Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006
Lens quality [was ricoh slr]
|
|
Thread rating:  |
bstephens1ster@gmail.com - 13 Dec 2006 23:55 GMT After last month's discussion of Ricoh SLRs, I just bought an XR2 with a small zoom, Tristar flash, expired film <g>, and a nice leather case for $37.00.
Eventually I'd like to get a fast Prime , but for now I'd like to learn something about the lens I have.
Access P-MC 2.5 - 3.5 35-70mm
It claims to be "macro" (I assume it isn't really macro)
I did a search on Google for "Access lens" but only found a reference to a eyeglass lense designed for computer work.
Does anyone know anything about this lens?
thanks -Bob
bmoag - 14 Dec 2006 02:54 GMT What you have is worth $37, maybe. What you might be able to do with it could be priceless.
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2006 20:10 GMT > After last month's discussion of Ricoh SLRs, I just bought an XR2 with > a small zoom, Tristar flash, expired film <g>, and a nice leather case [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > thanks -Bob Nope. (O;
But it's probably just like every other 'kit' 35-70 and 28-80 lens of that era. OK, but I wouldn't expect good quality (especially at the edges) near the ends of the zoom range - the softness possibly won't be visible on 6x4 prints, but much larger and you will see it. It probably has fairly poor multicoating, which, in conjunction with the many elements used for this type of lens, will mean it will flare quite badly when shooting into the light and generally will have fairly low contrast. There is roughly zero chance it is a true macro (ie 1:1 or better) - it will just focus a bit closer in that mode.
If I was you I would indeed look for some primes, eg the lovely Pentax 50/1.7, and then one of the many brandname 28 and 135 KMount lenses, most of which have quality well in excess of your zoom... Ricoh actually make quite good optics by the way - if you can find their 135/2.8 you will have a fine portrait lens.
Whack a prime on it, and shoot with some decent film (if you can stand slides, try Fuji Astia (general use) or Velvia (landscapes) slide film) and prepare for a shock on how good an old camera can be..
jeremy - 15 Dec 2006 21:07 GMT >> After last month's discussion of Ricoh SLRs, I just bought an XR2 with >> a small zoom, Tristar flash, expired film <g>, and a nice leather case [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > slides, try Fuji Astia (general use) or Velvia (landscapes) slide film) > and prepare for a shock on how good an old camera can be.. The sweet spot on his non-OEM zoom lens is probably somewhere around f/8, so he should try a few shots at that f/stop to get an idea of the lens' capabilities.
I second the recommendation to get a prime lens. The Pentax SMCP-A 50mm f/2 lens is, as far as I know, still being made and is reputed to be tack sharp. Last time I looked it was available for about $60, brand new in a box. That lens surely won't be in production much longer--it has a metal barrel for one thing--and I don't know of a classic normal lens that can be had at a bargain basement price like that. The Leica Summicron 50mm/2 has a price of something like $1000.00, and there is no way that lens is 20 times better than the SMCP-A.
Canon has some cheap plasticky normal lens, and I read some horrible reviews on the Amazon.com site concerning the lens' build quality. But it makes for a good comparison because both the Canon and the Pentax lenses are selling for about the same money.
Pentax also made an inexpensive 35-80? SMCP-A zoom lens that sold for about $75.00, if he really wants a zoom, but it is nowhere comparable to a fast prime. As I recall its max aperture was something like f/4.5, and it was one of those plastic lenses, assembled in some third-world country by robots. But it did boast having Super Multi Coating, and it had a decent rating when used at f/8.
Of course, it was inconvenient to carry around, like all zoom lenses are, because it throws the camera out of balance when hanging from a neckstrap, with the zoom ending up pointing downward and the camera not laying flush against one's chest. And then one must be careful of bumping into things while walking.
I carry a couple of those cheap Pentax zooms in my bag, just in case I need a focal length other than 50mm in a pinch, but I use the normal lens for about 90% of my shots. Wonderful lens. Underrated, but wonderful.
bstephens1ster@gmail.com - 16 Dec 2006 15:31 GMT Thanks,
I did not particularly want the zoom - that is just what came with it. Ideally I guess I would like one 50mm and also perhaps a good portrait lense. My wife has me on a strict budget <g> so I need to play with the zoom first and look for a cheap but good 50mm later.
