Lenses samples gallery???

[Kodachrome25]

Well of course, it's super easy to spot the differences even with web images with those more character centric lenses, like comparing an old Summarit, collapsable 50 or a version 1,2,3 and 4 35 Summicron, pretty noticeable difference. But the more modern and technically corrected ones that the OP mentioned? Not so easy to compare, they are all really good and there are way too many variables to come to any more of a conclusion than if one just looks at the links I gave above...at least in my opinion.

[BradS]

I think I finally get it...the op is saying "I have this 127mm Ektar and I'm looking for some inspiration, so I wanna see photo you all have made with your 127mm Ektar".

[Kodachrome25]

I think I finally get it...the op is saying "I have this 127mm Ektar and I'm looking for some inspiration, so I wanna see photo you all have made with your 127mm Ektar".

This actually gives me a good idea...

I think from here on out, when and if I decide to post new photos, I will make a point of not saying what camera, lens or film I used, only roughly where it is at and what I feel about the photo, fun little details like being chased by a dog or something....because if the photo is good, then none of the other crap really matters.

It should inspire you to go out with *your* camera, lens and film and make *your* photos, not someone else's....

[BradS]

....because if the photo is good, then none of the other crap really matters....

and here you've hit upon the heart of the matter....
Interestingly, the converse is also true. That is...
if the the lens / camera / film used matters, then the photo is not really that good.

(I'm gonna go put on my teflon coated, asbestos lined flack jacket now, as I am sure to get major ration of shit from the blury photo crew).

[William Whitaker]

Wow! People really have problems understanding this concept. Its not that you post every image you ever shot with a particular lens in a particular thread. It is that you post one or a few images that you regard as demonstrating the essential characteristic of the lens.

I have a page devoted to the Wollensak Verito demonstrating its characteristics on my website. The page may be old, but so is the lens.

I look forward to the day when I can make some similar reviews of other lenses in the vault.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Will. That is really interesting. Brad, no need for teflon. I agree you are much more likely to see noticeable differences in rendering in old lenses than modern ones. In modern lenses the number of leaves in the shutter may have more influence of rendering than the lens elements

[Corran]

This website is primarily a place of learning and discussing of photographic techniques. I think we'd all agree that plastering the film and lens used on a gallery wall next to a work is probably not the way to showcase the image, but on this forum, if one is looking for a certain characteristic or just learning about what different focal lengths look like, that info is highly relevant.

[Kodachrome25]

if one is looking for a certain characteristic or just learning about what different focal lengths look like, that info is highly relevant.

One of the problems with this is that the search feature on Vbulletin is so-so on a good day and lousy otherwise. So it is a lot easier to just go over to Flickr and type in the search because the shots have been tagged. With modern lenses, about the only thing you are going to see is angle of view, distortion and maybe bokeh on say, a 210 shot wide open close up.

I just don't think there is much to learn from this, you need to do your own work to know what is possible with a lens. When I started looking for a Nikkor 90mm F8, I did not have to look for shots from the lens, I had already owned a 90 Caltar and before I got that one, I looked at about two dozen shots on Flickr for maybe 10 minutes and that told me all I needed to know. If the gallery starts flooding with tester-bating, I am probably going to stop looking at the images, it will be a mess...

[StoneNYC]

If you want resolution or coverage charts - Schneider has published all numbers. "Lens comparison" in that sense is thing of 50's. But you can always take PhaseOne scan back and do it again (I may have files somewhere).

There's very unque property of XL lenses, which is very specific to LF - ample movements and very unique perspective. No other lens/camera type (with exception of digital panorama) can repeat images made with those lenses, matter of fact is not every LF camera has enough of mechanical movements to utilize image circle.

As, of samples google is your friend:


http://www.google.com/search?q=large...=lnms&tbm=isch

Most of my 4x5 work is done with 90mm, 72mm and 47mm XL - I posted in picture threads (warning lots of nudes there) and published in View Camera and other publications.

What is "picture threads"? and why haven't I seen you post in the "nudes" thread?

[Professional]

Well, in digital forum, people keep posting even they know their lenses and they shoot a lot with it, it is about shoot and post, not about why you post and no need to post because you can find pics on flickr, and no what, about 85% of their posts on that forum or lenses thread are uploaded on flickr, so why they did that if it is already in flickr? It is to share and enjoy, if someone don't need that thread or don't want to visit at least others will, so no need to stop something because someone don't want to.

Again, anyone can start a thread of a lens they want, it is not obligate on few lenses, and it was my wish, if people here think it is worthless then doesn't matter, i just asked about it and no harm if it didn't happen.

Thanks all.