i have never experienced flare problems with my version of the cron either.
joe88 wrote:
Got your point. The 50Lux ASPH works great as a single 50mm lens in the kit. I think stopped down the 50Cron or even the 50 Planar seems close to the 50Lux ASPH looking at pictures (not test charts). Again, its a matter of taste, but I would bet my own money that I'll prefer the portraits with either the 50 Sonnar or a 50 Cron over the 50Lux ASPH. Something intangible in the flaws of older glass design that gives them their personalities.
Unless you engage in serious pixel peeping, I think they are pretty close in terms of rendering. This is of course great performance from the Sonnar...but it doesn't help me much. I still have not found a scenario where the Sonnar would be preferable to the Lux.
But seriously, I agree, if you don't pixel peep, the Sonnar is a decent performer, but at the same time we cannot deny that the 50Lux ASPH is really stellar. Back to my WB question, were these all manually white balanced? The Sonnar seems to have a cooler color rendition on the background.
Yes, they were all LAB processed, but minimally. I turned down the opacity on the LAB curves adjustments a lot. #1 is a bit special as I used pretty strong LAB processing, but also with a mask on the reds as the face became way too red with the plain a & b channels adjustment.
