It isn´t bad but it doesn´t excel at anything ... inoffensive and unremarkable ... the optical Ed Sheeran. Thank you so much. I thought I was alone in this world. I love the photos
Trying to define the indefinable... you could go mad in the attempt. Great images as ever, I definitely think you could sell those images as album covers for prog rock bands.
If you can find one I'd recommend the Rodenstock Trinar f3.8 I have one on my 1937 Vauxhall folder (built in Germany by Beier but rebadged for the UK) and I've never been disappointed.
In the early 80s when I started to get into LF photography I had a bug standard Schneider 150 Symmar S. I wanted a 300 lens but the prices, even for used ones, were prohibitive. I bought a brand new Rodenstock Geronar 300mm F9. It only had 3 elements and at first I was a bit worried but soon I realized what a gem this lens was. Wide open it was softish with little coverage ( more than enough for 4X5 ) but it had a luminance about it. Closed down to F22, one could not see anything wrong with the negs it produced, sharp and contrasty. I am still sorry that I sold it for a song.
Great video, i know next to nothing about photography but the way you have edited your videos and explain everything is really informative for someone like Me. Thanks!
"...in a kind of , the optical ed sheeran..." i think i will lough about that joke for another 12 days to come, thx. lovely video, cant wait to see the grafley slr camera.
I recently bought a 1929 Bessa Voightlander, was not expecting much of this lens. In a world of digital sharpness, I have to say my Voightlander Bessa is a lens that has a slow learning curve in terms of finding the right situation for this lens
This was very interesting you captured a good selection of images with those different camera/ lense combo's I really liked the image at 3:19 .Thanks for sharing Take care :D Teddy
Schneider went through a very long period of very un Germanic bad QC and some of their lenses were less than desirable. One of the many reasons that Linhof started to ' cherry pick ' the lenses and putting their mark on it. Rodenstock was actually a much higher quality lens manufacturer. Later Schneiders are very good but alas, at a price.
Modern lenses, almost entirely designed and produced by computers have no real ' signature ' like the older ones from the 30s and 40s. The exclusion of the exotic glass elements for ' environmental ' reasons and replacing them with ED/aspherical elements have not helped matter much. A process lens is expected to perform at its optimum for close reproduction and within very tight optical constraints but, this is not what I would want a portrait lens to do. Unfortunately the total dominance of Digital and associated lenses have not improved the matter. By today's standards an otherwise out of this world classic Goerz Dagor, would be considered a dog. Many lenses of yesteryears , even the 3 element ones, look soft and dreamy wide open, closed down the sharpness improves but lack of super duper coatings decreases the contrast yielding an image that always carries an aura of luminance and light. Very pleasing qualities particularly in film photography of female form.
Vintage lenses my are not that old I like my Takumar 50mm1.4 from the 1960's and my Pentax 135 3.5 M 1070's lens both manuel focus manuel Apature lenses
hey, the comparison is really fishy, were you purposefully down-playing the Canon modern lens? if not, the result is just shocking. I'm picking the first two the zeiss and schneider apo symmar lens anytime. Canon lens is clear and dandy, but how could I frame it, let's say the result is fair, if you did not sabotage the pictures in an artistic way just so the Canon produced pictures are looking bad, well the result is just... it is like a perfect academic student who is killing it at the school exam, no soul, no purpose, no self, no drive, is getting beaten in the real field by real fighters.
It isn´t bad but it doesn´t excel at anything ... inoffensive and unremarkable ... the optical Ed Sheeran. Thank you so much. I thought I was alone in this world. I love the photos
The line "optical Ed Sheeran" is pure gold. Hahahaha
Trying to define the indefinable... you could go mad in the attempt. Great images as ever, I definitely think you could sell those images as album covers for prog rock bands.
So so true.....
You're the photographer's 'Gardener's World' - which itself justifies the license fee!
