As a follow up on discussions about whether to get a fast lens or stick with fast film, I wonder how folks here think about using fast film with such great lenses.

Someone once commented that if you use ISO 400 film on say a Hexar, the film loses the detail that the lens would have offered.

In the same way, one person here mentioned using Portra 800 with the 90 mm Elmarit, rather than needing a 90 mm Summicron. Do we lose the benefits of the quality of the optics on such fast, and thus grainy, film?

Stated differently, are images on K64 and the 35/2 Asph much better than say the those from Pentax 40mm pancake on Fuji Supra 800?

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001

Answers

Using your example, this is pretty irrelavant. For instance: dimly lit nightclub, using your camera handheld. Pentax 40mm F2.8 with Fuji 800 which (for example) gives 1/30 @ F2.8. You've got yourself some nice shots! Same scene using Leica 35mm F2 with K64 which gives you 1/8 @ F2. Nice blurry shots, a combination of subject blur and camera movement. I'll take the Fuji 800, thank you very much. Of course the slower film gives better quality, but when shooting the proverbial black cat in a coal mine, you'd better have that camera loaded with highspeed film.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001.

I use 400 speed Fuji neg film a lot with the Leica. The sharpness is very close to the 100 speed, and the grain is only a bit more noticeable--still good for a nearly grainless 8X12 with correct exposure. I get more keepers with the 400 speed film then I do with 100 speed, and it allows for those 1/30 f2.0 natural light shots that the Leica is so good at capturing. Sure, load up the slower ISO film if your at the beach or going into the snowy mountains.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 06, 2001.

I think one thing that sometimes gets missed in all of the lens resolution analisys paralisys is the fact that certain lenses exhibit a unique look, that often has little to do with resolution alone. Others have referred to it as the lens' "fingerprint". At any rate, and IMO, most Leica lenses exhibit a unique and pleasing look that goes beyond resolution charts, and this look is not lost with the use of high speed films... So yes, I think my low-light, wide open shots with my Leica look a LOT better than those with my Nikon. If there was not any difference, I'd have no reason to participate in this forum, and would be participating in the Nikon forum instead!

Very truly yours,

A Leica convert

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 06, 2001.

I used to use Fuji NPS as the default film in my Leicas on the old theory that one should always use the slowest film possible given the circumstances. Then I tried NPH and was astounded that this, and presumedly other modern 400 speed emulsions, have grain and sharpness that are indistinguishable from their slower cousins. I now use NPH almost exclusively and haven't looked back. If you haven't tried the newer films such as NPH or its Kodak Portra counterparts, I suggest you give them a try. I haven't personally tried the 800 speed films in 35mm, but they do work well in medium format so I won't hesitate given the right circumstances.

-- Rolfe Tessem (rolfe@ldp.com), July 06, 2001.

I use fast film all the time. Leica lenses are Leica lenses; they are capable of the finest imaging for the speed of the film that is being used. I particularly like Ilford Delta 3200 B&W; the quality is very good. Is it equal to Tech Pan? Of course not. If your goal is medium format quality with 35mm film, I suggest that you stay with slow to moderate speed film. In an article in the January 2000 Leica Fotografie (International), Hans Bortsch compares results of Leica R to medium format equipment. The result:

"One can say, quite unambiguously that, provided moderate-speed films of the top class are used and the enlargement ratios do not exceed 30 x 40cm, no quality differences can now be detected in comparison to the best medium-format cameras/lenses."

As we continue through the pubescence of the digital age, it is comforting to those of us who love film that technology is providing the finest materials for our passion - although I lament the passing of my beloved Kodachrome 25 and Agfapan 25.

-- David Page (pagedt@attglobal.net), July 06, 2001.

First, a side note: If Hans Bortsch can't see the difference between 35mm and medium format enlargements at 30 x 40cm, I can state unambiguously that he needs to visit the eye doctor immediatetly. I don't deny that you can get big, beautiful results from 35mm, but it's not hard to distinguish between 35mm and medium format on 5 x 7 inch prints; it's quite easy to tell them apart on an 8 x 10.

"Do we lose the benefits of the quality of the optics on such fast, and thus grainy, film? "

No. We might not see the maximum resolution that the lens is capable of producing, but in real-world scenes with marginal lighting, you won't see that anyway.

