Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Lens quality [was ricoh slr]

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.