Ultron, Nokton, Pancake or Classic?

Dan,

The 35mm Ultron Aspherical is *brilliant* and if you want better you either have to buy the new uber-expensive Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton ASPH or else a Summicron.

My Ultron broke (although I am assured this is unusual) and I replaced it with the 35mm Color Skopar "C" which is notably not as good. It's a bit cheaper and much more compact and has the little focusing lever which is very good for quick focusing without looking but in retrospect I'd rather have the Ultron back.

The 35mm Pancake "P" was discontinued and replaced with a new model about which I know nothing. Note that this lens is an M-mount so you'll need an adapter to use it with anything other than a Bessa R2.

I've never used the 50mm Nokton but a respected Leica wielding former neighbour of Vuk really raved about it.

You can't really tell from little JPEGs but you can find some exmaples here:

35/1.7 Ultron Aspherical

35/2.5 Color Skopar

Matthew

Matthew,

As usual, some very nice shots. Did you find the extra bulk of the Ultron significant when compared to Skopar? I'm leaning towards the Nokton 50/1.5 at the moment, but the Ultron may be a good one lens solution. Hummmm.

Dan

Dan,

It's not hugely bigger but it's not insignificant either. The little 35mm is great for taking everywhere but if I had to have just one I think I'd prefer the bigger one.

As for 35 Ultron Vs 50 Nokton: both will give excellent results so I think you pick the focal length you prefer and go with that. Personally I like the slighlty wide 35mm and think its more generally useful but, as ever, YMMV.

Matthew

Matthew,

After much dilly-dallying, I've gone with the faster 50mm nokton. I found a s/h one at a good price. I'll let you know how the trade off is re size/weight. Part of the decision was I often shoot wide open with the J-8 and still have to hand hold at 1/30s. The extra speed will be useful.

Let's hope it arrives in good shape.

Dan

Hey, Dan.

quote:

---

Part of the decision was I often shoot wide open with the J-8 and still have to hand hold at 1/30s.

---

What film to do shoot? Not that I'm the one to ask about rangefinders, Noktons and Jupiter 8s, but those in the know seem to swear by Tri-X or, if you're particularly flush, Scala 200 as the only films worth shooting.

Joe

Joe,

I've been using Iford HP5plus 400 b/w, but Tri-X is on the list. I'm very new to this, but have also heard good things about Tri-X. I'll probably order a some from Adorama. Is "Tri-X Pan" Tri-X?

Dan

Dan,

The Vuk swears by Tri-X and Scala as the only B&W films that properly render tones and capture three dimensionality. (The 3-D bit may seem like metaphysical nonsense, but I have seen pictures where some clearly have depth while others are distinctly 2-D, so there is something to this.)

As far as I know, Tri-X is officially called "Tri-X Pan" (pan being short for panchromatic). It's available in two speeds -- 400 and 320 ISO.

Joe

Is "Tri-X Pan" Tri-X?

Yes but they changed the box, dropped the Pan and changed the logo to "TX400" just to confuse everyone. It looks like this:



Matthew

Adorama still has this on their website for $2.29 for the 'grey' stuff:

Kodak Tri-X Pan 400, Black & White Negative Film ISO 400, 35mm Size, 36 Exposure, Gray


I thought I'd pick up some for a test at that price.

Dan

If you want the best 400asa film, go for Fuji Neopan 400.

Dilute the developer more/extended time to get best results. Print on fibre based paper, from a condenser enlarger.

Beautiful B&W prints are not the result of a "magical" film, but the combination of many stages.

OK,

I'm going to order 5 rolls each of Tri-X and Neopan from Adorama and test them out. Since I'm not yet developing my own negatives, I'll have little control over the developing stage, but I imagine the local pro lab will at least be consistent (and so take that variation out of the equation).

cheers,

Dan

So I had half a roll of HP5+ I shot off with the new Nokton around the neighborhood the day I got it. Here are a few shots. I'd appreciate some feedback -- it looks like I overexposed since some of the highlights look blown out. Is this a result of the metering? Did I screw up? Go easy --

.

..

...

.... hey, it's a test shot.

cheers,

Dan

Dan,

Your images show too much contrast which is why the highlights are bleached. As far as exposures are concerned, it's impossible to tell from your posted images, as the prints are now the indicator and not the negs.

You should take the prints your not happy with back to the lab and ask them to print them on a softer grade of paper. Ths will reduce the contrast and bring back your bleached highlights.

What count said. You could also look at your negs on a light box or up against a window and see if there is any detail in the bleached out areas.

I like the one with the dog.

Matthew

Count and Matthew,

Thanks for the feedback. These are scans of the negative and not prints. So it could be operator error in scanning with new slide scanner. However, IIRC I didn't adjust the top end in the brightness. I will try again with just and one repost this weekend.

cheers,

Dan

If, on the negative, there is detail in the shadow areas and the highlights are very dense then that might indicate overexposure but that depends on what your intentions were.

It is rare that a B+W negative will have perfect exposure (whatever that means) and often it does not matter because corrections can be made at development and printing.

Looking at the photos as posted, there does not seem to be any wild variations in contrast at all.

cheers

Nigel

.

.. done at 3200 dpi

full image

You will not find a happier or more spoilt dog anywhere. Her gaze in the photo is squarely on a tennis ball I am about to throw after taking the pic.

Dan