If you can find one I'd recommend the Rodenstock Trinar f3.8
I have one on my 1937 Vauxhall folder (built in Germany by Beier but rebadged for the UK) and I've never been disappointed.
In the early 80s when I started to get into LF photography I had a bug standard Schneider 150 Symmar S. I wanted a 300 lens but the prices, even for used ones, were prohibitive. I bought a brand new Rodenstock Geronar 300mm F9. It only had 3 elements and at first I was a bit worried but soon I realized what a gem this lens was. Wide open it was softish with little coverage ( more than enough for 4X5 ) but it had a luminance about it. Closed down to F22, one could not see anything wrong with the negs it produced, sharp and contrasty. I am still sorry that I sold it for a song.
Great video, i know next to nothing about photography but the way you have edited your videos and explain everything is really informative for someone like
Me. Thanks!
"...in a kind of , the optical ed sheeran..." i think i will lough about that joke for another 12 days to come, thx. lovely video, cant wait to see the grafley slr camera.
Great work. Lots of wisdom here.
I recently bought a 1929 Bessa Voightlander, was not expecting much of this lens. In a world of digital sharpness, I have to say my Voightlander Bessa is a lens that has a slow learning curve in terms of finding the right situation for this lens
Some seriously top work there all round awesome team effort 📷👏
This was very interesting you captured a good selection of images with those different camera/ lense combo's I really liked the image at 3:19 .Thanks for sharing Take care :D Teddy
Schneider. The best ones are amazing, even the cheapest are very good.
Schneider went through a very long period of very un Germanic bad QC and some of their lenses were less than desirable. One of the many reasons that Linhof started to ' cherry pick ' the lenses and putting their mark on it. Rodenstock was actually a much higher quality lens manufacturer. Later Schneiders are very good but alas, at a price.
Those 90yr old lenses were designed and ground by slide-rule technology. Mineral content in the glass also counts a lot here.
Lovely video. Assuming by the locations (ie Grain tower fort) you are located in SE London/Kent?
Yes I am!
Dammit, I really like the canon lens. That ed Sheeran, he's not bad either...😬
An optical Ed Sheeran bwahahahahahahah so brutal
Takumar all the way as well as Pentax M series lenses all great lenses
Totally agree, gonna gonna 50mm show down soon as I can
Enjoyable but I do not understand the Background placement.
Sarah Moon reference
Modern lenses, almost entirely designed and produced by computers have no real ' signature ' like the older ones from the 30s and 40s. The exclusion of the exotic glass elements for ' environmental ' reasons and replacing them with ED/aspherical elements have not helped matter much. A process lens is expected to perform at its optimum for close reproduction and within very tight optical constraints but, this is not what I would want a portrait lens to do. Unfortunately the total dominance of Digital and associated lenses have not improved the matter. By today's standards an otherwise out of this world classic Goerz Dagor, would be considered a dog. Many lenses of yesteryears , even the 3 element ones, look soft and dreamy wide open, closed down the sharpness improves but lack of super duper coatings decreases the contrast yielding an image that always carries an aura of luminance and light. Very pleasing qualities particularly in film photography of female form.
Vintage lenses my are not that old I like my Takumar 50mm1.4 from the 1960's and my Pentax 135 3.5 M 1070's lens both manuel focus manuel Apature lenses
Super Taks are great, I’ll be doing a comparison between Nikkor, Tak and Minolta soon
hey, the comparison is really fishy, were you purposefully down-playing the Canon modern lens? if not, the result is just shocking. I'm picking the first two the zeiss and schneider apo symmar lens anytime. Canon lens is clear and dandy, but how could I frame it, let's say the result is fair, if you did not sabotage the pictures in an artistic way just so the Canon produced pictures are looking bad, well the result is just...
it is like a perfect academic student who is killing it at the school exam, no soul, no purpose, no self, no drive, is getting beaten in the real field by real fighters.
and please don't misstaking me, I did not in any form say zeiss and schneider produces not-sharpe pictures. no. they all take incredibly great images.