I like available light photographs so a lense that needs to be stopped down to f 8 is not what I want. However, I have not been active for 20 years, so first I just need to practice getting good exposures again, so this zoom should be fine for that. -thanks
> >> After last month's discussion of Ricoh SLRs, I just bought an XR2 with > >> a small zoom, Tristar flash, expired film <g>, and a nice leather case [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > a focal length other than 50mm in a pinch, but I use the normal lens for > about 90% of my shots. Wonderful lens. Underrated, but wonderful. jeremy - 16 Dec 2006 16:05 GMT > I like available light photographs so a lense that needs to be stopped > down to f 8 is not what I want. You pay a price for using lenses at full aperture--the images are significantly less sharp than when you shoot at their sweet spots--which typically are in the f/5.6--f/8 aperture range.
Leica makes lenses that are optimized for wide aperture settings, but the Summicron 50/2 sells for about $1000 and the Summilux 50/1.4 sells for nearly $2000.00, so I don't think you want to buy into that camera/lens system.
If you buy a Pentax 50mm/1.4 you will get good sharpness at f/4 and excellent sharpness at f/8. One way to support using those smaller apertures is to use fast film (although that introduces possible problems with graininess). Another way to compensate is to use slower shutter speeds, and mount the camera in a tripod to avoid shake, but that assumes that using a tripod is practical at the particular shooting location and that the subject does not move. I utilize tripods all the time for shooting landscapes/cityscapes/architectural subjects, but they are all non-moving and thus easy to photograph. That would not be the case when shooting any kind of moving or active subjects.
Check the link below to see what can be typically expected in terms of sharpness at various aperture settings. The lens in this example is a Carl Zeiss, but the example can be applied to almost every other brand of normal lens. As you can see, the resolution drops of dramatically when the lens is shot wide open. If you are on a budget, the two most cost-effective lenses for you would be the SMCP-A 50mm/1.7 purchased USED at KEH or eBay OR the SMCP-A 50/2 purchased either new or used, at around $50.00. Those lenses were among the sharpest to begin with, so even at full aperture you can expect relatively sharp results. There is also a f/1.4 version, but that is priced at over $100.00, and it is actually less-sharp than the other two lenses (plus it has a bit of barrel distortion, as just about every f/1.4 lens does).
If absolute sharpness is your objective, then the 50/1.7 is the optimal choice. You might want to try to match it with a 200-speed film and see if that combination gives you the low-light shooting capability that you want, along with the sharpness that you need.
Here is the link for the f-stop comparison shots:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/f-stops.htm
Here is a link to a page that describes the subtle differences between normal lenses of different maximum apertures. The examples are of Nikon lenses, but the principles apply equally to Pentax:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm
Chris Loffredo - 16 Dec 2006 19:21 GMT >> I like available light photographs so a lense that needs to be stopped >> down to f 8 is not what I want. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nearly $2000.00, so I don't think you want to buy into that camera/lens > system. Used Leica (& Zeiss) equipment nowadays can go for 1/10 those prices (as I've happily found out any number of times).
If you want lenses which are optimised for wide apertures, then go for used good stuff (unless you really think that a new plastizoom is a "safer" and more reliable buy)...
Chris Loffredo - 16 Dec 2006 19:26 GMT >>> I like available light photographs so a lense that needs to be stopped >>> down to f 8 is not what I want. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > used good stuff (unless you really think that a new plastizoom is a > "safer" and more reliable buy)... P.S. Omigod!!!! Jeremy linked Ken Rockwell's page YET AGAIN...
:-( Bob Hickey - 18 Dec 2006 19:04 GMT > After last month's discussion of Ricoh SLRs, I just bought an XR2 with > a small zoom, Tristar flash, expired film <g>, and a nice leather case [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > thanks -Bob Nope, never had one, prolly a Sears or some dept. store lens. Ricoh made a line of cameras for them. But I have a Rikonon 35/2.8, and 135/2.8 which are excellent and a 50/1.4 which I'm not too crazy about, so I use a Pentax 50/2 instead. Most times, I tend to only take pictures of things I can see, so mostly don't see the reason for really fast lenses, especially when they cost a lot more and make worse pictures. I once had a Summicron-R 50/2, which is the worlds greatest lens; everybody knows that; "cause somebody said so somewhere, and they don't lie; ever. Some of those shots were terrible and some were as good as any. I realized I was using a very pricey lens to test labs. I really think that CDs have gone a long way to tell the difference between the good lenses and the bad, by eliminating prints. The name doesn't count for much of anything any more. Bob Hickey
|
|
|