"Stated differently, are images on K64 and the 35/2 Asph much better than say the those from Pentax 40mm pancake on Fuji Supra 800?"

Images shot at f2 with a 35mm lens will be different than images shot at f2.8 with a 40mm lens, and images shot on K64 will be different than images shot on 800-speed print film. This comparison really is one between apples and oranges.

Personally, I like to have the fastest lenses I can afford because they give me additional control over depth of field as well as remaining useful in very dark shooting situations.

[img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/dtwnbench01.jpg"]

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

what about shadow penetration, you get it no matter of film speed, I personaly like fast film in black and white, and even with grainy film I see a diference to my canonīs and nikonīs. I agree there is much more in Leicaīs than just sharpness

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

Follow up-

Well, not beat a dying horse, perhaps the comparison between K64 and Supra 800 is not the best one to make- but suppose we try to compare not apples with oranges, but maybe apples and asian pears:

images of Nikkor 35/2 + TMX to images from Leica 35/2 ASPH + TMZ?

Secondly, for those of you in the smokey night clubs and Portra 800- do you use filters to correct for tungsten light? I'm def. interested in this setting, but find B&W a little less convenient, esp. if all I'm trying to do make some snaps for my jazz musician friends. I'm going to a gig next Thurs...

Many thanks for all the shared thoughts!

-- TSW (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001.

First off, re Mike Dixon's comments... Mike, I like your photos, but have to tell you, I sold ALL of my medium format equipment because at 11x14 the Leica was as good as anything else I compared it to in medium format including Mamiya 7 and Hassy. For 16x and bigger, the medium format cameras couldn't touch my 4x5. So, the ONLY advantage I saw in the medium format's corner was hand-held uses at up to 20x enlargements, and some commercial work that required speed over the 4x5.

TSW: I rarely bother filtering when shooting color negative emulsions for two reasons: 1) Most of the corrections needed can be performed when printing; 2) Much of the time the stage-type lighting is mixed lighting, and virtually impossible to filter for anyway. Of course, chrome films are different animals and require filtration to the dominant light source.

Cheers,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 06, 2001.

Jack, I concur with you on both your points. I too sold my medium format gear because up to 11x14 there just wasn't enough difference to justify the extra weight and bulk. An interesting aside is that in the commercial end of things, digital is expected to hurt medium format the most. 35mm film still has a huge cost advantage over proend digital, which can't compare yet to 4x5. On the second point I also agree with not using a filter for the stated reason. Another reason is that the usual smoky, hazy atmosphere of many blues and jazz clubs lends itself to a warmer (unfiltered) look anyway.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001.

I am about to purchase a M6, but certainly not because I expect images on par with my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. I agree with Mike, in that the magnification differences between 35mm and 6x6 yield clearly visible differences and tonal gradients. if 11x14 prints do not show a clear difference, then the enlarging/scanning system or the viewer is clearly the 'weakess link'.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 06, 2001.

On the second point I also agree with not using a filter [in a nightclub] for the stated reason. Another reason is that the usual smoky, hazy atmosphere of many blues and jazz clubs lends itself to a warmer (unfiltered) look anyway.

I just remembered we don't smoke in bars here on the Left Coast- it's against the law!

But thanks for the tips- I'm anxious to try more low light interior work with my new 90E.

Some very last follow-ups:

From Bob Todrick (first answer):
Using your example, this is pretty irrelavant. For instance: dimly lit nightclub, using your camera handheld. Pentax 40mm F2.8 with Fuji 800 which (for example) gives 1/30 @ F2.8.

Duh. I meant to make a comparison between images from:

Pentax lens + small grain, slow film

Leica lens + large grain, fast film.

But it seems most people figured out what I was trying to get at!

-- T (tsesung@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001.

my lack of proof-reading is clearly my 'weakest link'. I would think this argument makes more sense by reversing the contributors. a highly-corrected slow lens coupled with a fast film, versus a fast lens with slow film that degrades wide-open. I like the options of the faster lens.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 06, 2001.

