But now you've gone and ruined it and my Universal is calling to me ...
(I know. The very idea! Using a non-Leica lens on a Leica body is horrible form and probably a sin in 4 religions.)
Last edited:
Past 50 years lens design is mostly done by computer, the first generation Vivitar Series 1, to current lens are much better than a Tessar lens. Fuji makes lens for the Hasselblad H models. Of course every maker is going to market it's own brand. Maybe 15 years likely longer, I used the last of my Microfiche film to test all of my 50mm lens for 35mm cameras. Pentax, K and M42, Petri, Minolta MD, Sigma SA, Miranda, Konica, Yashica and a few more. Using my sons old high school microscope and a test chart I found all could resolve Tmax 100 at F8. Konica was the best, the 50 1.7 is sharp wide to F 16, and resolved well over 200 LPM. But that is irrelevant, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 it is as sharp as it needs to be. MF, if a lens can resolve Tmax 100 what more do you need. Then contrast and color, it comes down to the coating.
What camera better fits your needs and personality. This weekend I am going to shoot a few rolls through my Mamiya Universal, Foma 400, all I need is a lens that can resolve 95 LPM.
Lets debunk it!!!!!!!111I'd say so...possibly. In the end the question is about the quality of image (i mean the photograph). For example I love the character of the Tessar lens, from the 20" x20" prints from my Rolleiflex T, to the 14" Commercial Ektar used by Y Karsh. For others seeking a different look a Apo-Sironar S might be the answer. Lens character is one of the choices....choosing the tool to get the result you want.....but sharpness alone doesn't make one lens better than another....
Totally correct.I'd say so...possibly. In the end the question is about the quality of image (i mean the photograph). For example I love the character of the Tessar lens, from the 20" x20" prints from my Rolleiflex T, to the 14" Commercial Ektar used by Y Karsh. For others seeking a different look a Apo-Sironar S might be the answer. Lens character is one of the choices....choosing the tool to get the result you want.....but sharpness alone doesn't make one lens better than another....
Why, it is true.Lets debunk it!!!!!!!111
I can't figure out how that comes
I can't figure out how that comes (besides getting older)...
Maybe what you actually didn't like about 24x36 was how small it is.
Or perhaps if you had used 24x26 more for work that benefitted from shallow depth of field.
In general though, stepping away from anything photographic for a while can often result in a new appreciation for it when you re-visit it.
May I propose an another twist in this conversation?
While the 'item' "Texas Leica" is on, I would like to make a comment about the negative format's proportions, if you don't mind.
About 18 yers ago I stopped working on the 35mm format (24x36mm as propagated by Leica), mainly because I was professionally forced to make the transition to D***l (I had to sell my Leica's to finance that).
But I wasn't really reluctant to do so as I actually never liked the 'Leica's film' size proportions because I wasn't found of the 2 by 3 rectangle, I liked the 6x6 square more by far.
But now I recently got a 6x9cm camera and liked the rectangular proportions immediately (the same as the Texas Leica), although it's exactly the same as the 'Leica format', but just larger.
I can't figure out how that comes (besides getting older)...
Unfortunately, the Mamiya Press optics were never stellar. I have the last generation 100mm f/3.5 in a Seiko shutter which was as good as they ever got. For weddings, portraits, newspaper placement and so forth, it was more than good enough. If you shot at 6x9 (rather than 6x7 or 6x6 - both of which were possible with the Graflex RH backs), the big negative made up for some of shortcomings of the optics. But it was no Zeiss less, or for that matter, even as good as the GW690's 90mm EBC Fujinon.
Chuck, I don't remember reading any other reports on the Press lenses being any less than superb. The late 100mm f/3.5 is a 1950s or 1960s computation of the Tessar design with modern coating and unit focus. It should be contrasty and excellent resolution. The Press body is rigid and the backs avoid the double curl. I don't understand.
I've been on the hunt for GW690II and stumbling across this rambling thread hasn't even discouraged me, lol.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?