Butch Black said: > Gregory L. Hansen wrote: > > I'm having trouble figuring out why my Kalimar 500mm f/8 reflex lens, > > manual, doesn't seem to work. > > > > Pictures I've taken with it seemed grayish, grainy, low contrast, > > under-exposed. <snip> > > I would do a couple tests. First, take a good look at the negatives. Are > they very dark or very thin compared to a negative that prints well? Thin > means you are underexposing, dark overexposing. Both could give you that > flat, grainy look you were describing.
Negatives always look thin to me. The prints, without extra brightness, came out pretty dark from the machine at CVS. I tried a Motophoto, I think they removed some of the red, and they came out much nicer, but still low contrast. The guy that handled it wasn't working last night, I'll try to find him tonight and see if he can tell me how much brightening he had to do, if he has any opinions on it. Also, I realized that the sensor arm tells the camera how much the lens will stop down when the picture is taken, but the lens is always f/8, so it wants to tell the camera that this is as much light as it's going to get. So setting the arm to f/1 doesn't necessarily mean anything. > > Second. Were you shooting in program or an auto exposure mode. I don't think > reflex lenses work properly in auto exposure. Aperture priority. > > Third. If the negs were underexposed, were you compensating for shooting > snow. You should open up 1-2 stops for snow or sand. +1 exposure compensation and bracketing, I'd thought +- 1 EV but the camera was set to +- 0.5 EV. > > Fourth. Inexpensive reflex lenses have a reputation of being slower then > marked. > > I would test the lens on a wall indoors with and without the TC. You should > get a reading 2 stops slower with the TC on. I would also test against > another lens (not reflex) preferably telephoto at f8 you should get the same > readings which is a good way of telling if your lens is slower then f8. I was just testing it last night, setting camera parameters on my K1000 and in manual mode on my ZX-L with other lenses set to f/8, and then with the reflex. For instance, 400 ASA, f/8, 1/8 second. And it did actually seem to meter right, although my SMCP-M 50/2 seemed to want half a stop more light than my other lenses. I wasn't using the TC at the time, I only used that to see where the sensor arm moves to. > > Finally. As mentioned by others, inexpensive reflex lenses are notorious for > being flat with poor color and adding an inexpensive TC would only make > matters worse. I'm starting to think this is it. It's supposed to be warm tomorrow, maybe I'll look for some birdies and try Sunny 16, comparison with other lenses (but none of them have that much telephoto), and a wide range of exposure values, and see if I can get a definitive opinion. I was thinking of trying to push e.g. 400 film to 800 or 1600 to see if I can increase the contrast a little. But if the lens is just naturally washed out, I might have to just put up with it for a long time until I can save up for a decent one. And I'm not sure what that would be, but I'll be aiming for $500 or $600, and the Sigma 170-500mm seems to be about all there is. There's the Sigma 600mm reflex for $379, but I don't think I want another manual fixed aperture. People have said how expensive the Limited lenses are, but I've been pricing telephotos that seem to run $2000 to $11,000, and then I saw the Limiteds for $500 to $800 and thought pshaw, for the best money can buy that's pretty darn cheap.