Daniel, I'm going to have to respond to your response. I think what has been said by myself and others is not that there is no difference between 35mm and 2 1/4, but that the difference is now not as great as it used to be. My setup is as follows Leica in both rangefinder and SLR, Rollei 2 1/4 and and Linhoff Technica 4x5 (so I'd say no problem there). Saunders LPL 4x5 and Leica V35 enlargers (still no problem), way to big a computer and and Agfa Duoscan 2500 (an $8000.00 scanner). With countless gallery sales under my belt, I've not had one buyer coment on anything to do with the quality of my 35mm work (and I often mix the formats in a show). The only people who've ever brought it up are the 'techies' that go to photography exhibits, and they never buy anyway. For most real world applications, up to 11x14 prints I find no justification for hauling around the Rollei kit. And if I'm doing something I know is going to be big and where detail is of the utmost importance, I'll go 4x5.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001.

A bit of a clarification:

I'm not disputing that you can get excellent quality enlargements from 35mm (hell, I do it myself). Nor am I saying that the difference between 35mm and medium format will affect the marketability of the images for many applications.

I am saying that, if you have good visual acuity, the difference between the formats is quite noticeable. Viewing 8 x 10 prints at arms length, I can very-easily distinguish between one made with 35mm and one made with even a 645. What elicited my original comment was the statement that, even at 12x magnification, "no quality differences can now be detected. . ." It's my experience that, even under standard viewing conditions, a difference in quality can be easily detected.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 06, 2001.

Jack:

Mike, I like your photos, but have to tell you, I sold ALL of my medium format equipment because at 11x14 the Leica was as good as anything else I compared it to in medium format including Mamiya 7 and Hassy.

You are technically light years ahead of me. I like the Leica 28 and 35 asph, but I can tell the difference from my Zeiss FLE's [Blad] at 8 x 10.

Well, if you can do it, I guess that I can learn. Back to the learning part.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

I think the differences are substantial, but since the final output is a product of the aggregate system contributions, you can select the enlargement point where the differences are minimal. in this case 11x14 might be the inflection point where medium-format is hard to justify. afterall, it is the image, and a great image will stand on its own regardless of the modulation-transfer-function of the system, including film. one point, is that all formats yield much more than just image quality. the nature of the format is synergistic with the photographer, and hopefully our images capture this. I know when I use my Hasselblad, it takes me where my Linhof Technikardan 4x5 would never go, and vice-versa. it transcends pure optics and film chemistry, and I am anxious to discover where my Leica leads me.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 06, 2001.

I don't know where this got from "fast film/fast lenses" to "35mm vs MF" but here's my $0.02:

Todays fast color neg film (400, 800) is up to the task of differentiation between Leica glass and others at the wide apertures where Leica lenses are particularly outstanding.

I agree with Jack that MF is kind of in-between in terms of 35mm's flexibility and 4x5's image quality.

But I also agree with Mike, that MF images stand out clearly at even small enlargements, like 5x7/5x5.

-- JAy (infinitydt@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

JAy:

I agree with Jack that MF is kind of in-between in terms of 35mm's flexibility and 4x5's image quality.

May I, civily, disagree with your statement. MF is the end of flexibility. Above that the quality increases but [for the most part] the flexibility disappears. Really, after 6x6 or 6x4.5, it becomes difficult to carry the stuff.

Art

-- Art (AKarr@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

I always thought that different situations and circumstances would dictate the best compromise between quality and convenience. Also the type of film medium has bearing.

The difference between MF and 35mm is far more noticable regarding tonality in sizes of 11x14 in B+W. The difference for colour print is less.

The type of camera has a great role to play in the area of "sharpness". SLR's inherently induce greater camera shake than their rangefinder counterparts. Hand held the greater bulk and size of the mirrors can work against MF. Conversely TLR's bring Leica "softness" in operation to 2 1/4-and you get 4 times the frontage....

With tripod/mirror lockup and or flash the real benefits of MF come to play. But this is not what Leica M's are about. That's why Leica makes a F1 Noctilux and MF stops at F2.

Horses for courses,no?

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

absolutely, and I believe we are all in agreement. the twilight zone is where do you put down the Leica and pick up the Hasselblad. for me, it is less than 11x14, though as you mentioned Simon, getting the image dictates the camera to be used, not some arbitrary degree of sharpness. also, there are some images that just scream 'square 6x6' and others that work better in 35mm. some of my best images are 35mm 11x14's from Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200. squash-sized grain, non- sharp, and drip with panache. very cool.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), July 06, 2001.

