Since march, I kind of slip a comment here and there without having 
presented myself until now.  (My english is kind of slippery too.)  I 
live in Quebec City.  I've been on Pentax since '83.

I began with my father's Contaflex some years before and found 
myself, a young anthropology student, travelling with 2 Canonets in 
'82 when I met a hometown guy who recommended an MX as an eventual 
SLR, a small impressive camera, he could have said.  From there my 
mind was set on this one.  While in  southern Mexico (good to feel 
warm weather in january...), a sudden currency devaluation cut all 
prices in two (for us).  So I could afford the 2 most common 
non-normal M lenses (28mm & 135mm) - found in a small town ! - 
knowing I would get a MX body as soon as possible.  I went to New 
York at spring time to see museums and get a cheap MX. Prices were in 
display so I first went into that store where the price was the 
lowest and told the seller that I noted his price on the MX was 
surprisingly low.  The guy went mad (thought I was implying something 
unclear about his merchandise) and almost kicked my ass to 
immediately get me out of his store.  Welcome New York !  (Paris is 
almost as bad... not Len of course).  I finally got a body for 130$ 
if I remember well.  Found a new old stock M 50/1.4 in Quebec and I 
was set for a love story that would last and last until now...

Who's got the time to read all that?  I'll go faster and drop the 
romantic part.

As I found SMC Takumar cheaper and easier to get, I switched to these 
and eventually acquired a bunch of them but in real nomadic life used 
most of the time a 28mm, a 55mm and a 100mm macro (the best lens I've 
ever had).  Put on MXs, Spotmatics or a combination of both (always 2 
bodies: chrome + B&W).

Today I do it with LXs and K lenses if in town (classic progression 
of focals: 24mm, 35mm, 50-55mm, 85m, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm) or M lenses 
if travelling ("steeper" progression: 28, 50, 100 mac, 200 ; thinking 
about trying super-lite hiking kit 20, 40, 85 + K6-2X + achromatic 
close-up lens + reverse ring + AF-200T off body + reflector, table 
tripod).

I'm not a professionnal photographer.  I've taken mostly Kodachrome 
and Kodak B&W and mostly while travelling (Latin America).  I'm 
beginning to feed some to a Coolscan & print on an Epson 1200 with 
MIS inks and... (I feel wiziwiged...) I'm very very far from some 
Cibachromes I did one day.  For the last three years I did mostly 
portraits of local live musicians on Tri-X.

Having collected much documentation on Pentax stuff, I was able to 
collaborate with Boz for some time.  I've read good parts of the 
Pentax (old) archives (I'd like so much to have a copy of it...) but 
stopped reading a year ago being too busy with depression.  (I'm back 
on my feet, cameras on my back.)

I have a good "superficial" knowledge of Pentax manual focus era 
equipment (not Asahiflex though) but would like to identify better 
the optical character of Asahi lenses I meet.  I plan to do some 
real-life matches between a number of lenses (taking the same photo 
with 2 or more lenses, in a row).  Bokeh is important to me, also 
color balance, contrast & flare resistance and vignetting.  I still 
don't know how to put JPEGs on the WEB to show some results... what a 
shame...

For example, I compared an old Takumar 200/3.5 (I read that in the 
sixties, some Nikoners of that era had this lens modified to fit 
their F cameras because it was faster than Nikon's) with Pentax-M 
200/4.  I scan the slides at 2700dpi with color stable Coolscan (6 
multi-pass with Vuescan) and check details.  Have Pentax done better 
with the M lens, 20 years later ?  I'd say yes and no...  Optical 
performance (drawn from ONE "light" situation, one f-stop ; no bokeh 
comparison, no low-contrast shot or flare-prone situation etc.) is 
practically the same BUT! ...M-lens is much smaller and lighter.  In 
a corner, I could see the M lens does have a little bit more 
contrast, maybe because of lower internal reflections due to SMC, I 
don't know.  Color balance is identical.

Some of you will laugh at this exercice. I do take photos mostly for 
fun and don't care about the optical character of a lens when i use 
it.  But I think I  might find something comparing lenses in 
real-life situations.  I don't know what.  Maybe nothing.  Wow... 
that would be something!

Andre
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List.  To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .

Reply via email to