Took this with the CV 28/1.9 .Aperture was probably f4. What do you guys think?

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002

Answers

it doesn't appear

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

Yeah I know. Looks like I gotta figure out this HTML stuff a bit more.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Hope this works.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

this is too small. do you have anything larger?

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Ok! I got it but the image was too small. Here's a bigger one.

That should do it.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

I like the contrast between the (presumably) traditional boats and the modern buildings in the reflections, and the feeling of the modern world encroaching on tradition. I do, however, find myself wanting to see the rest of the third boat.

That may be a good excuse to buy a 24mm Elmarit, which is probably more convenient than bringing along a ladder. ;-) Or, simply frame it differently so the distraction of a partial third boat is eliminated. That's just my opinion, however. Your shot, your decision.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 11, 2002.

Colours look nice. What film was used? Got any more examples? I agree that a bit more angle of view would have been nice. Looks like a fine lens.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), March 11, 2002.

yeah, very nice indeed. i'm guessing this is kodak 100VS...strong reds...kodak film for sure...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Hi, Sunil:

Nice image. I agree that the incomplete boat weakens the end result but actual physical constraints in the field could very well put a limit to the best tought of compositions, specially when a wide lens is involved.

Keep posting, please.

Regards

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 11, 2002.

Hi Sunil.

It seems the CV has a good rendering of the colors. And the barreling effect is hardly noticeable.

Now, your subject has not enough details in the corners to tell you more. Most of the lens have a good rendering in the middle an less in the corner (this is why Gran'Pa portait is a face in a oval)

But the light reproduction in the corner seems OK, no loss of light visible.

Good composition, you can be proud. X.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

Thanks for the encouragement guys. Yes it was Kodak film but the posted shot was actually a flatbed scan from Kodak Supra 100 printed at a pro lab. I had loaded print film as I thought the contrast between the dark boats and the light reflections would be too great for slide film. I've just got the scanner so the scan was done in full auto mode. No manual adjustments were made and I must say the scanner was very true to the original print. I agree about the framing. That 3rd boat was really eating at me but to maintain the same composition/reflections without including it would have me hovering in mid air about 10 feet above the water!!! As for this being a good excuse to get the 24mm Elmarit :) -I think not! For it's price the CV lens seems very good value. Think I'll spend the difference on some slide film to really test the lens. Keep the comments coming guys. Thanks!

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

I like this shot. It says more about you (favorably) as a photographer than the lens. And that is the really point of photography.

I have an Ultron. As I've said elsewhere it has a Summicron feel to it (I am thinking of the 50 and the non-ASH 35). I cannot quite put my finger on why. One Japanese journal I read recently (or was translated for me by my wife) said that wide open it really has a way of bringing the subject forward. Though lens testers have said wide open the Ultron is so-so, I find this bringing the subject forward to be the thing I like about it at f1.9. You'll be happy to know that the very severe Leicaphile E. Putts has said that stopped down (I think to either f2.8 or f4) the Ultron beats the stuffings out of older Leica 28s. And others (including Tom Abrahamsson) have said that at f2.8 the Ultron equals the new 'cron 28/ASH. Erwin Putts has emphasized that the 'cron 28/2 ASPH has better build quality and is the best lens for hard day to day professional work.

Anyway, be happy that you have a good lens. The build quality is not Leica's but is still very good. Erwin Putts did complain about dust in the lens--which has been my finding too. But that can be cleaned out. And for the money you can buy two Ultrons for less than one 'cron. So if one needs repair you can use the other!

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), March 11, 2002.

As for this being a good excuse to get the 24mm Elmarit

Don't you think there's a world of difference between a 24mm and a 28mm lens? Why would the performance of the VC 28mm make you not want to get a 24mm? They have such differrent angle of views.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

I should add that I've been more than happy with my two CV lenses (15 and 21). They really give you a lot of bang for your buck (I paid about $600 for both lenses and finders!) and have really extended my kit.

And as for this issue of the quality of the CV lenses. This argument keeps popping up time and time again (maybe to justify their higher-priced Leica counter parts), but I don't see it. The fit and finish on my CV lenses are great. The finish is almost as good as my 50/2 summicron (which is the only Leica lens I have ever bought new). Who knows? Maybe in a few years the lenses will fall apart and I'll have to eat my hat. But I don't see that happening.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.

The comment about not buying the Elmarit 24mm was made tongue-in- cheek. Note the smiley :) at the end of the sentence. I believe the original suggestion to buy one was also made in the same vein. I have nothing against the Elmarit except that I can't afford it at the moment.

-- sunil (yatsunil@hotmail.com), March 11, 2002.

My mistake Sunil. I seemed to have skipped over that :) thingy.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 11, 2002.