Just want to throw in my $.02:

Real Leica Shooters Use TMZ-3200 & Noctilux 50/1 !!

There! :-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), July 06, 2001.

What I meant by "flexibility" in re 35mm: For wildlife photography I can get a 600mm f/4 lens for my F5 and shoot a moving critter at a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion, at up to 8 fps, and shoot 36 frames without reloading, then rewind and reload for another 36 in the same time it takes me to change backs on a Blad. I can get a 100 or 200 macro lens that focuses 1:1 without tubes or bellows, that let enough light in the finder to focus in a dark forest. I can get top- quality, reasonably fast zooms covering 17mm-400mm, some with IS or VR that I can handhold at surprisingly slow shutter speeds. With the Leica M I can carry 2 bodies and 3-4 lenses in a suitcoat, or in a small waistpack hiking miles in very rugged terrain. I can't do any of that with MF, neither SLR nor rangefinder.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 06, 2001.

11x14 is about the crossover point between 35mm /MF, as see but naked eyes. This does not mean that the 11x14 from 35mm is actually equals to the ones from MF, using a 5x loupe, you can see the MF ones has more details.

For news reporters and magazine photographers, the print sizes seldom exceed 11x14, to go 35mm or MF ? The vote was casted many dacades ago in favour of 35mm.

The limitation of the human eyes cheated us to believe 11x14 from 35mm is as good as from MF.

If human has eagle eyes, most photographers will carry 4x5"

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 07, 2001.

Oh, Tony, do real Leica shooters limit their artistic ambitions only to their darkroom??

-- George (gdgianni@aol.com), July 07, 2001.

Wrong, Tony. Real Leica shooters use ELMARs.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), July 07, 2001.

Tony, by using TMZ @ 3200 aren't you reducing your ability to shoot at f1?

-- Jim Shields (jim.shields@tasis.ch), July 07, 2001.

Films are getting faster, slow films are on the way out

Agfa has discontinued the Agfapan APX 25

Kodak is going to discontinued Kodachrome K25 by year end.

Stock up K25

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 07, 2001.

I've been told that Kodak has been trying to get rid of all Kodachrome for years, because it's environmentally polluting to process. I wish they would start with getting rid of K200 rather than K25, though. Not that I shoot that much of it, I just like to know it's there. I'm still waiting for Panatomic-X to come back.

Of course, it could be just a rumor intended to boost Kodachrome sales.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), July 07, 2001.

I don't know what TMZ-3200 is but it sounds interesting.

Crazy men (myself included) use a Noctilux. It's a lot of lens, for better and for worse.

Real Leica shooters shoot Leicas with whatever film and lens happens to fit.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), July 08, 2001.

Real Leica shooters use a .357 Magnum. An M3 can survive at .38 hit. . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), July 08, 2001.

Hope all of you remember that if you have an optical system of 100 lp/mm , lens, film, enlarger lens, and you do 20X enlargement, you end up with a print with 5 lp/mm. The human eye can, at that size enlargement, can appreciate 4-6 lp/mm. The person behind the camera dictates how sharp ( don't tell anyone that uses LEICA I said this) the image will ultimately be.

-- Brian Harvey (bharvey423@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.

TSW

Yes, while faster speed films have improved in imaging capability over the years, so have the slower speed films. There is ablsoutely no question that for highest image quality you need to use the slowest films, other factpors being equal. I used to use 400 speed slide film (Ektachrome) for indoor photography (eg, museums), with reasonably fine results. When I switched to ISO 100 film, I was amazed at the improvement in quality. I do handheld indoor photography with Leica M, so here a high speed lens would help, but in spite of a certain percentage of photos blurred due to slow shutter speed, the color rendition and shadow detail were so much better.

If you really want to see what a Leica lens can do, shoot slow speed slide film such as Kodachrome 25 or 64, Velvia 50, or even the better 100 chrome films. The high speed films (ISO 800-3200)that many on this site seem to prefer are good for certain effects, and when the light is so low that slower films just won't work. But if you want to really appreciate the breathtaking results modern Leica lens can deliver, you won't see them with super-fast B & W films.

By the way, if one is unable to do any better with K64 and 35/2.0 ASPH than with the Pentax 40 pancake and Supra 800, I would suggest a less demanding pastime.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), September 28, 2001.